Happily ever before and after

Posted on | April 7, 2010 | 13 Comments

Yesterday we met our wedding celebrant for the first time. We were a bit nervous beforehand. So far the celebrant plans have fallen through twice. My sister in law’s mother was first to be asked, but unfortunately illness means she can’t risk traveling to the wedding. Then after a trip home to Tassie last year my cousin mentioned that his partner had a niece in Townsville… who was also a celebrant!! This seemed too good to be true, and ultimately it was. In February the second celebrant called to say she was pregnant with the baby due very close to the wedding day. Her doctor advised her to pull out, so now we have a local recommendation.

I was nervous before the meeting because in the past fortnight I’d only just realised the extent of the Howard Government’s changes to the Family Law Act. I knew the laws had been amended, but I didn’t realise that every marriage celebrant in Australia must now use this formulation in the service itself for the wedding to be legitimate:

Before you are joined in marriage in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter. Marriage according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

I felt a bit sick when I read this the other day. I’ve been to marriage equality rallies and I’ve taught same-sex entitlements in class. But I’d avoided reading guidebook examples which show the legal requirements in detail. I only discovered the true force of the stipulation in my friend Michelle’s beautiful memoir of her marriage to Heather in Canada. (Michelle’s book, Ghost Wife, shows the implications of these words in the most vivid love story that reaches across couples, families, countries and generations. It needs a publisher if you know one!)

Yesterday we asked the celebrant if we could add some of our own words before the compulsory part of the service to make it clear that we don’t agree with the new statement. I figured this might be better than inviting guests to “boo” after the final line (?). I shouldn’t have been so surprised that politicians would feel entitled to dictate love’s terms to advance the interests of the nation: after all, I have read Lauren Berlant’s work for many years. I suppose what I do find shocking is the extent of the joylessness in the formal processes around marriage – as opposed to the pervasive optimism of its spin-off industries.

Take this, for example. Happily Ever Before & After is the booklet issued to couples by celebrants on behalf of the Attorney General. It lists “things you need to know” about marriage, including health and welfare benefits, taxation, making a will, and joint ownership of assets. It also has a services section listing counseling resources “before marriage”, “during” and “after breakdown of marriage”. The narrative suggests a certain inevitability to these stages – despite the larger heading: “Marriage is important”.

That this depressing account welcomes all couples who are well and truly in the process of planning a wedding encapsulates the contradiction at the heart of federal attempts to define marriage in exclusionary terms. To put it simply: those who seek to protect marriage from external threats freely admit its precarity is internal. It is in the formal documentation! How else might we explain state-sanctioned campaigns that warn: “unless your marriage is carefully nurtured there is a high risk it will end in divorce”? The patronising tone that warns lovers that their actions “should not be taken lightly” (another line in the compulsory ceremony book) is the weakest form of moral guidance in a society that claims secularism but actively promotes ideology.

Last year I tried to shock my students with statistics to show them that, going on numbers, and the average length of marriages, staying married to one person for life was one of the more radical things they might accomplish. The wonder on their faces as they realised they may not have to give up on love to be political! So, whatever words we choose to say in July, it is this objective we will have in mind. It will be to demonstrate a binding union with our many friends who question the wisdom and power of self-appointed guardians protecting an institution that cannot win its own ideal recruits.

Category: Marriage, Politics

Comments

13 Responses to “Happily ever before and after”

  1. Kylie
    April 8th, 2010 @ 10:35 am

    Well said, Mel, did your celebrant agree? I do wonder how ‘compulsory’ it actually is though to include it — at our wedding the celebrant did not, and he also married my sister-in-law and it was not in their service either… And I have the certificate to prove that my marriae is legitimate!!…unless they subpoena the video…!? :-)

    I know Michelle went to a wedding where it was included, though the celebrant added a disclaimer. It was that experience that prompted us to request directly of the celebrant to not include it, and he didn’t. He is based in Cleveland. Can get you his number if you like!

  2. Michelle
    April 8th, 2010 @ 10:40 am

    Thanks for that, Mel. Your final paragraph makes me think we might have come to some of the same conclusions about marriage. And perhaps about boldness, too.

  3. melgregg
    April 8th, 2010 @ 11:59 am

    Kylie, thanks for this–when was your wedding, just to clarify when the changes may have come in to effect? I should also mention that I am now seriously considering becoming a celebrant as a result of all this, to get a better grasp of these complexities.

  4. Kiley
    April 8th, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

    We had to say this in ours too Mel. That whole process is weird because it forces you to rethink your relationship on someone else’s terms. For us it was made lighter by the fact that we had been together ten years, had two children and mortgage. Exactly what part of solemnity we hadn’t already understood seemed mysterious to us and we both wondered out loud to our celebrant how our respective genders could possibly impact said solemnity. I can’t even remember saying it to be honest, but i can remember singing a Whitney medley afterward. I highly recommend following the Howard medicine with a little bit of honey!

  5. Kristian
    April 8th, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

    Well, this is strange, discussing celebrants and weddings with my supervisor :)

    But yeah, I totally understand your anger/frustration with this bullshit!

    Not sure if you read it or not, but a few weeks ago I posted on my LJ and Facebook about exactly the same issue. In short Frances and I decided we’d have the wedding we wanted but we wouldn’t sign the papers at the end. This way we can say whatever the hell we like, our celebrant says she will give us a special commitment certificate if we want one so we have something to sign on the day. Sure, we’re not lawfully married, but the lawful part is the least interesting. What makes it special is the declaration of marriage within a community of friends and family. Furthermore, no stupid pamphlets to deal with! I didn’t know about those! How ridiculous. Like people might accidentally get married?

  6. Kylie
    April 8th, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

    It was August 2007. I believe the ‘howard vows’ were in force, but our celebrant assured us we could adjust them!

  7. Dally Messenger III
    April 8th, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

    Hi Kylie
    I am one the original celebrants appointed by Lionel Murphy. Even in those days he loathed those words considering them boring and sexist.

    He exempted every celebrant he appointed from saying them — a practice which continued to early this century.

    The Registrar of Marriages, a public servant appointed in 2003 with statutory powers, which were once the prerogative of the Minister has made saying these oftentimes offensive words compulsory — subject to disciplinary action against the celebrant.

    Celebrancy is a mess. We have gone from 1600 Celebrants in 2003 ( too many) to over 10,000 now. Most of them are pretty ignorant having gained their “certificate” in a two-day course which taught them next to nothing. They never will have knowledge or skills because there is not enough weddings to go round, and no one is getting enough practice.

    I apologise to you. Murphy meant the wedding ceremony to be yours and to reflect your values. To us whose hold sacred the original ideals of the program, this is tragic.

    You may be interested to know that the eminent constitutional lawyer, Prof Michael Pryless, considers the saying of these words discriminatory and unconstitutional. You can find his legal opinion on my website –http://dallym.customer.netspace.net.au/Pgs-Articles/Pryles2.html –

    Dally Messenger

  8. melgregg
    April 8th, 2010 @ 8:47 pm

    Hi Kristian, I saw! It made me think hard about all this.

    Thank you Dally Messenger, for your comment. This background information is extremely helpful. The rise in the number of celebrants seems phenomenal – how are people explaining the sharp increase? I would like to find out more about this…

  9. Dally Messenger III
    April 9th, 2010 @ 11:25 am

    Hi Mel and Kylie and all,
    My colleague and concerned celebrant, Tony Gelme, wrote a “White paper” on the sick state of celebrancy which will give you a lot more information. You can find it on my website — http://dallym.customer.netspace.net.au/Pgs-Articles/Gelme-White.html — . He actually gave it to the Attorney-General personally, but my guess is that nobody read it.

    The authorities attempted to redress their mistake by bringing in a Certificate IV, but it is far too late to fix anything, andt has already been taken over by the Shonks family and the Dodgy Brothers.

    The Civil Marriage Celebrant Program is a unique Australian initiative, which brought dignity in ceremonies to non-church people. We were so proud of it – now we are near despair.

    Nevertheless there are some very good marriage and Funeral celebrants out there but you have to do some searching.

    One rule is. Avoid CHEAP celebrants. This is one area you get what you pay for.

  10. How do you buy a wedding ring? : home cooked theory
    April 25th, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

    [...] maybe I’m talking about more than rings here). Combined with other wedding preparations I’ve talked about here, I’m certainly worried about the parasitic relationship between love and commerce, and would [...]

  11. Michele
    April 29th, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

    Hi Mel

    I’ve been a celebrant for over 20 years and I know that part of the deal for being authorised is to follow the Marriage Act of 1961 to the letter. Likewise, it’s part of the deal if people choose to marry legally in Australia that the legal requirements must be met.

    When I’m asked to leave out the part about ‘between a man and a woman’ I explain that I am obliged to put it in. I get around the problem by saying ‘Marriage, according to current law in Australia, is the union….etc’ with emphasis on CURRENT.

    As I recall, both sides of parliament pushed for the compulsory mention of ‘a man and a woman’ in the recent amendments to the Act. I think Bob Browne was vocal against it but was rather a lone voice.

    As for “should not be taken lightly” (another line in the compulsory ceremony book) that you mention, I know nothing of this in civil ceremonies. It sounds like something from a church ceremony book.

    Just an aside here – it has always amused me that the leaflet ‘Happily Ever Before and After’ has an illustration on the cover of two wedding rings of identical size. Surely this would only apply in a same sex marriage?!

    In the legal requirements that authorised celebrants must meet, there are good things as well as the questionable one we’ve been discussing.

    Your celebrant would have given you a free DVD called ‘Taking the First Step’ and the small workbook that goes with it. This is a very good little package.

    Your celebrant would have recommended that you attend a pre-marriage education program and told you of the ones in your area that are approved as non-religious. They would have told you about Family Relationship Centres and their role in supporting Australian families of all configurations.

    Yes, there are legal requirements in your marriage ceremony but you have the freedom to add lots of input of your own. If your celebrant does not encourage you to put your own ceremony together in the way you’d like it, I suggest you do some more celebrant research.

    I’m a Canberra celebrant, with a blog about local weddings and weddings in general – and lots of gorgeous photos. The simplicity of getting married by a civil celebrant in Australia is wonderful I think, and I still believe I have the best job in the world.

  12. Bec Plumbe
    April 30th, 2010 @ 9:50 am

    Hi Mel,

    I got married about a month ago. Being supporters of same-sex marriage, we shared your concerns about this part of the ceremony. We knew that the “between a man and a woman” had to be in there, and wanted to counteract it somehow, but weren’t sure how to do so… well… elegantly. In a way that didn’t turn a happy occasion into something else. Even my friend Dave, who is gay and one of the key friends who keeps same-sex marriage events on my agenda – and was also our MC – wasn’t sure about saying something against that part. “Do you really want make it political? Invite John Howard into your wedding day?”, he asked.

    We decided we did. It would have been crappy to have our friends in same-sex partnerships standing there in front of us and hearing tacit support from us for their exclusion from the right to choose to marry.

    I don’t think that we managed “elegance”, but what we did worked well and I feel really good that we got our dissent in there! Here’s the wording we used:

    ====
    In Dave’s welcoming speech, there was this part (fairly subtle perhaps):
    “A wedding briefly makes the personal realm intensely public, in order to highlight an important decision made by two people. We believe marriage should be a choice, freely made, and an option available to all adults in our society.”

    And our celebrant later said:
    “Marriage, as most of us understand it, is the voluntary and full commitment of two people (or, as our former Prime Minister John Howard has legally required me to say, of a woman and a man).”
    ====

    The celebrant’s part was really nicely delivered and got a laugh from some of the crowd, which we were pleased about. :)

    —

    Re the governmental marriage pamphlets: There’s so much I could say, but I’ll try and keep it short and not hog your comments area! I didn’t get given them (oops), but in principle I think they’re a good thing. Marriage _is_ a legal agreement as well as a loving one. It’s important that people think about some of the practical side of things – and some of us do need that prompt (particularly women, historically speaking).

    Likewise counselling: it’s good to have the prompt that help is there, _before_ it’s needed. I guess this partly depends on seeing counselling as preventative rather than curative (or palliative!). Once we moved in together and decided we were really talking about the long-term, we went to a Relationships Australia course, “Prepare for a Lasting Relationship” ().

    It was fantastic, and I heartily recommend it to anyone. I feel slightly embarrassed to post about it in public, but then again – I shouldn’t be. I wanted to do whatever I could to help our relationship work well over the long term, especially having seen my parents’ relationship break up after 28 years together. Why not start with good tools for communication? One of which, I firmly believe, is agreeing together that good communication about your relationship is a joint goal (even when it’s uncomfortable) and setting aside time for it.

    ….But I’m getting carried away. Sorry. It’s just that all this stuff is still very top-of-mind for me at the moment! And it’s so interesting to hear someone else with similar questions to mine talking about it.

  13. Bec Plumbe
    April 30th, 2010 @ 9:59 am

    Hm – I meant to post a link to the RA course as well:

    Pre-marriage / Committed relationships courses for all states:
    http://www.relationships.com.au/what-we-do/services/pre-marriage

    The specific one we did, “Prepare for a lasting relationship”:
    http://www.relationships.com.au/courses/life_relationship_courses/new-south-wales/course_view?type=support&id=3595

Leave a Reply