But more to the point, once we'd decided to do what spouses do, why wouldn't we, well, become official spouses? Just because I enjoy akward five-minute conversations about how my "partner" is a he, not a she, and you know, we really love each other, but we just don't believe we need society's ratification . . . I don't, I assure you. And I'm happy to have society's ratification. Celebrating our marriage will be one question upon which society and I agree 100%.
There are tax consequences for couples whose incomes are roughly equal, as one commenter pointed out. But we are, sadly, not in the happy position of having dual half-million-dollar salaries we need to shelter from the grasping tax man. Besides, marriage is not an investment strategy. And I suspect that the more you treat it like an investment strategy, the less likely it is to work.
I mean if domestic partnership is working for you, I'm happy for you. But when I thought about the reasons not to get married, they mostly boiled down to an instinct for contrariness. I don't need to put myself through a bunch of legal hassle and domestic partner registration just to prove something to Jerry Falwell and my eighth grade history teacher.
I've thought some about this. After much consideration, weighing and consultation I think that best way to capture my sentiment is this:
CONGRATULATIONS!!!
What? You expected a brief attacking marriage as antiquated institution? Meh. People decide what's antiquated, and what's not, by their actions--not overrated writers. Moreover, I've already explained the situation in this household--with an emphasis on this household. I think people should do what makes them happy. Last I looked, I wasn't sleeping with Peter Suderman (dude's legs are too hairy) and that basic idea guides anything that should be said.
I thoroughly reject any nomination as an expert on anything--but most of all on intimate relationships between people. Moreover, as Megan's friend and band-mate, as someone who's actually talked to her about this very subject, I think Congratulations is the sincerest, smartest--and most importantly--loving sentiment I can offer.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Good for you TNC. People should have the right to do whatever works themselves and their family.
This.
I still stand by my assertion that the first comment on her post is fucking creepy, but that's not her fault.
Yeah, that was a way too casual murder reference by that commenter. Feminism still has a long way to go.
I wish Megan would police her comments a bit more. That place can gets nutty on a regular basis. Perhaps she can get some tips from TNC.
That commenter isn't even creepy - just kind of dumb and obviously intent on broadcasting it.
What I don't get - since I snuck a peek at the post - is why McCardle thinks her believing in marriage as an expression of comittment and all of the other virtues associated with it is "outre." I guess I'm nitpicking here, but if someone thinks that their reaffirmation of what is, no fault but inevitably in this case, conventional "wisdom" is actually "outre" in their apparently hipper-than-thou milieu, I think they might have way too high an opinion of themselves and their social circles. Maybe...just maybe...if Jean-Paul Sartre had married Simone de Beauvoir it could have seemed "outre." But that's as far as I'm prepared to go with the "so conventional it's blowing all our friend's minds" thing.
There's a whole lotta people doing the same thing about babies, like no one has ever had a baby before.
Eh, I still find it creepy. Maybe I just watch too much true crime.
Yeah, Megan has trouble seeing outside her social circle.
What I thought Megan sort of failed to address in her post about marriage was how factors like religion, children, and age were affecting her decision to get married and not just live together. After reading the piece I felt like she was making a point about maturity and not acting contrarian, a point that could come off as condescending.
Sidenote: The one part I saw of "Black in America 2" focused on marriage, specifically these counselors who are trying to save black marriages. Like you said, they were acting as if marriage would save the black community. Furthermore, religion was presented as the bedrock of any black marriage. Call me crazy, but I would say two adults can make a relationship work without joining Jesus in some kind of emotional three way.
They are already living together.
I didnt mean they were deciding to live together or be married, I meant to move from living together to marriage.
Megan-- Condescending? No, really, you think so?
"I wasn't sleeping with Peter Suderman (dude's legs are too hairy)"
If you keep posting these kind of intimate details about your sex life, I'm out of here.
with all of the "I"s in this piece why did people assume that she was talking about you?
by which I meant the readers not TNC.
Good use of bold caps... =)
I was just thinking that!
Dude, write another post about your decision to not be married. Seriously, what the hell is your problem with marriage? You think you're better than everyone or something?
Nicely played, TNC. I would expect no less of you.
Thing is, ideology is something that, in an ideal world, you only apply to yourself. You've got a well-thought-through belief system, fine: let it govern your own actions (by "you" I mean people in general, not our host). It's when you start feeling that other people have to conform their actions to fit your own ideology that we run into problems.
You can talk about your ideology, invite others to consider it, even argue about it, but you just can't impose it. So of course you have to congratulate Megan, because she's doing what she believes in and it's going to make her happy.
I sense that there's a logical flaw somewhere in what I just said, of course. There will be devil's advocates who will posit that governments impose ideology through policy and law every day. There's got to be something there about duly-elected representatives and democracy that gives me a loophole.
But in terms of personal ideologies and other people's behavior? It would be nice if we could all just be happy for each other.
The reason to marry is that you get to throw a party which all your friends _must_ attend, even if it means long plane rides. And you can spend whatever you want on booze and food and music.
The reason not to marry is because you're so concerned about what society thinks, you imagine you're taking some kind of stand.
(Or because you're gay, and hence not eligible for equal rights. Because that'd be silly, equal rights for _all_. C'mon, now.)
"You imagine you're taking some kind of stand" please tell me you're joking dude.
Not at all. It's very principled.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
By saying you're some kind of stand, you're assuming that not getting married is always an act against something else, like these people are living in protest, and that is just not always the case. You're making assumptions about thousands of couples you've never met.
I make that assumption because I cannot fathom anyone being anti-wedding unless they're, as you say, 'acting against something'. You can eat like a pig, and everyone has to laugh at your jokes. What's not to like?
I'm willing to concede that some people might not enjoy drinking the good booze instead of the generic brand, and forcing old friends to travel for 11 hours for the sole purpose of celebrating them ... but ochlophobics aside, it's the perfect excuse to go into debt to host your dream party.
Plus you get presents. Presents! Say it's 9:30 on a Sunday morning, and you're in the mood for waffles. Sure, you can go somewhere and order them, but that's no fun. But if you're married, you will own a waffle maker. And you can make them yourself.
You're conflating the experience of having a wedding with the actual experience of being in a marriage which are two very different things. Gully's point is an important one to make. Also some people arent so self-centered they need their friends and relatives to spend tons of money and time celebrating their private relationship.
I've explained what I don't like in pretty lengthy detail. What's fascinating to me is that that isn't enough. Your point about what you can't fathom is key--but you mistake your own limits of understanding for everyone else's limits. In other words, your takeaway isn't, "I don't understand this, but that could be because of who I am," it's "I don't understand this, so therefore this person against my cherished rituals."
It's like I can't enjoy chocolate cake, unless all my neighbors eat with me--and then agree with me that chocolate cake is the best cake ever made, and anyone who eats strawberry shortcake clearly is anti-chocolate cake.
But, TNC, You _are_ missing out on that waffle maker, not to mention the glass punchbowls, matching towels and washcloths, and 400 thread count sheets.
What are you gonna do, buy them yourself?
I'm not conflating marriages and weddings--I'm doing just the opposite. And I'm not sure that I'm the one mistaking his own limits with everyone else's. I'm saying that if you don't give a shit about marriage (and I don't), you can still enjoy a wedding. It's a great excuse for a party.
Obviously, if you don't have the time or money, if you dislike parties or don't have friends, if you're wanted by the FBI or in a coma or hiding from a stalker, or for any number of other reasons, you might choose not to have a wedding. (I don't actually think that the -only- reason to get married is to throw a party, as I'm sure there are people for whom the ritual is meaningful; that was hyperbole, to.)
What I'm trying to say, in a glib way that's clearly not making the point, is that if one truly doesn't care about getting married, then having a wedding makes -exactly- as much sense as not having a wedding. The choice is simply between a party and no party.
Or your mother is religious and your not and you don't want to deal with the ceremony and your partner has been married once before and doesn't feel the need to do it again, and your both perfectly happy sharing the mortgage with both your names on it and telling half the people you meet your married to avoid a long conversation, and all your friends don't have a lot of money and you live on the other side of the country, plus lots of other reasons ... but thats just me.
Errr... but yeah, I'm really trying to make some kind of stand.
Of maybe you don't like parties, and you're happy as you are...crazy talk. (I'm married, but I don't understand why people care so much about other people getting married, or not.
Or you don't get married because you were too busy being pregnant, moving back and forth between Europe and Canada, working on several complex projects, nursing a dying father, comforting a devastated mother, and you really just didn't have time to organize a party to formalize an arrangement which is already working out pretty well for you.
Flash forward eleven years, a house, a couple of kids, and two cars in the driveway - suddenly I realize that maybe life has calmed down enough to have that party, get that piece of paper, and then I say, meh, why bother? If it was important to me, I would have done it long ago.
Which isn't to detract from marriage. Symbols and rituals can be very important. Just don't expect your symbols and rituals to hold the same meaning for others.
So true. And we're mirroring each other. Me and Kenyatta are about to celebrate our 11th year together.
And I hope you have both chocolate _and_ strawberry cake when you celebrate.
Personally, I don't think it matters whether people live together or are married, the important thing is the commitment to each other, and these days marriage doesn't seem to do much to strengthen that. BUT, I do think it's a lot more socially acceptable for men not to marry. If a woman isn't married by a certain age, it's seen as tragic. I know things have changed some over the past generation, but chick flicks still almost universally include a wedding as the happy "ending," and the wedding industry - which is huge - is targeted almost exclusively to women.
Moreover, as Megan's friend and band-mate...
So, Coates is vocals, Sullivan lead guitar, McArdle bass, Crook on drums?
They break into "Friends Forever" SBTB style!
I'll restrain myself and not start doing Atlantic bloggers as SBTB characters. If a Slater/Zack turf war breaks out, no one wins.
If a man's not married by a certain age, they'll be rumors that he's gay. If a woman's not married by a certain age, society does act like there is something seriously wrong with you.
I'll take being thought of as gay any day.
Ha ha - see above. Same thought, same instant!
Jennifer,
Yeah, I was actually trying to respond to you. You're exactly right.
And just so there's no confusion moving forward, I'm actually a man. My last name is Stacy. I know you referred to me as lady the other day, so I don't want you to think I was being intentionally misleading.
Ah, I was wondering. After the "Lisa Turtle is HOT" comment and then the "I'll take being thought of as gay," I was like... wait... Isn't she gay? Or just a really big Lisa Turtle fan? Now it all makes sense.
Oooooh! Thanks for the clarification. It's so weird when I have a certain picture in my head about gender or race online because of certain responses, or a screen name, and then find out I am wrong. It's kind of cool, actually. (To be honest, I was very impressed with your sports knowledge as a "woman." - Ha!)
LOL excellent! I was like this Stacy is waaaay tricky!
Sorry, I think I'm just going to start going by another name. I need to think of something clever...
Clever names will only make people think you're crazier than you already are.
Don't change your name! I've gotten used to it.
I was impressed with Stacy's football knowledge as well!! That's how I figured out he wasn't a girl-- I have never met a woman with his football knowledge (or interest in football, btw) although it is standard for many guys.
Just to clarify, the reason I brought it up in the Open Thread was that it seemed like a direct reference. This is the first time I read the older piece. I was so struck by
That strikes me as a big reason young relationships fail; they get consumed by the overall social life. It also strikes me that people enter relationships, often unconsciously, for social reasons rather than emotional.
Coates, I just always assumed you were married to the blog and that Kenyatta was a fictional construct of some sort.
The to-marry-or-not-to-marry argument strikes me as very similar to the to-be-childfree-or-to-have-children argument -- that is: No one's damn business, other than the people making the decision!
I'm a contrarian and a feminist who wanted an engagement ring, had not one but two ceremonies, and is a part-time stay at-home mom. I'm a besotted, over-the-moon mother of two who will positively rush to the defense of the childfree-by-choice. These things, these statements of love and self and future, are far too big within our own selves to be fully understood even by ourselves, I think -- people who run around handing out unsolicited advice about who should or should not hold a ceremony and who should or should not reproduce really, but really, need to take up a hobby.
Which is a very long-winded way of saying: People need to do what they need to do, and when they do something that gives them joy or enables them to be their fullest self, people of good will respond with a resounding: Huzzah!
Which was a long way of saying: I'm totally with you on this!
Off-Topic, but I've been meaning to ask: Are you EllaEsther from Jezebel? (I'm Binderclip)
I am! Wow, hellooo, Binderclip! (You might have just as easily recognized me from the childfree rant, too, now that I think of it).
No, I remembered you from Jezebel for being unusually considerate and I recognized it here. I can't deal anymore with the race stuff there. (I think we might have had a conversation about Slumdog Millionaire and Monsoon Wedding - was that with you?)
Sorry, TNC, for the totally off-topic digression here.
Yes, that was me on that conversation! Without avatars, I'm completely hopeless, I'll admit. Thank you for remembering me kindly (as I do, you -- I remember that we were able to really get into some issues that I felt people were completely overlooking) -- and I, too, apologize TNC!
The to-marry-or-not-to-marry argument strikes me as very similar to the to-be-childfree-or-to-have-children argument -- that is: No one's damn business, other than the people making the decision!
No kidding, there might also be medical reasons why they are childfree. I know a couple who that's the case for, and they are extremely touchy about the subject. I could only imagine what would happen if somebody who didn't know them all that well, got in their business of why they don't have kids yet.
That's the other thing -- when people go around handing out advice, they often have NO idea what they're talking about. And why on earth should someone else have to explain their heartache to you, just because you think they should be married or have kids? (Or, for that matter, their personal choice about how to run their lives? But heartache, you know, especially).
A band? Like the Rock-Bottom Remainders? I'm trying to picture what Fallows plays.
I second Byrk on the notion that it's only the business of Megan and Peter.
Hey TNC, I have to say - I once felt exactly the same way you feel about marriage. I was prone to lectures about how a relationship is between two people, I don't need a certificate to validate that we are together, blah blah blah.
In fact, I don't think my husband and I would be married to this day if we hadn't had the hard choice of marriage or separation (immigration problems).
In my case, though I did find to my own surprise that actually going through with the wedding, and being able to refer to him as "my husband" and to be referred to as "my wife" really did make me feel differently about... well, everything.
One reason this was the case is that I think I somewhat changed my mind about my idea of the relationship as a purely private thing. I've always had privacy issues and don't tend to share too much of my own emotional state with others. But after we married I realised how misguided it is to imagine that a relationship is only about those two people. There's something loving and liberating about inviting all your loved ones to support your commitment to each other. I was very moved by how much it meant to them to be there for us, and slightly ashamed of how hard I had worked to keep them at arms length before. Once we stood up there and said those words, everyone we knew had our backs - they became a part of the marriage too, in ways big and small.
And now, many years later, the simple act of having declared that this man is the one I plan to be with has made so many things better. Fights are less scary, holidays are simpler, our decisions are more instinctively mutual. I have a tendancy to constantly second guess my decisions, but my marriage is the one thing I don't constantly question - even though I went through a lot if indecision about it before hand.
I'm totally on board with your "whatever works for you" philosophy, but find it fascinating how powerful, in a positive way, those vows I didn't believe in taking turned out to be. For me, anyway.
No offense, but you did not feel exactly the same way. I'm not prone to lecturing anyone. Ask me about my relationship, and I'll tell you. But that's about it. I don't doubt the power of vows for your marriage. I just doubt that what's your truth is everyone's truth.
"I just doubt that what's your truth is everyone's truth."
Well, so do I. In fact I'm 100% sure that my truth wouldn't work for most folks. Which is why I specified that this was all what was the case, "for me, anyway." But the point I was trying to make is that I made a wrong judgement about my own reaction to the experience of marriage, and that realising I had made a wrong judgement has dramatically changed not only my view of the institution, but my understanding of the subtle ways it acts upon us.
No one should marry if they don't want to, but people thinking about this question also need to weigh the understanding that humans really aren't very good at understanding what makes them happy - there's a startling amount of social science research that keeps finding versions of this fact again and again. I thought that the thing that would ultimately make me happiest was total control over the terms of my relationship. It turned out, however that the pre-fabricated social construct was a surprisingly good fit for our needs.
I don't expect anyone to have exactly my experience, but surely it's worth sharing - even as one data point among many.
However, I really do apologise for my sloppy language. I didn't mean to suggest that you lecture people. I meant to be self depracating, not insulting. The two sentances were not meant to be connected in that way. 1) I used to feel the way you do - specifically, I once would have strongly agreed with this paragraph in your earlier post:
"That gets at the essential truth for me--a relationship couldn't be about talking to other people. It couldn't be about telling other people what I was gonna do; it had to be about the actual work. From that perspective, a wedding was abominable to me. It was the antithesis of everything I wanted--a vain spectacle of love, when love is to be demonstrated, it is to be done, it is to be worked like a job. Was it Andrew who said religion is what you do when no one is looking? That was what we wanted out of our relationship. To always be about our business when no one was looking, and then when people were looking they would see the truth."
However, that 2) unlike you, I was prone to talking about this, something that I now regret doing. Especially since I turned out to be so spectacularly wrong about my OWN experience.
It's fine. I just want to be clear that I'm not out hear waving the flag for anything. We're feeling my way through this stuff, seeing where it takes us.
I'm single. Every year, my tax attorney says the same thing when I look in shock at what I hand over to Uncle Sam, even after the charitable and itemized deductions: "That's the best I can do. You want a smaller hit, get married or get pregnant. Preferably both."
I think marriage is a civil right. I think gay folks should be able to get married like white, straight Meg and all folks should be able to not get married like black, straight T-N.
What I abhor is the idea that the status automatically confers privileges and perks on behalf of the federal government that are built on the backs of those of us who are single.
Look at income limits: You get the $8000 tax break for new home buyers if you're single and earn a max of $75,000. If you're married, you get a max of $150,000. In other words, if I'm single and I earn $80K, I'm penalized. If I'm married and I earn $75K and my spouse earns $75K, suddenly I'm eligible. The household income DOUBLES, and we get the break! Shouldn't tax breaks lean towards households who earn *less* income, not more?
And you know what? Unless we've got children, our expenses didn't change -- not that much. Look how many couples save up to buy a home by saying, "We can live on my salary and (%) of his/hers and bank the other (%)." I know very few single folks who can bank much of anything.
Another example: My elderly dad is very ill. My elderly mom is spending down their money on health aides until, eventually, there will be nothing left and they're eligible for Medicaid. If my dad dies, she gets his Social Security benefits to help her out. If the man was my elderly brother, and his caretaker was me, his elderly sister, spending our money down to nothing and he died? No benefits for me, I'm not the spouse. I'm on my own.
Married or not, T-N, you know what you and Kenyatta spent before your son was born and what you spend now. Having a kid is a huge expense; that's why parents (should and do) get tax breaks whether they are single or married. I fully support dependent-children anything. But federal largess distributed to couples just because they signed a piece of paper? Please.
Unless you double all the money eligibility requirements then you start punishing dual income couples that decide to get married. At the higher tax brackets dual income married couples will typically pay more in taxes than their single counterparts.
Think about it, if you're single making $60K a year you qualify. If you left the income requirements the same for married couples then a couple making $40K each would not qualify.
I know very few single folks who can bank much of anything.
May I point out that that's also because coupled folks have two incomes and the inherent savings.
I don't know about this. As a married couple with three kids, we're not banking anything-- we're making it through month-by-month. If I lost my job, it would devastate our family. We got our house by getting a 100% mortgage and a seller assist on the closing costs. Otherwise, we'd still be renting.
Many of the couples I know that had down payments got those down payments from their parents or grandparents. You can get that whether or not you're married.
However, i am down with getting rid of the marriage tax break. Fair is fair.