|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True® - the First For-Profit E-mail Publication (and Still Going Strong). |
99-Cent Divorce?
In the 15 July issue, I ran this story:
Subscribe for Free
With This Pop Top I Thee Wed
Not content with Wal-Mart hogging the spotlight with its summer wedding promotion [This is True, 24 June], the 99-Cent Only store in Lewisville, Texas, is offering an alternative. For just 99 cents, couples can get married in its store. "The whole idea is to draw attention to the ludicrousness of the extravagance of weddings," said bargain shopping maven Sue Goldstein, who helped the store develop the service. (Dallas Morning News) ...A 99-cent wedding? Big deal. What the world really needs is a 99-cent divorce.
My wife didn't like the tag, but I figured most divorced men would -- and left it despite her disapproval. What I didn't expect was a letter from a priest. Especially this letter, from Fr. Rick in Louisiana:
No. What it needs is a very expensive wedding license, with clerics out of the business completely. By officiating at weddings we act as de facto functionaries of the state. We got involved in weddings in the Middle Ages purely to legitimize political arrangements relating to estate management and inheritance and in so doing gave up our claim to any semblance of moral authority.Instead, we need to stop officiating at weddings entirely. My recommendation -- based on almost thirty years' experience -- is that we wait for perhaps five years after the state function and then bless the wedding in an all-out joyous recognition of the civil wedding. That can be done -- again, I know from experience -- in such a fashion that it is virtually indistinguishable from a 'traditional' church wedding; and it has the advantage of recognizing a union that has a reasonable chance of success. (On top of that, the anticipation of the ceremony would provide a motive for working on making the marriage a success.)
I figured readers would want to weigh in on whether churches -- Catholic or otherwise -- should get out of the marriage business. You can post your comments below: no registration is needed.
RSS
Most Recent Comments
"Why ask the question?" Because that's the only way to a solution. -rc
But is a solution necessary? Other minds besides a single forum have been debating the topic of failed marriages for decades. Nobody has arrived at a consensus despite increasing statistics of failed marriages. What do I care about other people's marriages failing? It's mine that I'm concentrating on. Might as well try legislating good manners in city traffic. Or, like the Pope recently, try instituting some 10 Commandments for drivers. Old Chinese proverb, very old, very wise: Rotsa ruck.
---
This is a discussion about individuals, as well as institutions. It's thought-inspiring (for those with open minds). I know when I was first married, I thought I "had" to do it in a nice church. The second time, I chose the "church" -- the shore of a mountain lake. The witnesses: two friends and three ducks. Guess which marriage has lasted longer? My mind was more open the second time, to my benefit. Society at large? As you indicate: not my problem. -rc
Posted by: Mike from Dallas | August 7, 2007 6:51 PM
RC, here's why I thought your tagline was sexist: because of your comment, "My wife didn't like the tag, but I figured most divorced men would -- and left it despite her disapproval."
As a divorced woman who paid alimony, I do tend to bristle at the notion that men are "taken to the cleaners" by divorce.
Possibly if we returned to the concept of marriage as an economic union, people would think more before getting married, instead of being carried away by hormones and romantic fantasies.
You may not know that the church didn't take over the marriage business until the Middle Ages. About the same time they started refusing to bury unbaptized children in holy ground. Another source of revenue, and ideological control.
---
Thanks for following up (Jennifer had made a side comment about the tagline on this story being sexist in the calling someone "blonde" is racism entry, and I asked her to explain here).
To say that it's common that men get taken to the cleaners in divorce isn't sexism, it's an observation of what is. That doesn't mean all men do, or that no women do. I suffered financially a bit in my divorce, but felt lucky that it was only "a bit". In my case, I had a bachelor's degree and had helped my wife to get two master's degrees before she split. If anyone "owed" anyone money in that split, it should have been the one with the big education. Didn't work out that way. Was it because I'm male? I don't think so; it was because I had the better job -- and that was because I went and hustled for it, while she continued her education.
But I digress. I still don't see it as sexism, but I appreciate your taking the time to answer the question. -rc
Posted by: Jennifer in BC | August 20, 2007 10:48 PM
Several commenters have indicated that any two consenting adults should be able to declare themselves married without the state having to sanction it, and I'm fine with that. But why should a marriage be limited to two people? If the participants' gender doesn't matter (which idea I applaud), then why is the number of marriage partners important, if all of them are happy with the arrangement?
Posted by: Nancy, Illinois | September 10, 2007 10:53 AM