I’m going to put it out there: I’m not a fan of weddings, not in the slightest, in fact the older I get the more I don’t look forward to them, and despite being a gay man I don’t cry when the couple finally gets to snog and then walks down the aisle with grins the size of tuna fish. Whilst I’m always (well, almost always) happy for the couple involved, and won’t hesitate to knock off their booze and food at the lavish receptions, and maybe, just maybe, if I’m sufficiently stonkered, I might dance with a grandma to some bad 80s tune, it’s rare that I’ll get into the true celebratory spirit. It could be that I’m jealous of the couple who’s just tied the knot, or I have a problem with all the attention they’re getting (why can’t I have just a bit of that?), or it might be that I’m wearing a suit that no longer fits. Yes, it could be these things. But it’s not, not entirely.
The first reason I’m not a fan of the whole wedding caper is the insistence of couples continuing to use the words husband and wife. According to my beloved Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (a perfect resource when researching things about marriage), husband is derived from the Old English ‘husbonda’, from the Old Norse ‘husbondi’, which combines ‘hus’, meaning ‘house’, and ‘bondi’, ‘one who has a household’ (clearly not the famous Australian beach). So a husband is a man in his capacity as head of the household. Is this what women really want when they declare in front of a couple of hundred people that they take said bloke to be their ‘husband’ – please rule over me for all eternity?
The origins of wife are not as easy to trace, though it’s believed to be from the Old English ‘wif’, meaning woman. The original meaning may have been ‘the veiled one’. Make of that what you will, but again is that what men really want when they declare in front of a couple of hundred people that they take said lady to be their ‘wife’ – I’m going to keep you away from the gaze of the public for all eternity. Mmm, perhaps that’s exactly what they want. But the lack of thinking and challenge around these words and their meanings – meanings overt, subtle and subliminal – is what gets me all hot under the collar at weddings. (I must admit that although I use it all the time the word ‘partner’ can often seem so vacuously PC to be vomit-worthy, but at least its meaning is inclusive.)
The second and probably main reason that weddings really get my goat (one day I should look up the meaning of that phrase, ‘get my goat’), is the fact that Australia’s former government, lead by the cunningly conservative John Howard, who always looked like the uncle everyone has though everyone hates, except lots of people actually liked John Howard, which distressed me and many others senseless, amended the Marriage Act to include a definition of marriage as being ‘a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. It’s worth noting that the Opposition at the time, the Australian Labor Party, backed this amendment.
I don’t want to get lost in the politics, but it is a bitter pill to swallow when my long-term partner (there’s that word) and I dutifully take our seats at yet another marriage ceremony to be informed yet again that, despite thirteen years in duration, our relationship doesn’t count, that it isn’t valued, that it’s second-class, that there’s no place for it in contemporary Australian society. So I put this challenge out there: if you’re about to get married and you think the Marriage Act in your country sucks the big one, then be a revolutionary: just before you tie the knot pause proceedings and turn to your family and friends and say something along the lines of this: “We love each other and want to commit to each other in front of you all and the law, but we want all those who love each other to have the opportunity to commit in front of their family and friends and the law, so we make this stand right here, right now, that we believe the Marriage Act discriminates and find this unacceptable – we look forward to this situation changing sooner rather than later”.
Or just quote Gwen Stafani’s ‘Hollaback Girl’: ‘Let me hear you say this shit is bananas/B-A-N-A-N-A-S’.
How good that would be. I might actually cry at a wedding.
Under the counter or a flutter in the dovecote 
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 7, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Alec Patric
One of my first jobs was working in a reception centre. If you think it’s depressing going to weddings as a guest, imagine a thousand in which you’re basically an interloper. I don’t know how many couples were actually happy (in the way they were meant to be, ie, happiest day of their lives) but most looked like it was a dreary family obligation. My thoughts at the end of my time in that reception centre were, what a colossal waste of money and time a wedding is. What an antiquated ritual of deception it’s turned into. Never will I fucken ever go through that kind of bullshit.
Of course that’s beside the point when it comes to the rights of consenting adults to be officially and legally recognised and it’s appalling that those laws weren’t changed decades ago. Let alone now!
Of course, Howard didn’t help. Understatement of the year, since he pushed Australia back in every area of social evolution to pre-Menzies conservatism. In regard to gay rights, one of the worst examples was the Justice Kirby Witch-hunt.
For me, I always admired Sartre and De Beauvoir for spending their lives together but never getting married. It’s always seemed so much more a powerful statement of love, two people together, because they want to be. No duty or obligation.
Coincidentally me and partner (don’t like the word either – sounds like business arrangement) have also been together 13 years. Not married nor intending to be. I know — there’s a big difference not being allowed to.
March 7, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Alec, thanks for your great woosh of a response. Yes, weddings do seem to be more about theatre and obligation than a joyous celebration. I partly admire those who go through the whole rigmarole, all the while trying to please everyone except themselves (for example, incorporating a religious element because it will please parents). There seems to be this blind acceptance that it’s just something that has to be done, rather than think it through, the symbolism and the reality. Yes, I too admire those who don’t get married but are as committed as any married couple, perhaps even more so. But for me it’s about gay and lesbian people have the choice to marry or not, and when that choice is available it should be more than some dog-like registration process. And yes the Michael Kirby witch-hunt was a disgrace – someone one day should write a novel about that, a short story at least.
March 7, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
itallstarted
It’s total bullshit isn’t it? I really, really don’t understand what the big deal is. Every person should have the right to marry whoever they like, regardless of whether they happen to be the same sex or not (providing of course that the other person reciprocates their feelings!)
Surely if somebody is fortunate enough to find somebody that they love, who loves them back, then they should be able to make that commitment public if they want to, without question, whether it’s by getting married, or living together, or at least having the OPTION to choose!
And don’t get me started on John bloody Howard. Talk about backward. And repressed.
March 7, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Agnes, thanks as always for your considered comments. You’re right – it’s total bullshit. And what really gets me is that the major parties keep on saying that their anti-gay-marriage stance reflects the dominant view in the community that two blokes or two women shouldn’t get married, except polls and surveys repeatedly suggest that’s not the case. Of course, the real stumbling block is once we allow gay people to get married then they’ll start having kids – but that’s best left for anothe post! I reckon governments are scared of being seen to be too progressive, too distracted by things they think don’t matter, and also pander to the Christian right, which might be a strong force but methinks it’s not as strong a force as they believe. PS Sorry to mention John Howard – the less said about him the better.
March 8, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
itallstarted
What?! Two responsible adults making the decision to love, nurture and care for a child? Heaven help us!
March 8, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Agnes, yes the world would fall apart, wouldn’t it! What gets me the most about this whole issue is the lack of logic. Straight parents can be good and bad at raising kids; gay parents can be good and bad at raising kids. Kids have always searched out a variety of influences from outside the core family unit – how many of us have aunts and uncle or family friends who at times have acted like mums or dads? To my mind, kids need unconditional love and it doesn’t matter where that comes from. A related issue is where gay or lesbian couples end up looking after kids through no fault of their own, for example due to health problems or death the kids have to be looked after by someone other than their parents. Don’t these kids deserve some kind of legal security?
March 8, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
hughesy
I’ve always rather liked the word consort, but most people think it has something to do with criminal behaviour.
I was a wife once – it didn’t work out, so now I am just living in sin I guess, also criminal behavior in the eyes of the god botherers. Personally, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to get married in the eyes of a God who apparently thinks that same sex union is crinimal behaviour.
My nephew was raised by two women and for many years during his early childhood thought that is what a family is. That one is his birthmother and one her sister has been neither here nor there as far as he is concerned, and quite frankly, to suggest that their parenting is any thing less than loving and character building is a bit of an insult really.
Families are made up of adults responsible for the welfare of children in their care. The sooner we blow up the insular nuclear family the better.
March 8, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Hughesy, I like ‘consort’, I think I’m going to start using that, even if it does have a sub-text of criminal behaviour. I agree that ‘families are made up of adults responsible for the welfare of children in their care’, though so many people don’t. It’s a complex issue; I wish someone would just fix it all up and we can get on with our lives. Thanks for dropping by and commenting!
March 8, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
hughesy
No – it’s not that complex. Politicians should just get the hell out of our bedrooms. It is noone’s busines but mine who I consort with. And noone’s business but mine how I raise children, what ever relaitionship they are to me – neice, son, daughter, student, etc.
If I step over the line and break the social taboo that separates me from those children sexually or abuse wise, then there are laws designed to reinforce that taboo and banish me from society. But trying to prevent such behaviour by pre-emption is pointless. It doesn’t stop Uncle pervey going there, does it? A relationship sanctioned by society!
To suggest that one’s sexual preference has any bearing on a child’s well being is nonsense. What about all the gay children who grew up in heterosexual nuclear families? What about all the children still bearing the scars of abuse from their godfearing straight parents.
Crock of shit, I reckon.
March 8, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi again Hughesy, all good points. Perhaps it’s the lack of separation between church and state on this issue that makes it so complex, plus the emotions involved when talking about family relationships and raising kids? It’s true that we put on a pedestal the ‘standard’ family – mum, dad, two-point-five kids – believing that it is the solution to everyone’s problems. Except the fact is that too often it’s the START of people’s problems, as you point out.
But back to the point about the institution of weddings and marriage being discriminatory social infrastructure, I do think it’s the issue of kids where people start to get nervous about the whole idea of a couple of blokes or a couple of women getting legally hitched. Most sane people know in their hearts that two men and two women can love each other deeply; what so many struggle with is the apparent collapse of the family as the bedrock of modern society, ‘bedrock’ being John Howard’s choice of words. Damn it, I’ve done it agin – I’ve mentioned his name. What a menace he was. What a menace he still is.
Now I’ve got a headache – best to disappear into the world of fiction, where at least good things happen to good people…
March 9, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
A Free Man
I can’t stand weddings. They’re so self-indulgent.
Despite having the legal right to be married, my partner and I aren’t. I wish I could say that it was because of some sort of political solidarity with our homosexual friends, but it’s just laziness and a desire to spend hard earned money on more concrete things.
But I AM with you in principle.
March 9, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi AFM, thanks for your thoughts. I reckon there might actually be a fair bit of solidarity in your laziness. Speaking of solidarity, I have a Christian friend who was very close to divorcing her husband, who she adores, because she thinks the Australian Marriage Act has been made so disciminatory that she didn’t want to have any part of it – how’s THAT for taking action for a minority! Sadly (or maybe that should be happily) she didn’t divorce her much-loved husband, but her anger has inspired me for years.
March 9, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
froufou
jeeez.
yesterday I read about a catholic school in the US who refused to re enrol a little girl coz her parents are lesbians- they don’t conform to the church’s “teachings”… the day before i read a story about a senior priest who procured male prostitutes for senior vatican clergy.
I just don’t get it.
March 10, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi FrouFrou, yes there’s a truckload of hypocrisy around all this, and straight-out judgement (‘straight’ was probably a bad choice of words in the circumstances). But, put quite simply, the world’s not going to go to hell in a handbasket if a few thousand men and women get married to their same-sex partners. What WILL happen is that gay and lesbian youth will see that there are a range of pathways they can follow, from being a part of the establishment to being outlaws, whatever takes their fancy. PS In regards to your story about the senior priest procuring male prostitues for senior Vatican clergy, my immediate response was, But of course! (as in no surprises there; it’s not something that floats my own boat)
March 12, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Ms. Moon
Well, you know how I feel. Plus- it’s SO not fair for straight people to get all the wedding presents. I mean really- things are way out of balance in that regard.
March 12, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Ms Moon, lovely of you to drop in. Whilst I hate to sound pessimistic, I do wonder if it’ll be quite a while before things are re-balanced. Surely, in the end, it all comes down to a question: do we want some relationships to be considered more valuable than others? Methinks not .
March 15, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Iain Hall
Hello Nigel
I like your blog you write thoughtfully and without too much bitterness.
Personally I don’t support Gay relationships being called a marriage or the provisions of marriage act being applied to them. But I do support your right to make an intimate relationship with any consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender. I also endorse the changes brought in to remove the discrimination against Gay couples by the current government but I think that getting upset about the way that marriage is defined in law is a waste of time because it will simply not be changed any time soon by either side of politics.
March 15, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Iain, thank very much for dropping by, commenting, and sharing your opinion. I particularly like your kind comments about the quality of writing on Under the Counter (of course!). I understand where you’re coming from in terms of seeing gay relationships being outside the term ‘marriage’. I wonder: do you see legislation having any role in providing options for gay relationships? Or do you see that such relationships should exist outside the law? (PS I agree that both side of politics – at a national level at least – probably aren’t that committed to properly progressing this matter any time. I think there are politicians who are keen to make significant improvements, but, as they say, timing is everything.)
March 16, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Iain Hall
Hi Nigel
I read a lot of blogs and I seek out those with a different point of view to my own because I like to be challenged when it comes to what I read, it gets the old gray cells working 😉
If we are realistic about what value the law has when it comes to marriage it is often really about having some protocols about inheritance and or the distribution of jointly held assets should the union be dissolved for any reason at all, even with the protection of legislation these issues are horribly divisive for heterosexual couples as anyone who has dealt with the family court will attest.
Of course no one wants to go into a relationship with a “dissolution plan” in place but I do think that the parties to any relationship , Gay or straight should have the conversation about the nuts and bolts of how property ownership ect should be structured, just what is to be held separately and what is to held in common. I suppose what I am saying in around about way is no matter what the law says you have to work these things out yourself any way even if you are straight and married.
March 16, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi again Iain, good point about reading unlike-minded blogs for the challenge. I must take that up. I also take your point that any couple should make decisions about how their relationship works. But I fail to see how one type of relationship – i.e. straight – should have legal protections where another type of relationship – i.e. gay – should not have those legal protections. Unless we want to live in a society where some are more equal than others?
March 16, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Mwa
I’m glad to say that’s one thing Belgium has got right. We now have marriage equality, and not a moment too soon (we’ve had it only since 2003). The one gay wedding I’ve been to so far was exactly like any other wedding I’ve been to. Present, dressing up, garden party, quibbling family. I never got married myself for the dress or anything – it was more to do with getting the admin sorted so that we were each other’s next of kin. I’m so glad my gay friends can finally have that, too. For the children, and for their own further life. I ramble. You were right – that’s all.
March 16, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Mwa, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone getting married ‘ to get the admin sorted’. But I know what you mean – it’s the practical stuff that’s important. Plus you make the whole gay-marriage thing look so….LOGICAL!
March 20, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Mwa
Well, obviously we were in love and everything. 🙂 And I did have a gorgeous dress. But I’d have been quite happy to carry on in sin. It’s the whole “who gets called if you go into hospital” thing, you know? And joint medical insurance. Boring, but important to get sorted, right?
March 18, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Iain Hall
I am all for providing Gay couples with equivalent protections in law as those enjoyed by straights Nigel, I just do not think that it has to be called a marriage or that such unions have to come under the remit of the marriage act.
March 18, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Hi again Iain. So ‘marriage’ is for straight people and ‘civil union’ is for gay people? Why don’t we leave the former for what can happen in a church and the latter for what happens in secular society? So the Marriage Act, a secular instrument, becomes the Civil Union Act and is for everyone…
March 20, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Mar
Nigel Featherstone
Mwa, thanks for dropping in again. I’m glad it was all about marriage, and gorgeous dresses! Though I get the whole practical thing. I reckon that’s why lots of gay couples want a bit of a hand from the law as well – to make it a little easier if the relationship ends, especially if there are kids involved.