Musing on marriage...

| 3 Comments

Bobbi has written some interesting stuff about marriage.  Which got me thinking about what I signed up for when I got married.  As far as I'm concerned, the state only recorded my marriage, for a price.  And most of the day we got married was a ceremony.  Here is what actually made us married:  We signed a contract, with two witnesses.

The contract reads*:

On the first day of the week, the seventeenth day of the month of Elul, in the year five thousand seven hundred sixty, since the creation of the world, the era according to which we reckon here in the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, that Natan Chayyim son of Reuven and Simchah said to this virgin Sarah daughter of Herschel and Sarah:  "Be my wife according to the practice of Moses and Israel, and I will cherish, honor, support and maintain you in accordance with the custom of Jewish husbands who cherish, honor, support and maintain their wives faithfully. And I here present you with the marriage gift of virgins, two hundred silver zuzim, which belongs to you, according the the law of Moses and Israel; and I will also give you your food, clothing and necessities, and live with you as husband and wife according to universal custom." And Sarah daughter of Herschel, this virgin consented and became his wife. The trousseau that she brought to him from her father's house in silver, gold, valuables, clothing, furniture and bedclothes, all this Natan son of Reuven, the said bridegroom accepted in the sum of one hundred silver pieces, and Natan son of Reuven the bridegroom, consented to increase this amount from his own property with the sum of one hundred silver pieces, making in all two hundred silver pieces. And thus said Natan son of Reuven, the bridegroom: "The responsibility of this marriage contract, of this trousseau, and of this additional sum, I take upon myself and my heirs after me, so that they shall be paid from the best part of my property and possession that I have beneath the whole heaven, that which I now possess or may hereafter acquire. All my property, real and personal, even the shirt from my back, shall be mortgaged to secure the payment of this marriage contract, of the trousseau, and of the addition made to it, during my lifetime and after my death, from the present day and forever." Natan son of Reuven, the bridegroom, has taken upon himself the responsibility of this marriage contract, of the trousseau and the addition made to it, according to the restrictive usages of all marriage contracts and the additions to them made for the daughters of Israel, according to the institution of our sages of blessed memory. It is not to be regarded as a mere forfeiture without consideration or as a mere formula of a document. We have followed the legal formality of symbolic delivery (kinyan) between Natan Chayyim the son of Reuven and Simchah, the bridegroom and Sarah the daughter of Herschel and Sarah this virgin, and we have used a garment legally fit for the purpose, to strengthen all that is stated above, and everything is valid and confirmed.

Witness my hand: Hannah Chayah daughter of Tzvi and Tovah

Witness my hand: Harav Aharon son of Yirmiyahu** and Elkah

Damn straight she was a virgin.  She'd been to the mikveh and been revirginized.  (That's what she said, not me.  A man's job at a wedding is to shut up and soldier.  I shut up and soldiered.)

Anyway, my point is that the state can kiss my ass; I was married the moment I signed that parchment.  The ring I wear is a symbol.  My signature that day was my word of honor as a gentleman.

_______________

* Text from here.  No, our ketubah is not one of his.

** I think.  I'm having trouble reading the Rabbi's written Hebrew, sorry.

3 Comments

Spot on, Nathan. people who actually understand marriage understand that it is the commitment people make to one another that sanctifies it, either in or out of the context of one's faith. And that commitment is what is important regardless of sexual orientation among the consenting.

The State should have nothing to do with any of it. Allowing the state to intrude in the first place was a bad idea, and allowing the state to redefine the meaning of the word to accommodate a vanishingly small portion of the populous is just trouble, no different than making gun laws that accommodate the desires of a few and ignore the many.

Anyone who doesn't understand this simple fact has no business being married, period.

Leave a comment

Archives

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID
Powered by Movable Type 5.2.9