I can honestly think of no benefits from marriage that do not involve ancillary issues such as estate planning, tax crap, potential citizenship issue, hospital/health matters, etc. Not one single thing involving love seems to differ between marriage and not-marriage.

Now, that having been said, I can understand why queer couples want the right to marry and have it recognized. Frankly I'm for any kind of legal marriage that involves informed adults, including polyandry/gamy/etc, but I just don't see any reason to do it myself.

I am in a relationship that my family does not support. My boyfriend is black, I am white. One of the reasons that we are not yet married is because of family opposition. I can't imagine a wedding where everybody hates everybody, or where my parents don't show up at all. But the opposition makes us want to tie the knot even more, because we feel that we deserve the right to do so. Our love is as legitimate as anyone else's.

In that respect, I completely relate to gay couples and their excitement at "legitimizing" their relationships. But I also agree with Courtney's views and strongly believe that marriage is a product of patriarchy. I am not interested in an engagement ring nor a lavish party. But because of my circumstances I view marriage as a privilege. Not all if us are blessed to marry the one we love, not all of us have the support of our families, and those that do need to value it even if they never walk down the isle.

As a misogynist-feminist, I am opposed to the institution of marriage from both misogynist and feminist perspectives. My advice (yes, it is unsolicited and most likely unwanted advice) to you young gals is not to get preoccupied with outdated concepts like marriage that favor those male bastards, and enjoy life while you can, have some meaningless flings, and not let those pretty heads of yours get too wound up about silly things like commitment, relationships, and putting a whole lot of pressure on your next boyfriend. Your misogynist-feminist ally, CNBC Sucks (and it does) http://cnbcsucks.wordpress.com

Your commentary was really insightful and honest Courtney. There really is so much pressure tied up in getting married, particularly for the woman. You really summed up a lot my own thoughts about the institution and my nagging affection for the community granted along with it.
I continue to enjoy your thoughts, and especially your "Not Oprah's Book Club" entries. I've found many a great read there.

Ha! Methinks she isn't all that into the guy, because all that other stuff--especially from 40 years ago--doesn't matter.

She brings up miscegenation & marriage. Miscegenation didn't just make marriage illegal, it made sex illegal...but she doesn't talk about giving up sex ;-)

You aren't marrying an institution, you're marrying a person!

Hey, feministing.

A little off-topic for the actual post, but CNBC Sucks' comments really bother me. When I come to feministing, I expect to be treated with respect, not told to "not let those pretty heads of yours get too wound up about silly things like commitment, relationships, and putting a whole lot of pressure on your next boyfriend."

That is a demeaning way to speak to women, and I do not appreciate it on a feminist blog. Kind of a tricky issue here, though - what's your policy?

Marriage also confers one really important right that most people don't mention: divorce. People get really screwed over -- especially when there are power imbalances involved -- during break ups where there is no legal recognition of a relationship.

But I'm curious: is it fair to say that the misogynistic aspects of male/female marriage aren't really present in gay marriage? Courtney's piece mentions a lot about traditional gender roles popping into place after straight marriage and the historic oppression of women within marriage, but I'm struggling to see how that has anything to do with gay marriage. I mean, one woman has never historically 'owned' another through marriage. Obviously, gender role differences in queer relationships are far more complex that this comment can be, but I'd like to throw that out for discussion.

I can definitely understand why gay couples are excited about "legitimizing" their commitment to each other while also gaining all the rights and privileges that are assured to married couples. Marriage as an institution, in my opinion, is somewhat like America as an institution. If it's not working, the way to change it is from inside, by becoming part of it and redefining it for a new time and generation. When America gets screwed up, we don't all just move to France and give up on it. Same thing with marriage.

i understand the desire of gay couples to get married, a right denied to them for so long, but i'm still kind of on the anti side of the fence for getting married myself, for many of the same reasons as you, courtney.

but the longer i date the same guy, the more i have to dodge the "when are you guys getting married?" question and every time i have to explain it makes me more opposed to the idea, just because i'd feel i was giving in somehow. i'm deeply conflicted about whether i think it's even possible for me to commit to love the same person for the rest of my life, no matter who that might be. and even if it is possible, is it something i'd want? i feel like our society kind of breeds this fear, especially in women, that if you aren't married by a certain age, you'll live the rest of your life utterly alone (except for your 2 million cats) and be miserable. like, your only options are get married or be alone forever. i think i'm a serial monogamist more than anything and i think sometimes what i would like best is to experience relationships with several people over the course of my lifetime, but i'm worried that i'll be shut out of that as a realistic option.

There are some “I can understand why gay couples are getting married BUT…” statements going on here. I think it’s easy to dissect the institution of marriage as a patriarchal construct, and I complete agree, but I also take issue with heterosexual couples complaining about people asking them/pressuring them when they’ll get married, because like it or not, whether you want to get married or not…you still have that PRIVILEGE. You CAN say “No, I don’t want to get married.” Most same-sex couples don’t even have that option, because we haven’t been given a choice to decide whether we want our unions legally recognized for whatever reason, whether it’s “love” or tax breaks, pension stuff, hospital visits, etc.

Getting married was, for me, a complex decision wherein I reflected on feminist criticisms of marriage as an institution of patriarchy.

My model for marriage was my own parents. They are definitely not radical, but probably more middle of the road "liberals." My parents encouraged my sister and I to see ourselves as powerful, liberated women. The marriage they modeled for me was an equal partnership. They always showed respect for one another and made all important decisions together. They have a harmony that I really admire and hope to achieve with my spouse. I'm not saying their marriage is free from all sexism - growing up, my mother did the majority of the housework and cooking.

I don't think that not getting married will ensure that a relationship is free from sexism (though this has nothing to do with Courtney's relationship - I'm speaking in general). I know plenty of friends who live together where the partner with the vagina does all the cooking and cleaning - even women in women's studies programs.

I also think that criticisms of marriage are often insightful, truthful, and necessary. While in college I was really turned on by radical theory, yet now I wonder how many people take those radical ideas into their every day life? Plenty of radical feminists in the 60s, for example, were married housewives. Sure, there is plenty wrong with many systems that relegate our lives and societies. Public school, for example, is a place where people get "socialized," and when you study the history (and present) of public education in America, you can find plenty of ways that system has perpetuated racism, sexism, classism, and any number of other injustices. At the same time, public education has the power to transform minds, to spur democratic values, to liberate. I myself am a teacher who believes that all children have the right to be educated, and therefore school should be free for all. Yet our system is riddled with flaws, flaws that have detrimental consequences for young people - particularly those from oppressed socio-economic status.

Anyway, I realize these are two different systems, but I see them as related in that they're two systems that a ton of people in our nation live in/through. I'm not saying that marriage is necessary, only that it seems as ubiquitous as public school. There are other options to both, but those other options are less common and often more marginalized.

So whether the system is public education, marriage, or another - what do we do with it? Do we "smash" the system and try to create something new? If so, what is it? Or do we work to transform it? I've decided to work toward the latter.

The piece on "equal parenting" in the NYT the other week showed that even the desire to be equal can be stymied by social pressures. I don't think leaving the marriage certificate out means that you will be free of the pressure to conform to partiarchal norms.

"Marriage as an institution, in my opinion, is somewhat like America as an institution. If it's not working, the way to change it is from inside, by becoming part of it and redefining it for a new time and generation. When America gets screwed up, we don't all just move to France and give up on it. Same thing with marriage."

Yes. I'm Canadian, but I can totally get behind this statement.

The institution of marriage preceded, and will outlast, the institution of men owning women. (The one common element in all marriages, as outlined in this book, isn't male ownership or inheritance rights -- it's the acquisition of in-laws.)

Marriage really is what you make it -- and that's one reason why both parties need to hash out just what marriage does or does not mean to them. At least one relationship that I know of broke up because each party had different expectations.

As is pointed out in this article, a marriage isn't just a private thing, either: it's a kind of contract with the community. This, I think, is one of the main reasons to keep the institution of marriage -- but it's also one reason why some committed couples might not wish to marry. Some people might simply prefer to participate in society on a purely individual basis, and keep their relationships as private as possible.

For my own experience, my husband and I decided that we did want to be joined together in the eyes of society, that we wanted our families officially tied together, and that we wanted some kind of ritual marking this decision. We also decided that we did not want ours to be a conventional marriage, and so we wrote our own vows and kept our respective names. So far it's worked out well.

However, I know that what's a good decision for me isn't going to suit everyone, so I avoid saying things like "Why don't you get married?" "When are you getting married?" etc.

Hey, CNBCSucks: "Misogynist"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"have some meaningless flings, and not let those pretty heads of yours get too wound up about silly things like commitment, relationships, and putting a whole lot of pressure on your next boyfriend."

Pretty heads? Silly little things? Wow, speak for yourself.

Sadly, I think CNBCsucks does know what misogynist means, quite well. Did you click on his link? He claims to be a horny creep, who, inexplicably, fully supports feminists.

He claims that disrepect and lust are different, and that his lust does not mean that he disrepects women. Based on a brief glance at his page, I think he is mistaken about what level of respect he has for women. If he really believed that women were equally (or more, as he suggests) intelligent, he probably wouldn't treat their bodies they way he does.

A dear friend of mine, when asked by a co-worker if, now that it's legal, she and her partner would be getting married. She said, "Hell no. We already own a house together. You can't get much more legal than that." And I thought that was interesting because of both the contractual implications and the domestic ones. And also because she clearly views owning a home as more of an obligation/agreement with her partner in providing a home for one another.

And ditto on the CNBC stuff, if for no other reason than his absurd and poorly grammared blog. Seriously, go visit it. It's like reading a 7th grade essay on why boobies are neat-o.

I, too, do not appreciate CNBCsucks' comments here. Pretty little head? Do you even know what I look like? Please.

Murphy wrote: "Marriage also confers one really important right that most people don't mention: divorce. People get really screwed over -- especially when there are power imbalances involved -- during break ups where there is no legal recognition of a relationship."

Certainly. Not to mention that gay couples who are married in a state where it is legal [either MA or CA] are unable to get a divorce in their home state, and are actually required to establish residency in the state that they were married in in order to legally divorce. This happened to a lesbian couple in Rhode Island. The "logic" [HA] here is that if you cannot be legally married or recognized in a state, you cannot be legally divorced. As far as I know, it is also not legal to marry someone of the opposite sex if one is already married, however non-legally-binding it is in one's home state. This presents an obvious problem.

As for whether same sex couples and marriages inherently avoid the connotations and history of marriage as an oppressive patriarchal system...
I think it is more complex than a simple "no." Even in same sex or gender relationships, gender roles may be present. Not that there is anything wrong with that to begin with, but a couple in which one partner is generally treated as the "man" and one as the "woman" socially by others can lead to similar dynamics of power and control, even if they are from circumstances outside the relationship, such as others' perceptions of their marriage/relationship. Gay couples may run into this less often, but it is still a possibility.

I am an avid supporter of marriage equality, although I am tepid about "marriage" granted by the state to begin with, and would prefer universal civil unions for non-religious, government-related purposes. However, we obviously don't have a system like that currently, and possibly never will; to me, that means we need to extend the same rights and responsibilities to everyone.

That said, I think marriage [or civil unions] as a concept is a very nice idea with a very messy and bad history. At this point perhaps we can work toward making marriage about the people getting married rather than the long, messed up history of what it has been in the past. I guess redefining it to mean what we want or need it to mean might do the trick. We can all basically recognize that marriage has a social component, in the formal recognition of a couple to the outside community, as well as a legal and pragmatic component, in extending certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities to a couple. For many people those are the reasons we get married: not because we want to be owned, not because we want to be a part of the patriarchy, and not because we are traditional, but because it works for us and our situation. I think that is valid, and I think that in its own way, that approach subverts the historical institution.

Uttering the phrase "till death do us part" is not required in order to get married. It belongs to a particular part of the social tradition of marriage. There are lots of onerous things that are part of various social traditions of marriage. But I have found that none of the onerous aspects are truly mandatory.

Marriage is this complex intertwining of multiple levels of institution and tradition. I would argue that at minimum you have (1) a commitment of love between two people (2) a civil contract binding two people in the eyes of the state and (3) a socially recognized role in society (husband and wife).

You can have the first without a marriage, but a marriage commitment has the advantage of tradition behind it, and this does give it some appealing weight. You can have a socially recognized role without marriage, but it is trickier---everyone more or less agrees that a spouse is the next of kin, but "boyfriend," "girlfriend," "partner," "significant other," these all require further definition. And there is the very important matter of the civil contract. You could, in theory, write up some series of civil contracts to properly arrange your financial partnership with a lover, but that seems like a lot of work.

This is the work that the institution of marriage does for us. We can, for the most part, make do without marriage. But for many (most?), it is a very useful institution that help us to arrange our lives to meet our various needs.

But if it doesn't sound useful to you, then don't do it. It's a free country, after all!

ShifterCat commented at July 21, 2008 3:34 PM: "(The one common element in all marriages, as outlined in this book, isn't male ownership or inheritance rights -- it's the acquisition of in-laws.)"

Now I wonder, does it still count as acquisition when the bride and groom were already in each other's in-laws' families?

Oops, I messed up the link tag, sorry.

yolio commented at July 21, 2008 7:39 PM: "Marriage is this complex intertwining of multiple levels of institution and tradition. I would argue that at minimum you have (1) a commitment of love between two people (2) a civil contract binding two people in the eyes of the state and (3) a socially recognized role in society (husband and wife)."

What about when a couple has a church wedding that's not recognized by the state? I've heard of some same-sex couples having church weddings in Kentucky (I'm not sure which denominations the churches were - I know the Unitarian Universalist denomination recognizes same-sex marriage, and maybe some other ones do too).

yolio commented at July 21, 2008 7:39 PM: "But if it doesn't sound useful to you, then don't do it. It's a free country, after all!"

Yeah!

Well, my husband and I wrote our own vows and we had no "time limits" in them. No "till death do us part" or even the more malleable "as long as love shall last". Ours vows were more a statement and acceptance of shared life ("your kin is my kin, your joy is my joy, your sorrow is my sorrow" etc.)

I don't expect we'll change the institution in any large way. But that's not my aim. I just wanted to make sure we were legally recognized, and to have a party to celebrate it. If we change it in some small way by others interacting with us and seeing how our marriage functions, all the better.

I don't think getting married means you're buying into an institution, you have control of the process and the relationship you build from it every step of the way...

Good morning, everybody. To ShifterCat, I take the most liberal interpretation of "misogynist". I do not think I actually hate, dislike, or mistrust women, in accordance with the Dictionary.com definition, but I am sure that there are plenty of people on this blog who would accuse me of such, so why not just concede the most liberal interpretation of the word which amounts to "sexist". To adminassistant, I am afraid that "grammared" is not an actual word you can use to criticize my grammar. You can say that my blog has poor grammar, but you cannot say that it is "poorly grammared". In any case, thank you for your recommendation to visit my blog ( http://cnbcsucks.wordpress.com ). To Xana, I do not buy that lust for a woman's body detracts from respect for her intelligence, but I know better than to belabor that debate on this blog. You are probably right anyway that I should show more respect for women on CNBC Sucks, but I will probably, hypocritically continue to stay the course and deliver as many pro-Obama ads as possible to men doing searches on "becky quick legs", and then shut it down when the regime change is hopefully complete. Finally, returning to the original topic of marriage, I would say to Ann, the original poster: You make some powerful arguments against marriage, now trust your instincts.

Since I'm incapable of discussing anything involving relationships without quoting Dan Savage, I'll mention his insightful thoughts about Courtney's point #2. There is something fundamentally weird about defining a successful" marriage as one that ends when someone dies.

So if you have a terrible, unhappy marriage but stay in it until someone dies, that's a success? If you have a good marriage but then grow apart and choose to end things on good terms, that's a failure? I want something better than that for myself.

My own issue with marriage (which I'm not ready for yet, but anyway) is that to me it's always been a religious thing. Well, my boyfriend and I do not share a religion. I can't imagine having a big party for a secular marriage.

I suspect that when I do get married it will be because one of us needs the others medical insurance.

@ sly: WTF? You're marrying a person, not an institution... but you're buying in to an institution!

@ CNBC sucks: While words can have multiple definitions, there's no reason to think that anyone will interpret the word "misogynist" as anything other than "hates women." You were being deliberately provocative and you succeeded. Congrats. We may not all have time to check out your blog, as we're busy reading this one. Yes, describing yourself as a misogynist will bother people who read a feminist blog. Is this shocking and/or appalling?

Courtney, thanks for sharing your story. I struggled with this same set of questions for years. And as many here have already mentioned, I'm dead-set against the history - both real and symbolic - of what religion means. As a feminist, environmentalist, atheist, anti-capitalist, bi-sexual woman, I always knew that regardless of who I fell in love with, any commitment event would have to meet strict qualifications on all the above criteria. I am really happy to live in a state (Massachusetts) where I can marry either a man or a woman.

When I met my fiance, we quickly realized that we wanted to be together for the long-haul and that we want to set aside a moment in time for our loved ones to witness us make that commitment to each other.

We are planning a god-free, green, potluck, kegger that will be a beautiful and intimate day to spend with the people we care about. In the end, my fiance and I decided that having a day of commitment would be the only time we would ever have all the people we care about in one place, and we can make it be exactly what we want. Which we will.

So, I understand and completely respect the decision to get married, or not. And I especially appreciate the dialogue about it on this site. Thanks for continuing to be great fodder for discussion and reflection!

"Grammared" is a verb form of of the word grammar- (like grammarized, or the term "lettered" when one means "knows her letters") a usage coupled with the adverb "poorly." If you actually owned a dictionary instead of relying on Dictionary.com to do your thinking for you, you'd know that one can absolutely conjugate a verb form from a noun when attempting to assign a grammatical structure to it. So take your "pretty little head" out of ass, and stop watching CNBC for long enough to read a book. And no, "Big Un's" doesn't count.

@CNBCSucks: Your "liberal definition" excuse makes no sense. It's not just the dictionary that defines misogyny as the hatred of women, it's any halfway reasonable person. Don't present yourself as a feminist ally and then describe yourself as a sexist and misogynist unless you're deliberately trying to sow confusion -- and if you are, kindly bug off.

Quit plugging your blog. There's already a link in your name. If we should begin to find your comments interesting or insightful, we might click on it.

Go read Feminism 101.

"To Xana, I do not buy that lust for a woman's body detracts from respect for her intelligence, but I know better than to belabor that debate on this blog. You are probably right anyway that I should show more respect for women on CNBC Sucks, but I will probably, hypocritically continue to stay the course and deliver as many pro-Obama ads as possible to men doing searches on "becky quick legs", and then shut it down when the regime change is hopefully complete."

You meant to address this to followingthru. I just told you that you can keep your "pretty little head" comments to yourself.

I can't imagine having a big party for a secular marriage.

Why on earth not?? We have big parties for all manner of far less important events in a person's life!

we want to set aside a moment in time for our loved ones to witness us make that commitment to each other.

Could not have said it better myself! Your plans sound like a lot of fun by the way!