Wallener

I disagree with that. I have pretty concrete expectations on the behavior of my partner, and my partner has the same for me.

john proctor

Talk a little about how the execution of the marriage contract affects or alters those expectations.

Maybe you were completely joking about the fate of Divorce court, but if not, what do you think about the fact that you are subject to the same "penalty" if you are the cheater or the one cheated on?

Wallener

Not sure what you're asking. At the moment of marriage offer-acceptance, the level of the expectations goes up dramatically. It goes up again when the marriage is legally performed and it goes public, so to speak.

That's one of the most insightful questions I've seen on IIDB in a long time. IMO No-Fault divorce is the wrong answer to a very legitimate problem.

john proctor

It seems to me that the ceremony is a rubber stamp. Why did you feel (Reign disagreed) your expectations changed upon repeating words in a ceremony? Whay was your psychological basis for altering your expectations at that moment?

That's what I am asking.

IsItJustMe

Maybe this is my revenge for having my topic hopelessly derailed somewhere else. I don't know. But:

I have two lesbian friends who consider themselves married to one another despite that they legally can't be where they live. They even had a ceremony, though of course there was no license. In other places, you can sometimes (I'm not sure of the details) get married without a ceremony by what's called a common law marriage.

To my friends and to many people in common law marriages marriage must define a different sort of relationship. And this relationship would then exist independently of its recognition or not by the law.

This idea appeals very deeply to me, to be honest.

john proctor

What idea? Common law marriage, or the idea that marriage should be without legal significance?

IsItJustMe

Neither one. The idea that marriage exists outside of whether it is or is not legally recognized, that it is a relationship between two people which is sometimes sanctioned by a government and other times not.

john proctor

I am at a loss to put that in a practical context. Could you give me a scenario where that idea would come into play?

IsItJustMe

A practical scenario... OK. This is the easiest one I can think of. Let's say a man and a woman lived in the South in 1950. They had a marriage ceremony, but one of them was black and the other white, and therefore the marriage was not recognized by the state in which they lived. Legally they were two single people.

Now, a lot of women today object to being called Mrs., and keep their "maiden" names, and so on. And I understand that, but on the other hand, I figure if a woman wants to be called "Mrs." and her husband's last name, that's her business as well. So let's say this woman would like to be called "Mrs." and her husband's last name.

So how do you address the Christmas card? If they're not married, the logical way would be Ms. (or Miss) such and such and Mr. so and so, but if they are, it would be Mrs. and Mr. (or Mr. and Mrs. -- whatever) so and so. Right?

Wallener

An obligation made in public carries more weight than an obligation made in private. A union of individuals into a family doesn't affect only the immediate participants, it brings the weight of two extended families into the mix. This obviously becomes less relevent in situations where there are neither familial nor societal impediments to ending marriages.