Friday, October 22, 2010

Solo marriage: the next battle?

I've been saying for years that after the whole gay "marriage" thing, this would be next (hat tip: Far Above Rubies):

(Reuters) - Chen Wei-yih has posed for a set of photos in a flowing white dress, enlisted a wedding planner and rented a banquet hall for a marriage celebration with 30 friends.

But there is no groom. Chen will marry herself.

Uninspired by the men she's met but facing social pressure to get married, the 30-year-old Taipei office worker will hold the reception next month in honour of just one person.

"Age thirty is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven't found a partner, so what can I do?" Chen said.

"It's not that I'm anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition." [...]

Taiwanese women are marrying later and less often as their economic status advances, fuelling government concerns about a drop in the birth rate and its impact on productivity.

Only 40 percent of women surveyed earlier this year by the education ministry said they imagined married people could live better than singles, local media said.

"I was just hoping that more people would love themselves," said Chen, who will go on a solo honeymoon to Australia.

Of course, the "bride" can't register her "marriage" to herself, and will have to marry again if she finds a man--but that's just because our bigoted binormative assumptions frown on the idea of single marriage. After all, as this courageous woman says, why shouldn't people love themselves? Why do you have to have a partner to be married?

There's no reason at all, of course, if you're one of those people who thinks that marriage is simply a way for people to express their love. There's no reason at all for it to involve two and only two people. If marriage can be two men or two women, then there is absolutely no logical reason why it can't be one man or one woman, or four or five of each, or a mixed combination of twenty or so brides and grooms all sharing a house, the wedding gifts, and each other.

Because, you see, we've been told time and time again that marriage has nothing to do with the heterosexual relationship between one man and one woman who intend to engage in a certain act that is overwhelmingly likely the vast majority of the time to produce new people sooner or later. No, marriage is all about love and feelings. And if a woman like Chen Wei-yih truly loves herself and plans to enjoy her own company while taking romantic solo walks in Australia, only the coldest, cruelest bigot would tell her she isn't really "married" at all...

...right, gay "marriage" supporters? I dare any of you to oppose this--without simply making the bigoted assumption that just because historically and traditionally marriage has involved at least two people, that it has to stay that way.


Alisha De Freitas said...

Wow, I feel so honored! I was mentioned on your awesome blog! Yay! :-)

Red Cardigan said...

Alisha: :) !

I read your blog every day. You're an excellent writer.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

For that matter, why shouldn't a man marry his dog, or his car, or his favorite tree in the yard? Or why shouldn't a woman?

You are right that marriage has a defined meaning, and if it has no definition, then it is nothing at all.

Of course if the "bride" is facing traditional pressure from parents and aunts and uncles that she "must find a man," her parody is understandable. She may not have the option to consider a "single life in the world," without pressing for it.

L. said...

I see nothing to oppose here. Frankly, it sounds like an excuse for a party to me.

She won't have to change the name on her driver's license, and she is already receiving all of her insurance benefits --- how inconvenient!

Of course, if she falls in love with someone else, she should be free to divorce herself, and marry the other person. Seems only fair.