Wedding Crap: Why Even Get Married?

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

I think this is the conclusion to the series. There's a new page with all of the posts listed here. 

What is the tradition? 

I'm really talking about two separate things here: the getting married and the having a wedding.

A marriage is a legal, religious, or cultural agreement that gives the parties certain familial rights. The wedding is the act of creating a marriage, through a - often religious - ceremony and cultural traditions. A wedding is generally a community event, perhaps seen as a blessing or support of the marriage being formed. 

What is the origin of the tradition?

In various forms and contexts, it's a tradition as old as humankind. Marriage has historically been used to form alliances between groups and countries. It built economic and business partnerships. It creates (intended) stability between partners and for any children resulting from the marriage.

The wedding as the formation of a marriage seems like any other cultural ceremonial traditions - it's a rite of passage, a spiritual recognition, a community celebration. 

Why do people still follow it?

Even though long-term non-married partnerships/cohabitation is becoming more accepted, there can still (especially in certain subcultures) be a stigma against not being married. Some may view even a committed partnership as less stable than an actual marriage (because obviously the legal paperwork will make the relationship itself work out, always!). 

There are a variety of legal benefits from being married, such as rights to be next of kin for inheritance or medical care, joint ownership of property, health insurance, and lower taxes (there is such a thing as the "marriage penalty", but the with current US tax laws, depending on your type and relative levels of income, you're very likely to come out ahead). There are ways to create legal contracts that  give you most of the same benefits, but in a marriage they're all consolidated into a nice, simple one-page contract.

Weddings are done because they're fun, and people want to celebrate this (ostensibly) huge life change with their family and friends. 

Why is that crap? 

Weddings are crap because in our middle class society, we don't do big events like that. It's most people's one  chance to show off and be part of a huge celebration like that. They see the rich throwing huge weddings and think it's a wedding thing, so it's accessible - when really it's a rich people's party thing. It's also a bit odd when it's not a huge step, not a rite of passage - because you've already long since committed to each other, formed a household, and perhaps even had children. So there's no significant change happening at the wedding. 

The other benefits, legal and perceived stability, are just that - perceived, and arbitrary. Romantic attachments, realistically, are not exactly known for being stable. Why in the world do we think lust is the best way to form the connection with the other parent of our children? Many people have the most stable relationship in their life with someone other than a romantic partner - parent, sibling, friend. Can a romantic attachment be steady through the years? Of course, many people's spouse are their closest friend. But it's far from universal - if anything, I'd say that's the exception that proves the rule.

You also don't need a legal contract to have a lifelong relationship. Many friends are friends forever - simply by choice and trust. They don't need the government involved in telling them how to treat each other or how to support each other. A commitment might be beneficial to a child; a marriage is not necessary for that commitment.

What am I doing with this tradition?

Well, we got married, of course. If I could do the wedding over again, I wouldn't. I would use the same money to fly our immediate family to Colorado and do a self-officiating ceremony. While the wedding was fun, and it was nice to see all of our loved ones in one place - it's really fucking weird to throw a party for everyone, for all of your various groups. My work friends, my college friends, and my cousins, were all acquired in my life at different times for different reasons, and just the fact that they all know me is not necessarily reason for them to socialize together. I'd rather have made it about just the two of us and our immediate family, than our entire circles.

Being legally married, versus just committing ourselves to each other, was important to me for a few reasons. It's easier than contracting for the same benefits separately. It appeases my anxious nature to have things in writing and formally agreed upon. It was also important to my family, who sees it as an important distinction in life and a statement about the relationship - I might not agree, but it makes familial relationships significantly easier to have it be "official" to them. 

All else being equal, it made sense to take advantage of the established understanding of what a "marriage" is. It says something to my family about what we are, it says something to society about what we are. Which I don't always see as a positive - does society need to know what our relationship is? Is it anyone's business? Not really. While I don't regret being married, there are definitely ways in which getting married was simply the path of least resistance. 

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: Preserving the Dress

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

After spending a great deal of money and emotional energy purchasing a fancy white dress, women have it cleaned, and then "preserved" (according to google, the verb can also be "heirloomed") by storing it in an acid-free storage option or otherwise protecting from the elements, probably padding the bodice and sleeves to prevent permanent creasing. The dress is then kept, in one's guest room closet or attic (or, if you're my mother, somewhere in the house with not a clue any more of where, exactly), to be kept for the ages. 

What is the origin of the tradition?

It seems to be connected with extravagant, royal weddings of the past few centuries, where the dress in question might actually be worthy of being an heirloom. In many cases, the historical importance of a wedding might actually make this true. 

Why do people still follow it?

In part, I'm sure, because the high cost of the dress makes it seem inherently worthy, somehow, of being preserved or otherwise treated as an investment or quality heirloom. 

It's one of those things that you're "supposed" to do, not only because of the "investment" of the dress, but because you're supposed to hold the dress in great sentimental value, which according to our culture means you must hold on to the actual object, not merely reflect fondly on it through pictures.

I assume some also continue to hold delusions that they will one day have daughters, and those daughters will want to wear their dress (even though, these people saving the dress for their daughters... are probably saving a dress they bought, not their own mother's dress because they didn't want to use a heirloom themselves).

I also have a feeling that, even if the wedding dress industry hasn't had quite the same direct hand in this as the diamond industry has had in their "traditions", they certainly don't mind the lack of a solid second-hand market.

Why is that crap? 

Um, I hate to break it to you, but your $99 polyester dress from David's Bridal is not, and never will be, a family heirloom. (And no shade to David's Bridal! I bought a dress there for a prior engagement (sold at a consignment shop after the engagement was broken off). If you're going to take part in consumerism, at least don't spend your life savings in the process. But, the quality really does make it the Walmart of wedding dresses.)

If you're spending enough for the dress to actually be a quality product worth saving, then odds are high that's it's also of a more trendy style. You really think that 30 years down the road, a Pnina gown studded with rhinestones and feathers is going to be even remotely in style? It will look just as silly in 2045 as the puffy sleeves of the 1980s look to us now.

Sometimes, perhaps, enough time has passed that a dress becomes retro enough to be back in style, or at least a cute nod to the past. I thought my mom's dress, even though not quite my style, was cute enough that I didn't completely hate the idea of it (especially as a reaction to the cookie cutter strapless dresses that everyone was wearing 5 - 10 years ago). But still, give your hypothetical daughter the choice of picking her own dress, rather than guilting her into using yours.

Hoarding your dress for the rest of eternity means that every other bride then goes to buy a brand new one, using up that much more of our resources, and taking up that much more space on the planet, spending that much more money. Wasting something so large and so expensive for mere sentimentality is ridiculous. Save a scrap of lace from your veil, if you must, don't save a box that will take up half the closet in your guest room.

What am I doing with this tradition?

My dress was in the first batch of stuff donated to Goodwill post-wedding. Even though I deliberately bought a style that could conceivably be used again, I really didn't plan to - I liked the style, just still a bit much for any occasion I ever need a dress for (I've also now lost enough weight I couldn't wear it anyway). No sense in keeping it in my closet while I dithered, I'd much rather know it's being used by someone else in the world.

And my dress wasn't the one my mom saved! If she'd been able to find it, I would have considered somehow working her veil or fabric from her dress into the wedding somehow, but there was no way I would even fit into her dress at the time, much less want to wear the style. (I kind of thought the idea of reworking into my style would be a fun challenge, but realistically it was not a stress that would be have beneficial to add to the already hecticness of wedding planning.) 

I found this post that gives some nice ideas of alternative to keeping the dress.

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: Wedding Showers

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

Prior to the wedding, parties are held for the bride (or occasionally, the couple), for the purpose of "showering" the bride/couple with gifts. Games are played and treats are served, but the primary expectation is that guests will bring presents (from the couple's registry), which are opened during the event.

What is the origin of the tradition?

It's likely ultimately derived from the concept of dowry; if a girl didn't have a dowry (perhaps her parents were too poor to provide it), friends instead gathered to provide items for a dowry instead. 

In a more modern sense, though, it's about the village coming together to provide the household goods that a young couple needed to set up a life for themselves. Historically, of course, most couples getting married were, indeed, young, moving from their parents' home to the marriage home.

The name itself of a wedding or bridal "shower" is from a Victorian tradition of putting small gifts in a parasol, and then opening it over the bride and "showering" her with the gifts.

Why do people still follow it?

Well, free stuff. 

There's also a sense of being owed gifts in exchange for when you've participated in the tradition and bought gifts for other people.

Why is that crap? 

The average age of getting married is 27 (women) and 29 (men) (source). In other words, about 10 years after graduating high school and most likely moving out of their parents' house. Even if you don't count college as truly living on one's own, that's still a great deal of time (5 to 7 years) of living on one's own, building up a household. The likelihood that a newly married couple is actually lacking in sufficient sheets and dishes is quite low.

But - it's a worthy upgrade! you say. If you want to upgrade your own belongings because you're now several years into a decent-paying career, go for it! But why is it your figurative village's responsibility to upgrade your things for you? It's not about just getting by, but they must outfit you in luxury? 

A "deserving" upgrade at the time of the wedding also implies that you deserve it when getting married, because you're somehow more of an adult, and as an adult should have higher quality things. Why did you need to get married to act like an adult (if you view part of that as having matching dishes or whatnot)? I do understand the impact the economy has had on much of my generation, but that aside - why were you waiting for a marriage to build your own household? Why would you not be deserving (assuming you can afford it) of having a "real" household while single? 

What am I doing with this tradition?

As I lived on my own, I bought the items I wanted and that met the aesthetic I wanted in my home, so that, while there may have been occasional pieces that could stand for an upgrade, there was definitely no sense of desiring to replace a bunch of college-level crap. (Abe didn't so much, but beyond that being partially due to his pay/career, he simply doesn't have that much of an aesthetic preference to want matching stuff.)

We got rid of a ridiculous amount of stuff due to combining two households, each having lived on our own for several years. We were in no way building a household from scratch, therefore no need to be outfitted with household supplies. We passed on any offers of showers. (I did feel slightly bad for my mom, who's hosted many showers for her friends' kids, and certainly, in a sense, deserved to be paid back with her friends attending a shower for me, but I really didn't want the stuff!)

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: First Dance

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition?

At the reception, to kick off the dancing portion (because of course all wedding receptions have dancing!), the couple has a "first dance", with the guests looking on before joining into dance themselves. Couples often take dancing lessons specifically for this purposes, so as to do a waltz or other formal dance style, and some may choreograph the dance (in a ballroom or more contemporary, fun style).

What is the origin of the tradition?

At formal balls, the guests of honor, or those with highest social standing, led off the first dance. Not the entire first song, but to "open" the dance floor, so to speak.

Why do people still follow it?

I think it's 50% the wedding classic "but it what's we're supposed to dooooo", and 50% a desire to be in the spotlight. 

Why is that crap? 

Do you routinely host balls in your home? When you host these balls, on such a frequent basis, are you a good host and lead off the waltz while the orchestra plays?

No? 

Like the white dress, and announcing people, and other such "formalities", these are not etiquette in the sense of showing respect or providing comfort to anyone. This is merely etiquette that represents convention within the upper class of a long ago time period. 

Leading off a first dance was part of the context, for that time, when everyone danced in a formal way. We're don't have such formal dance occasions now, so why retain this one piece of it? In the absence of the broader context, it's rather meaningless.

What am I doing with this tradition?

We didn't have dancing of any kind! We had a computer playing music throughout the reception, but just quietly in the background, not loud enough - and really not the proper type - to promote dancing. While I have nothing against dancing per se (in fact, I grew up on other kinds of dancing, tap and jazz), the couples type of dancing is simply not something Abe or I ever participate in. Thus, why make it part of a day that represents the start of our lives together?

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: The Honeymoon

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition?

Shortly after the wedding, the couple takes a trip, often to a particularly romantic or exotic location. The duration and extravagance of the trip of course varies with the couples' finances, but is often a bit fancier than they might do otherwise for a normal vacation.

What is the origin of the tradition?

 While the term "honeymoon" may have once simply referred to the glow of early marriage, and a time period for the couple to get to know each better, in the sense of a vacation it became common in Britain in the 1800s. It was not actually the couple spending time along together, though - the purpose was to visit relatives and friends who hadn't been able to attend the wedding. They were even sometimes accompanies by family on the trip.

Why do people still follow it?

Well, who doesn't need a vacation?! Getting away together, especially after all the stress and bustle of planning a wedding, is certainly appealing. Even if it's not a matter of "getting to know each other" in the same sense as in the past, as most couples have probably lived and traveled together already, it's still nice.

Why is that crap?

I actually think it's not! Not in the sense of taking time to relax and enjoy each other's company. I do feel there's some degree of entitlement - just like people want a big fancy wedding, far beyond the scope of how they typically host or attend parties, I think there's an idea that one deserves an extravagant honeymoon, which leads to honeymoon gift registries or otherwise expecting other people to foot the bill for your experience. If it goes that far, it's too far. But taking a nice vacation within your means seems totally reasonable to me.

What am I doing with this tradition?

We took an almost-two week trip, including a cruise in Alaska. In all it was a bit longer, and a bit more expensive than our typical trips, but not ridiculously so (and thus within our means).

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: Bachelor & Bachelorette Parties

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

Shortly before the wedding (more traditionally the night before; now more likely to be a week before or even earlier whenever it's convenient), the groom and his attendants get together for a bachelor party, and the bride and her attendants for a bachelorette party. The latter being modeled after the former, it's a chance for the soon-to-be spouses to have "one last night of freedom", spending time drinking and engaging in revelry that often involves strippers or similar entertainment. The bachelorette party might also include a great deal of penis gaggery, as well as sashes and/or tiaras to identify the bride.

In more recent years, there seems to be a trend towards bachelor/bachelorette weekends/trips, rather than merely a one-night party. While perhaps partially due to the fact of people being spreadout from family and friends, so guests would have to travel anyway, it also feels like an aspect of the weddings being totally overblown to be a big deal.

What is the origin of the tradition?

It probably existed very early; it is believed that the ancient Spartans celebrated a groom's last night as a single man, with toasts and honor. Over time, that celebration became more and more rowdy. 

The bachelorette party originally existed as more of a ladies' luncheon or tea with the women in the family and/or bridal party to celebrate the upcoming wedding. It evolved into something more like the bachelor party as sexual norms loosened and women felt able to engage in similar behavior to the men.

Why do people still follow it?

I think there are two reasons, one more innocuous than the other. Strippers aside, it is an event that allows for those closest to each spouse to celebrate them directly, to get together and just have fun at a time when they've probably been stressing about the wedding. 

The sense of it being a "free pass" to do stuff otherwise probably not ok while in a relationship, while incredibly weird to me, kind of makes sense. Even if you just have a normal amount of "whoa, I'm committing to one person for the rest of my life!", wanting to feel freedom from that for one last time makes some sense. 

Why is that crap? 

Wanting some freedom just before a big commitment makes sense; I don't think following through on that makes sense. You're not actually "free" to do whatever you want just because you haven't signed the marriage license yet! You're still in a committed relationship. Your "last night of freedom" is actually the night before you first date, or maybe before you have a DTR, or perhaps before getting engaged. The night it's definitely NOT, is the night before your wedding.

If you're ok with your significant other seeing strippers, then that's your choice, but how is being ok with them seeing strippers ok one night, and not the next? Either be ok with that kind of entertainment or don't, but it shouldn't be contingent on signing paperwork, when you're in a committed relationship either way.

What am I doing with this tradition?

We didn't do anything along these lines. Abe had an outing that was called a bachelor party, but it was just him and a friend playing disc golf and getting some beers. Nothing about the fact that we were about to get married changed how we each felt about participating in such events, or how we would feel about the other participating in such events.

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: The Name Change

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

Upon getting married, the woman replaces her last name with her husband's last name. This is not only legally, but also is portrayed as a big deal socially - for example, at the end of the ceremony, and as the couple enters the reception, they are formally announced as Mr. and Mrs. HisName.

What is the origin of the tradition?

This varies greatly around the world, but is the English and American tradition. Ultimately, it represents the fact that both legally and socially, the woman was merging into her husband's status and identity. Even once past the time of women being literally owned, they still had limited to no legal standing. It is far too recent in the past when women couldn't open a bank account without her husband's permission. 

A unified family name makes sense, on both a logical and emotional level. But that it is traditionally the woman to take the man's name, and not vice versa, is because of their relative standings in society.

Why is that crap? 

If it were only about forming a united new family with a common last, it wouldn't matter which name you picked. You would pick between the two names (or make up a new one!) based on where they fell in the alphabet, what ethnic heritage they represented, or simply which one sounded the coolest with the parties' first names. But if so, you'd expect a fairly even mix of women and men taking their partner's last name. But no, it's only women who are expected to do this.

It'd amazing how defensive men can get about this, even if they say they don't view it as ownership or anything "sexist" like that. I've far too many times heard a woman talk about jokingly tell her soon-to-be husband that she was going to keep her name - and oh how hilarious it was when this fake news upset him! His name is the important name. If he would never consider taking her name, what the fuck right does he have to ask the same of her?

While there's nothing wrong with a woman taking her husband's name, there is if she's doing so primarily because that's just what people do, or for her husband to be upset if she doesn't want to if he wouldn't make the same sacrifice, or for others to assume that women will take on this burden and that a man wouldn't. Like many things based in historical oppression, modern day choices are not being made in a vacuum, and the historical oppression continues to impact how people perceive the choice and its meaning.

What am I doing with this tradition?

We both kept out last names. To make sure our community knew this, we put language in both our wedding invitation and programs.

Invitation:

Can I reserve a game of [ ] with the new Mrs. HisName? 

I’m afraid not, as no such person will exist. We’ll both be keeping our names as is: Abe T----- and Margaret W------ (Mr. and Ms., if you must.) But we’d both be happy to play a board game with you at some point during the event!

(A side note: my MIL also kept her last name, and my FIL's parents are deceased, so it actually was true that there was no Mrs. T------ present at the wedding, or even currently alive in the family.)

Program: 

Yay, you’re married! What do we call you now? 

Same thing as before. We’ve both chosen to keep our names as is - Abe T------ and Margaret W------ (Mr. and Ms., if you must).

Here's another post with some of my thoughts on this. Obviously, the invite/program wordage didn't help for those not invited to the wedding, but it became fairly self-evident in business contexts, since we operate with a lot of written communication, what my last name was (except to the coworker in the above linked post, apparently).

You might note that we specified that if honorifics must be used (which, I'd prefer they weren't. My Quaker college definitely convinced me of that), I would use Ms., not Mrs. For a couple reasons. 

First - if someone has a formal enough relationship with me to use an honorific, then it is also formal enough that my marital status is none of their fucking business. Men get Mr. just for being an adult, no signifier of being married necessary. So why do people think it's so important to know if women are married? Well, because if they're married they're weren't their own person, but hopefully we've moved beyond that reason. Second, while Mrs. has primarily been used to signify being married, it also was used as a sign of respect, for example the housekeeper might be Mrs. Smith, even if unmarried, due to her respected role. Mrs. = married. Mrs. = respected. So... married = respected. Fuck no. (Sorry for the higher than normal swearing in this post. It's an extremely passionate topic of mine.) 

Don't try to respect me by assuming I'm married. Respect me by assuming I'm a valid human being in my own right.

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: Bouquet & Garter Tosses

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

During the reception, the groom takes a garter off the bride's leg, has all the single men gather, and tosses it to them for one to catch. Similarly, the bride has all the single women father, and tosses her bouquet to them for one to catch. Superstition has it that the two catchees will be the next people to marry. In some cases, the man who caught the garter also proceeds to put the garter on the leg of the woman who caught the bouquet.

What is the origin of the tradition?

Most likely based on some combination of community involvement in helping make sure the marriage was consummated, and that the bride was considered good luck, at some point it became common for guests to grab at the bride's clothing as the couple left the wedding. To appease them without losing her clothing, brides began throwing the bouquet or small articles - like a garter - to the guests instead. 

Why do people still follow it?

Fortunately, I think both tosses are starting to become less popular. The act of singling out the single guests is seen as less than respectful of your loved ones who came to celebrate with you, and the sexual removal of an undergarment from the bride in front of all her relatives has begun to be seen as the tacky event that it is. 

Ultimately, I think those who do participate are looking it at simply as good old fun. It can be readily boiled down to as essentially a party game, so what's the harm?

Why is that crap? 

Underneath that party game, though, both the underlying tradition (either treating the consummation of a marriage as a matter of public importance, or treating the bride as merely an object that can raided for good luck charms), and the actions who make your guests under go (pointing out marital status in a denigrating manner, acting in an overtly sexual manner with your spouse in front of your guests, or coercing two complete strangers into acting in an overtly sexual manner with each other in front your guests), contain an ickiness that can is not worth ignoring for the sake of fun. 

What am I doing with this tradition?

There was no garter or bouquet to toss, and we didn't have a dance floor or similar venue with which to host any sort of little games or activities anyway. If I had had a bouquet, I might have considered using one of the alternatives I've heard of, of ceremonially giving your bouquet to a special guest - perhaps a mother or grandmother, or the longest married couple in the room.

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: The Cake

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

The dessert at the wedding reception is cake, usually a tiered, elaborately decorated cake, display predominantly at the reception location before it's eaten. The bride and groom ceremoniously cut the cake in front of their guests, and feed each other a piece (sometimes by shoving said piece into the other's face).

In order to save money, the elaborate cake is sometimes partially a prop (with all but the top layer made of styrofoam), and the guests are actually served from a sheet cake. 

What is the origin of the tradition?

There are at least a few paths that led here. In ancient Rome, bread was broken over the bride's head for good luck and/or fertility. In medieval England, cakes were stacked high, and if the couple could kiss over the stack, it meant good luck. There have been times when a glass ring was hidden in the cake, and the recipient would would be the next lucky bride (akin to the bouquet toss). And also a time when guests were send home with a piece of cake to put under their pillow, to cause dreams of their future husband.

Why do people still follow it?

Well, I mean, it's cake, that's understandable. It's often used as a means of personalizing one's wedding, as a very customizable component that can convey the theme of the wedding, in color and design elements. But, if you've ever seen Cake Boss, you know that that personalization can sometimes get extremely elaborate and way over the top.

Why is that crap? 

Although not necessarily super prominent in how the tradition plays out today, there are nonetheless roots that ick me out a bit, steeped in fertility and the fact that of course everyone woman is looking for a husband. The ceremonial aspect of cutting cake, I can almost appreciate, in theory - in the sense that it's working together on your first task as a married couple - but making everyone watch it is silly. You just made them all sit through the wedding ceremony, don't make them be bored with a cake cutting, too, before allowing them the buttercream.

It's also just plain expensive! With the complex structures and fancy designs, an official "wedding" cake can easily cost upwards of $5 a slice. I might pay $5 for a slice of cake at a restaurant, but when you're buying an entire cake to serve over 100 people? You shouldn't be paying that much. Why devote the energy and money into making an elaborate object that's merely going to be eaten? In some ways it's become a status symbol, much like the dress, and some might feel that it's their one chance for something so grand.

What am I doing with this tradition?

For dessert, we simply selected a few items from the catering restaurant's menu (chocolate mousse, cheesecake, cupcakes), and had them out with the rest of the food. There was definitely no ceremonial presentation or cutting of any dessert!

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: The Officiant

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

The wedding ceremony is "performed" by a qualified officiant - depending on the state, there may be specific words they have to say, but they generally give opening/closing words, perhaps a sermon or similar speech, lead the couple in their vows, and declare - by the power vested in them by the state of whatever - that they are now officially married. 

A qualified officiant, depending on the state, is usually a minister - of any denomination or religion, or judge or other court official. 

What is the origin of the tradition?

Technically, there are two wedding ceremonies happening simultaneously when a religious officiant performs the ceremony: the civil ceremony, which gets recorded on the legal wedding license, is what's recognized by the state, if the religious officiant is also recognized by the state. Thus a civil ceremony by itself also creates a marriage for legal purposes; a religious ceremony just adds additional (non-legally-required) elements on top of it.

So if it's about the state government recognizing the official as trustworthy to perform the civil requirements, it makes sense that government officials, like a judge or justice of the peace, would be deemed appropriate. Why would the state also recognize religious officials? It seems to be based on the control and involvement churches and states used to have with each other: the legal requirement, in some times and places, was having a ceremony in an officially-recognized church (source). As religions have been (fortunately) divided from state, the civil requirement took precedence, but the religious authority wasn't taken away.

Why do people still follow it?

Well, cause they have to, in order to receive the legal benefits of a government-recognized marriage. 

But I think a lot of people are thinking twice about this one, actually, perhaps as they may have less significant ties to formal religious institutions, and choosing to have friends or family members "ordained" as ministers in "religions" such as the Universal Life Church or other such online ordinations to perform their wedding ceremonies.

Why is that crap? 

I wrote about this somewhat in another post when we got out marriage license. 

First of all, I think the concept of a "religious" officiant has been completely diluted, now that many states allow online-ordained officiants, so they're basically acknowledging that these ceremonies are not taking place in a deep-seated, truly-held religious context. If you requirement allows virtually anyone in the world to meet the requirements, maybe you should just remove the requirement and allow anyone in the world to do it, eh?

But most of all - and I realize this is more of a quasi-political and philosophical stance on my part than the feminist-based rantings of most of this series, so hopefully it's still interesting to think about and dialogue even if you disagree! - I don't agree with the concept of the government authorizing anyone to "perform" or "form" the marriage of two people. 

You don't have to have an authorized person officiate the signing of a business contract or a house sale. The two parties put their agreement in writing, and unless intent or capacity is proved otherwise, the government respects the agreement of those two parties without having to be directly involved in its formation.

I view a marriage essentially the same way. It's a contract between two people. No one else can form that contract for us; it is only by our consent and signing that an agreement is created. I want the government to recognize our marriage contract, just like they recognize any other kind of contract, but I don't see what business it is of theirs to tell us that someone they've deemed appropriate must declare the contract to be.

What am I doing with this tradition?

Photo by Stephanie Kaloi

We asked a friend to get ordained as a Dudeist priest and officiate the wedding. Though legally fulfilling the role and requirements of an "officiant", in our program we referred to him as a "moderator". His purpose, beyond the legal requirements, was to facilitate transitions and lead the general flow of the ceremony. But it was certainly not his place to declare us married - that was our position to declare ourselves as agreeing to that.

Fortunately, Oregon marriage laws were amenable to our plan. You only have to have a judicial or religious official (and I called to confirm that online ordinations counted for the religious requirement) be present while the husband and wife declare their intent to be married. Basically a "super witness" as I thought of it. There are no specifics phrases they have to say, or parts to be performed of the ceremony. Their signature on the wedding license is merely stating that they were present at the ceremony, not avowing any other participation or specifics of the ceremony.

Though I liked how this went and the friend who was our officiant, I have to admit it was my second choice. My dream ceremony would have been a self-solemnizing ceremony in Colorado. From my research, currently the two states that allow self-solemnizing - i.e., no officiant, it basically operates as I've described I think it should, with the state just recognizing the stated intent of the two parties - are Colorado and Pennsylvania. The latter due to its Quaker roots (Quakers recognize everyone as equals, rather than ministers having more authority or power than lay people), the former I have no idea why, but I'm glad it exists!

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: The First Look

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

After getting ready separately, the bride and groom arrange for a photographed "first look" to see each other for the first time in their wedding finery. It's often set up so that the groom is waiting somewhere, with his back turned, and the bride approaches; it's the look on the groom's face when he sees her that is intended to be a particularly special moment and one that's desired to be captured in pictures.

What is the origin of the tradition?

When marriages were arranged by parents and essentially business transactions, the parents desired to keep the bride and groom apart until the ceremony so they didn't have a chance to decide they didn't like their chosen spouse and back out. Eventually this morphed into it being "bad luck" for the groom to see the bride before the ceremony.

Why do people still follow it?

Having a first look - either a pre-ceremony "first look" or having the moment as the bride enters the ceremony - seems to be viewed as a special, emotional moment. The bride is, obviously, all gussied up and looks not just like the woman the groom loves, but she looks like a bride! He's supposed to be overwhelmed with emotion at how absolutely beautiful she looks.

Having a separate first look before the ceremony is typically justified with one of two reasons: (1) to be able to take group photos including both the bride and groom beforehand, rather than taking up time in between the ceremony and reception to do so (cause, otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to take those groups photos cause the groom would see the bride!), or (2) because it's seen as an intimate moment between bride and groom, and this allows them to express emotions in privacy rather than in front of all the guests in the ceremony.

Why is that crap? 

Um, is the marriage predicated on the bride's good looks? I certainly hope not! While it's certainly not unreasonable to be gussied up for the occasion, for the bride to be so extravagantly beautiful for the sake of the wedding that the groom - who presumably has known her for quite some time, since it's not an arranged marriage - tears up in joy at the sight - that just screams icky, gross, superficial, obsession with appearance and virginity and ugh. Or it's a beautiful sight because she looks like a bride, rather than the actual human being that she is, also brings up thoughts of patriarchy and ownership and gender roles and other such disgusting things. Edited to add: after publishing, my mind was finally able to split out the words that had been on the tip of my tongue: Placing such an emotional value on this moment of appearances, not only objectives the bride, but almost fetishes her.

If you desire to spend some quiet time with your spouse-to-be in the midst of what is otherwise an often hectic day, and reflect on the importance of solemnity of the occasion, sure. But why bring this superficial obsession with looks and fanciness into such an intimate moment? Why put it into terms of the roles of "Bride" and "Groom", rather than the person you got to know over the course of your relationship, with whom you've chosen to spend the rest of your life?

What am I doing with this tradition?

Nothing! We both got ready at home, so saw each other in all stages of readiness for the day (pretty sure he saw me in curlers, gasp!). While I thought he looked handsome, and I'm sure (hopefully) he thought I looked beautiful, we also both looked like ourselves, so there was no stunning moment of a reveal.

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.

Wedding Crap: The Veil

(See introduction and disclaimer to this series here, and other posts in the series here.)

What is the tradition? 

During the ceremony (but often removed for the reception), the bride's outfit includes a veil. Depending on the venue (e.g., church versus golf course), religion, family culture, and other factors such as personal preferences and style, this may range from a full, cathedral length veil, extending as a train on the floor, to a fascinator with a short mesh hanging over one's forehead, and anywhere in between.

What is the origin of the tradition?

There is a long history of women wearing veils in general society, not just at weddings, so ultimately it appears to me that the significance is one of separating women from men, as being held to higher standards of modesty, and possibly even showing ownership (i.e., only males who are related to you should see your face). 

Within weddings specifically, the veil tradition evolved to take on additional meaning. In ancient times, it may have been intended to protect the bride from evil spirits. In times of arranged marriages, it may indeed have prevented the groom from seeing the bride and being disappointed while he still had an out. In times of strong Christian culture, it likely became a symbol of purity and virginity, along with the white dress.

Why do people still follow it?

Similarly to the dress, the veil has been built up in people's mind as the epitome of womanhood; the ultimate signifier that this woman is a bride. If you've ever watched a show like Say Yes to the Dress (I'll ashamedly admit to this), you know that if a shopper is hesitating, the consultants add a veil, and that often does the trick - you make you feel like a bride, and she'll buy everything that makes her look like that role.

There may also be a religious/purity aspect to it still in some cases, but fortunately I think that's becoming less and less common, in all but the most extreme subcultures.

Why is that crap? 

Women wearing veils is ultimately based on separating women from society, and then the purity/virginity implications make it even worse. Even if you don't personally hold the beliefs under which the tradition developed, why unintentionally pay homage to those beliefs?

Plus, it generally covers up the pretty hairdo (and often a gorgeous back of a dress) you spend so much money and/or time on!

What am I doing with this tradition?

I had absolutely no interest in wearing a veil, so I didn't! I didn't want to feel like a "bride", but rather the dressiest/classiest version of myself. My dress was accessorized just with a pearl necklace (made by my mom) and a fancy-ish, curly hairstyle. 

Photo by Stephanie Kaloi

How did/will you handle this tradition?

I would love to have a lively debate and conversation in the comments! Please join in!

Dissenting opinions (from the post itself or other commenters) are welcome, but I reserve the right to delete any comments that personally attack me or any other commenter.