a Buddhist view of marriage
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
Today, reading a BBC essay that delves into the reasons, reasoning, and irritation with the tradition of married women assuming their husband's names, it crossed my mind that a similar thoughtfulness might be focused on the tradition of marriage.
Does marriage live up to the sometimes startling, sometimes rich ritual that can surround it? Is it indeed a religious event or is it more a social pastime? Is the ritual of marriage more decorative and coercive or does it play a more serious role? Goodness knows weddings are often heedlessly expensive. Taking vows someone else confected ... how sensible is that? Is such a set of vows uplifting or demeaning in the end?
I wondered what a Buddhist might think of marriage.
For myself, I have more questions than answers.
Comments
I think frankly, the traditional ceremony of marriage, as originally proposed by theistic religious establishments and traditions, is seriously out of date, and needs hauling into the 21st century. Much (in my opinion) needs review, from the giving of an engagement ring, right up to the giving away of the bride during the ceremony. The ceremony is steeped in patriarchal order, and definitely slanted AGAINST the woman's contribution.
I heard Chris de Burgh on Radio 2 this morning, speaking of his daughter's wedding, which was conducted as a Humanist ceremony. In other words, she and her spouse, created their own ceremony. More and more people are writing their own vows and adapting new techniques, so when it comes to personal choice, things are evolving.
Insofar as Buddhism is concerned, while I have heard, time and time again, that Buddhism HAS no specific, designated ceremony for such an event, again, many Buddhists are co-operating with specific Buddhist Lamas, Gurus, Masters, Monks, Priests (call them what you will) to create something significant for themselves, but such a tradition has not existed, as far as I know, and is beyond the normal remit of Buddhist tradition and doctrine.
I never intended to get married again, and was quite contented to continue co-habiting with my husband. But it was upon his insistence, and he cited one or two financial advantages, so we went ahead. As mercenary as that sounds, until British law actually RECOGNISES "Common Law" relationships as completely valid in their own right, (there is no such thing as a 'common law relationship', in Law) such attitudes and options exist. as I said, it needs updating....
Thanks @federica ... good stuff.
Marriage is a religious event only if you want it to be. I've never regarded it that way. "Coercive"?? I don't know what you mean. Could you elaborate? Weddings are heedlessly expensive only for those who chose to make them that way. It's a choice, not a requirement. I don't know anyone who took vows someone else wrote. Couples have been writing their own vows since the 60's or 70's. Why would the vows be demeaning? You'll need to explain some of these points before I can comment.
I don't think you mean "marriage" in your OP. You mean "weddings", right? Marriage isn't a ritual, it's a state of being two people agree to share. It's an institution, not a ceremony. Weddings are a rite of passage, like the rites some cultures have to mark the transition from childhood to adulthood or child-bearing age.
Some traditional cultures didn't mark the transition from single to married at all. A couple just decided to live together, and that was that. So it is what you want to make of it. In our society, couples have choices; they can either live without making the co-habitation official before the State, or they can register a marriage with state authorities. Those who want a religious component or some kind of ceremonial marking of the transition in their lives can involve a church or hold a ceremony wherever they want, in whatever manner they choose. It's been pretty common since the 70's for people to devise their own ceremonies and vows. I feel oddly like there's some kind of generation gap between the OP and me, lol!
In the US, who is authorized to officiate at a wedding varies by state. Colorado allows couples to be their own wedding officiants. Some states allow friends or relatives of the couple to officiate, after getting a temporary court authorization. Judges are allowed to conduct weddings, and in some states, any elected official can. Some states allow any notary public to conduct a wedding. There's a lot of room for creativity, these days.
Regarding taking of the man's last name. I've wondered what happens when someone who keeps both names and hyphenates them, like Smith-Jones, marries another person with a dual last name, do they become Smith-Jones-Cooper-Beck?
My point is there seems some kind of practical aspect to adopting a single name.
I also know a married couple where the woman simply kept her last name.
Marriage has never been a religious act to me. I have never had the two concepts of God and marriage fused into my head. Or any spiritual belief set. In fact, I find I'm unable to 'marry' the two :buck: when I try to think of it that way. I know plenty of people can and do. I haven't thought about it in quite this way?
I think the taking-the-husband's-last-name thing fell into disfavor for a very long time, at least around the West Coast. None of the women I knew as a teen have changed their names after marriage. Not even to hyphenate their name. Maybe it's coming back as a trend, or maybe in conservative parts of the US women still change their names. But one reason women don't is that if they're already established in a career by the time they marry, and have publications or some kind of public professional reputation, they want to keep their professional name.
In Europe, (Italy and France, definitely) a woman is expected to retain her last name for official purposes, because it makes tracing families, and generating an accurate genealogy, in the case of inheritance matters.
a Buddhist view of marriage
Second Noble Truth "The cause of suffering" .
..
Ooh that's smart. Family trees are a pain here.
I think a lifelong partnership is a great thing when partners can learn to live with their inevitable differences. Not only does being alone just plain sucks in my book, but having another person(s) in one's everyday life is enriching in a way that is not obvious to someone who hasn't had such an experience. To be a fully living human I feel that I need to form lasting bonds with others (even though I imagine that is possible outside of a romantic relationship as well-- it's just that our society doesn't readily offer such an alternative).
As for the ceremonies, those are just not my cup of tea. Ours was secular, in a government office. It was followed by a nice lunch with less than a dozen people there. I wasn't even wearing a suit!
The interesting part doesn't even begin until a few years after, when the initial idealism has worn off and the real work begins. When you realize that your suffering has a deeper root than having or not having a special someone and that no one or nothing outside of you can take it away.
Question: When a couple has different last names what name do their children usually take?
Good question. Hard to find out for sure but here's a quote from one source:
http://www.babble.com/baby-name-articles/last-word-on-last-names/
Thanks @Toraldris making up a new last name for your child seems really strange to me, I wonder if anyone has actually done that? Someone, somewhere probably.
@person I know entire families have changed their surnames, especially if they were immigrants and wanted to fit in better (or had names unpronounceable to American speakers). I'm not sure if it's legal to just name your child anything you want; the last name likely still has to be the same as the mother's, father's, or a hyphenated combination of both. Of course there are legal actions you can take to change them.
Religion never had anything to do with our marriage, or our decision to get married. It was a decision we made for family/financial/decision stability. We did our own vows, we were married by a friend who got his license to marry on the internet. We had 20 people at our wedding and got married on a rooftop. The entire affair, from engagement ring to honeymoon suite cost $1200. And it was glorious. I'd never do a wedding any other way. Not that I plan to marry again, but you never know where life takes you. I was not a Buddhist at the time we married, so I can't answer from that point of view. I only knew it was a decision we made, and it had nothing to do with needing blessings from God or anyone else. No one gave me away, I'm not property after all. Not trying to cause offense, but the full Catholic mass weddings are the most amount of social torture I can imagine, and I cannot fathom why anyone chooses them, lol. I despise being the center of attention and would have preferred a courthouse wedding, but we had to throw the parents something, lol.
I don't think marriage is a cause of suffering any more than anything else. It's just how you choose to view it and your relationship. Its' not being married that brings on suffering, it's attachment like anything else. People get attached to their spouses, but they also get even more so attached to the idea of what the perfect marriage looks like, and worse yet, the perfect wedding. Marriage doesn't have to mean unhealthy attachments. Buddhism has strengthened my relationship with my children and my husband and I don't find any questions or conflict within the joining of the 2 whatsoever right now. I've had questions pop up in the past that resolved themselves. Most of the time my perceived problems are the result of my over thinking, as usual.
They either give kids hyphenated last names or the kids take the father's last name.
Marriage is a sensible thing if there is some restriction before and after marriage on physical relation. If society has no rules and there is uncontrolled act of multiple relation then marriage have no sense in that society.
Even in over liberal society marriage occurs then they might break very easily..
Marriage is very divine if both of persons married are deserving and happily committed to each other.
My wife didn't change her name! She only uses her 'married' name to escape from certain things in life! And it works well for her and me as well!!!!!
Family trees are a pain everywhere.
We had always thought my greatgrandmother's surname was Northern Italian as my greatgrandfather's (it begins Gh-), but thanks to internet we found out it was Arabian (either from Lebanon or Argel), in all likelihood of Jewish stock.
My grandfather's surname was English, but apparently from Englishmen who have settled in Ireland since the 17th century.
My father's surname (therefore mine) is French Basque.
His maternal grandmother was American Indian.
As to the names, in Argentina, a woman never loses her maiden last name.
You only add the husband's name with the preposition "de."
So, in Argentina I am: Name + Maiden Last Name + de + Husband's Last Name.
In Switzerland, you traditionally lose your maiden last name, or add it hyphenated at the end of your husband's.
So, in Switzerland I am: Name + Husband's Last Name + - + Maiden Last Name.
I think in my next life, I'll just go by the name of 'Fido'.....
@DhammaDragon - that made my night in a way I can't ever put down in words! Life is complicated. STOP!
The disadvantages of being born in a melting-pot...
I don't know of a society where there's no restriction on sexual relations after marriage. So that pretty much takes care of it. There has to be easy divorce, so women (or anyone) can escape abusive situations. Marriage shouldn't be a trap, a prison.