Coming
Soon!
From Common Courage Press
Recent
Stories
June
27, 2003
Jason
Leopold
CIA: Seven Months Prior to 9/11 Iraq
Posed No Threat to US
David
Lindorff
The Catch and Release of "Comical
Ali"
Ray McGovern
Cheney, Forgery and the CIA
June
26, 2003
Sen.
Robert Byrd
The Road of Cover-Up is a Road to Ruin
Jason
Leopold
Wolfowitz Instructed the CIA to Investigate
Hans Blix
Paul
de Rooij
Ambient Death in Palestine
Chris Floyd
Mass Graves and Burned Meat in Bush's New Iraq
Elaine
Cassel
Wolfowitz as Lord High Executioner
CounterPunch
Wire
Musicians Unite Against Sweatshops
Sheldon
Hull
Squatting in Mansions
Ben Tripp
A Guide to Hating Almost Anyone
Uri
Avnery
The Best Show in Town
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/25
Website
of the Day
Ordinary Vistas:
The Photographs of Kurt Nimmo
June
25, 2003
Bruce
Jackson
Buffalo Cops Wage War on Pedal Pushers
Mickey
Z.
The New Dark Ages
David Lindorff
Indonesia's War on Journalists
Dan
Bacher
Butterflies and Farmworkers Confront USDA and Riot Cops
Adam Federman
"Success is Not the Issue Here"
Elaine
Cassel
"Ain't No Justice": Fed Judge Quits, Assails Sentencing
Guidelines
Bill Kauffman
My America vs. the Empire
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/25
Website
of the Day
You Are Being Watched:
Elevator Moods
June
24, 2003
Elaine
Cassel
Supreme Indemnity
Holocaust Denial at the High Court
Roya
Monajem
A Message from Tehran: Is It Worth
It to Risk One's Life?
John
Chuckman
The Real Clash of Civilizations
David Lindorff
WMD Damage Control at the Times
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/24
June
23, 2003
Marc
Pritzke
Washington Lied: an Interview with
Ray McGovern
Conn
Hallinan
The Consistency of Sharon
Wayne Madsen
Commercials, Disney & Amistad
Edward
Said
The Meaning of Rachel Corrie
Steve Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/23
June
21 / 22, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
My Life as a Rabbi
William
A. Cook
The Scourge of Hopelessness
Standard
Schaefer
The Wages of Terror: an Interview with R.T. Naylor
Ron Jacobs
US Prisons as Strategic Hamlets
Harry
Browne
The Pitstop Ploughshares
Lawrence
Magnuson
WMD: The Most Dangerous Game
Harold
Gould
Saddam and the WMD Mystery
David Krieger
10 Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Avia
Pasternak
The Unholy Alliance in the Occupied Territories
CounterPunch
Summer Reading:
Our Favorite Novels
Todd Chretien
Return to Sender: Todd Gitlin, the Duke of Condescension
Maria
Tomchick
Danny Goldberg's Imaginary Kids
Adam Engel
The Fat Man in Little Boy
Poets'
Basement
Guthrie, Albert & Hamod
June 20, 2003
Walter
Brasch
Down on Our Knees
Robert
Meeropol
The Son of the Rosenbergs on His Parents Death and Bush's America
Russell
Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Grannies and Baby Bells
Norman
Madarasz
Pierre Bourgault: the Life of a
Quebec Radical
Gary
Leupp
Bush on "Revisionist Historians"
Steve
Perry
Bush's Lies
Marathon: the Finale
Hot Stories
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
June
28, 2003
The Anarchists' Wedding
Guide
11
Reasons Not to Go Through with It
By
ADRIEN RAIN BURKE
1. THE CEREMONY
Besides costing enough to feed a village
in Madagascar, the traditional wedding ceremony is a conglomeration
of ancient leftovers from every culture we've destroyed, absorbed,
aped, or inherited on the way to our present pinnacle of enlightenment.
The wedding party, the ring, little things
like the placement of large numbers of ceremonial people around
the altar where the joinery is executed--all symbols: remnants
of forgotten cultural baggage--much of it quite unpleasant. The
ring--wasn't it originally on the bride's ankle? All those people--weren't
they really guards?? Marriage by capture, marriage by treaty,
marriage by arrangement, marriage by purchase: it's all there,
silent, deadly, in the "modern" wedding.
The gown is white -for virginity--but
the only virgin likely to show up at this shindig is the flower
girl. Even in the fifties (which idealized virgins) a virgin
bride was rare. Now she may actually be in need of surgery. In
fact, most couples have been living together--very sensibly--for
two or three years, and have decided under societal pressure
to abandon the ecstasy of illicit love for the mundane and lasting
materialistic joys of joint checking accounts and tax returns.
But some of the symbolism is more sinister.
The veil, covering and hiding the bride's face, is a token of
the woman's former submerged status in law. The fact that she
is "given in marriage" by a male relative signifies
her lack of autonomy.
Stripped of its burden of sentimentality,
this is quite clearly a device by which the ownership of the
female in question is transferred from her father to her husband.
The starry-eyed, deluded bride has been seduced by yards of tulle
over satin and re-embroidered lace (I am familiar with such details
because I used to write stories for the wedding page) into thinking
she is the Star of the drama rather than the sacrificial lamb
or object of sale.
2. THE CONTRACT
At first glance it may seem a very romantic
thing: two lovers so reckless of the outcome of their passion
that they are ready to sign a contract that neither of them has
even seen. But wait! The author of the document is not Cupid
or Venus, not their own families, not even God. This contract
my darlings is drawn up by The State. But there is more--a lot
more.
This contract is subject to change. Should
you decide to visit a less enlightened country, your status could
be reduced to chattel and your legal rights nil. But you don't
have to go that far--your marriage contract may be radically
altered if you merely relocate to another state, and even if
you stay put, its terms are subject to every political wind that
capers through.
For instance, when I got married, women
were quite literally the legal subjects of their husbands, even
when the ceremony didn't include the traditional woman's vow
of obedience to her new lord and master (which vow was never
imposed on the man of the house). I won't recount the marriage
laws of that bygone era, but when I got divorced fifteen years
later, all had changed--radically. Now it so happens that I approve
of most of those changes--but what if it had gone in another
direction? I would have been subject to the terms of a contract
I'd never even been consulted on.
Outrageous.
3. THE LICENSE
License to WHAT??? This may be just another
bureaucratic ruse for getting a $4 dollar fee out of us, but
I see no reason to grant the State the privilege of permission
in this matter. After all, if I allow them the right to say "yes"
to my choice of partners, am I not also granting them the power
(at least theoretically) to say "no?" And just why
does the State take such an interest in the intimatelives of
its citizens, anyway? No! I don't want to tell them who I'm sleeping
with, and I'd be infinitely happier if I never had to hear another
word about their sordid, overpublicized sex lives, thank you!
4. THE VOW
Consider for a moment just the WORDS:
For better or worse? Till death do us part? A simply-worded questionnaire
would determine just how many people were seriously prepared
to stay married to an abusive, drunken slob, an habitual gambler,
a victim of multiple personality disorder.
Very few.
In fact, you don't need a questionnaire;
just look at the divorce statistics. But they all take the oath,
because a real oath, one which allowed for all the sad possibilities
still recited in places where one must show "cause"
to get a divorce, would make a mockery of the ceremony.
The simple fact is that 50% if those
marrying in America today will get divorced--many for reasons
far more vague and of less consequence than the sickness and
poverty they solemnly swore to stick through. And that easy lie
cheapens their sacred oath, and cheapens all of our oaths.
5. THE NAME THING
I don't remember when I agreed to changing
my name on marriage. I wasn't asked. I signed nothing to that
effect, I'm sure of it. It wasn't in the ceremony. But it happened
anyway. And the horrible part is I liked my "maiden"
name. It was a nice name, I liked the sound of it and it connected
me to a large group of people much friendlier to me than my in-laws.
Now I would back the almost-lost common
law right to change one's name--but that isn't what happens when
a woman marries. She is quite eradicated, and to make it worse,
her proper name is now Mrs. John Something, or Mrs. Harold Whatsis.
What was so terrible about her first name that it had to be submerged
under some masculine appellation? Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued
that this de-naming of women on marriage was very like the naming
of slaves in the south, who had no surnames of their own. No
I am quite adamant on this point. After thousands of years of
women changing their names when they marry, it is definitely
THEIR TURN.
6. THE HUSBAND
A "husband" is the keeper of
livestock, and I don't have any.
7.THE MORALITY
Now don't laugh--morality can be inserted
into any argument on any side: that's the chief usefulness of
morality. Mary Wollstonecraft argued possionately that the married
state led to immorality. She and her lover Godwin lived in separate
apartments and managed to produce two children without indulging
in whatever immoral acts she feared might result from marriage,
so she ought to know.
8. THE DIVORCE
It's crude to mention it, but splits
happen. When it happened to me, I elected to "do" my
own divorce (which is one of the things Californians "do"
besides lunch). Had my employer not unwittingly contributed the
copying and the time I spent typing the forms, I probably wouldn't
have saved much over the cost of a lawyer. Everything seemed
to require at least five copies and if a sentence was minutely
different--not different in meaning or incorrect in syntax, just
different--from the current form, only a complete retyping of
the form would do.
I had married in my teens, and all I
remember being asked was whether I did or didn't. Now here I
was in my thirties--all grown up and far better qualified to
know my own mind and look out for my interests; you'd think they'd
have taken my word for it that this marriage was history--but
no, suddenly the welfare of all concerned was the intimate business
of government!
A "divorce" in my present
situation would require little more than a packing of bags. No
sneaky serving of summonses, no "petitioning" the court,
like a beggar, rather than an autonomous being. No legal fees
to further encumber the partners. No testifying against
whatever has come to pass--a person one once loved. The property
settlement would be made while one partner was elsewhere--and
probably would be as fair as many that require a court date,
the serving of papers and a detachment of lawyers. Justice is
no more a function of present-day law than animal rights are
in a slaughterhouse.
9. THE CHILDREN
If a marriage produces children, just
think of the shock produced by divorce--especially when the child
never considered the possiblity. Then consider the trauma produced
by the tensions between bitterly warring parents who stubbornly
will not divorce for "the sake of the children." Ponder
the pain produced by miserably mated parents who would never
even consider divorce!
You see?
Childhood is inherently traumatic and
this may well explain the sorry state of the world. Further,
most of us are the products of this existential trauma, and our
children are destined to suffer however desperately we try to
avoid it. Even if we manage to give our children a perfect and
idyllic childhood--imagine the trauma when they discover the
truth about life. Perhaps we should instead prepare our kids
for the rough and tumble reality, by letting them know that their
parents are delightfully living in sin, and there are no certainties,
except that we will always love them. (And that will be difficult
enough when they're fifteen.)
10. A NUMERICAL PROBLEM
I am very suspicious of any important
list that ends in Ten. Too pat. The Ten Commandments and the
first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights)
both suffer from a certain ambiguity between the ninth and tenth
items, which has given rise to a great deal of ridiculous--and
expensive in the second case--speculation as to their intent.
Clearly, each of these noble lists should have ended in nine!
No, I will not end this list with ten just to achieve a round
number or because the human race is endowed with ten fingers
to count upon! To do so may be an invitation to great mischief.
If you want to memorize my arguments, I suggest that 11 is as
good a mnemonic device as 10. Deal with it.
11. THE ROMANCE
In the twenty-eight years my lover and
I have been sharing quarters, we've been asked some pretty silly
questions, like (to HIM) "When are you going to make an
honest woman of her?" To this I take extreme umbrage; I
have not lied about our lack of marital status (at least, no
more than he has). Or, "Are you afraid of commitment?"
The answer is no, we are committed to staying together for love--not
property, or convention, or because the State or Church demands
the appearance of fidelity. But the most important one that has
come up from time to time is: "Are you afraid of losing
the romance?" Well, I like to think that our relationship
could survive even such a blow as marriage, but who'd want to
take a chance on a thing like that?
Adrien Rain Burke can be reached at: eandubh@pacificnet.net
Weekend
Edition Features
Alexander
Cockburn
My Life as a Rabbi
William
A. Cook
The Scourge of Hopelessness
Standard
Schaefer
The Wages of Terror: an Interview with R.T. Naylor
Ron Jacobs
US Prisons as Strategic Hamlets
Harry
Browne
The Pitstop Ploughshares
Lawrence
Magnuson
WMD: The Most Dangerous Game
Harold
Gould
Saddam and the WMD Mystery
David Krieger
10 Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Avia
Pasternak
The Unholy Alliance in the Occupied Territories
CounterPunch
Summer Reading:
Our Favorite Novels
Todd Chretien
Return to Sender: Todd Gitlin, the Duke of Condescension
Maria
Tomchick
Danny Goldberg's Imaginary Kids
Adam Engel
The Fat Man in Little Boy
Poets'
Basement
Guthrie, Albert & Hamod
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|