marage

how does one understand marriage? through the fantasies perpetrated by society who can only deal with an ending that is happy ever after? Or do we better understand it through its marginalised other? Through what stands in prefect diametric opposition to marriage, by this i mean - DIVORCE.

My reply would be that Divorce says much more about the truth of marriage than marriage does. To look at marriage is to look at a photo album of the memories that deserved to be saved - because they are pure. While to look at divorce is to sort through a garbage bin of what has been made & pushed aside. and as we know truth is truly a filthy subject.

The image above is from a firm of divorce lawyers advertising their firm to potential clients. It made the head lines when the sign was taken down by the disgruntled individuals who rented out the sign. the entire debate in the press did not surround the horror of people taking down a sign. Rather, it focused on whether the sign's message was in good or bad taste (Given America's love of the freedom of speech this should be considered quite odd.)

The australian press did not deal with it much, the SMH inserted a piece t hat was very open to interpretation - the violation of art vs the violence of the human body. The US press took a more interesting approach & sought to get the condemnation from lawyers themselves. Not just any lawyers though, divorce lawyers. And why not, the statement the poster makes is one that the divorce lawyers have loved to hate - it is a picture that represents their existence.

For those who did not follow the link for the above debate - well it focused on the way that the poster cheapened divorce. **** as divorce lawyers explained "Divorce is traumatic enough without this kind of [advertising]. We try and help people go through the divorce process with as much integrity as possible. A lot of my work is helping people grieve the loss of a divorce, and their own sense of betrayal. This makes divorce seem like it's not a big deal, and it's a huge deal for many people".

Well here's the catch - When the marriage lawyers against the sign say 'we help people get through divorce with integrity' they implicitly remind us that divorce destroys integrity, no matter what the reason, no matter who is the perpetrator, it is humiliating to admit that your life choice was wrong. The poster brings the humiliation [sic] to the fore front, it show it for what it is. Marriage is a limit, and not a heaven. It is a limit to who you are or who you sleep with (by traditional standards). Is that the body that i could have? Or maybe the body i could be? Its a limit that you now transgress through divorce. Oh, how you should be ashamed. And yet at the same time divorced people out number happy one timer couples. It is an anxiety that we relate to. Some fear it. Others challenge it.

This fear stems from our notions of marriage. Marriage has integrity, divorce does not. Marriage is the implicit "correct-choice" while divorce is the implicit "inncorrect-accident" and as we know accidents are not by choice.

Divorce is a disavowal of marriage. Marriage is interpreted as sacred. (as the lawyer in the linked article states). If it is sacred then the idea of making a mistake is already a problematic one. So then if a gay (take that as male for the moment)asks for gay marriage, then what does that mean?

The end of the sacred - gay marriage is not tradition, it is modern. gays are promiscuous, they are servants to the "inncorrect-accident". They highlight the inadequcacy of divorce, just as they do gender roles.

right wingers are able to use gay marriage as a tactic to win elections because gays are a symbolic fro may of the problems already inherent in marrage . That is 'straying' Not to say that all gays stray, or that denying gays marriage because they may stray is valid. It is worth only saying that marriage cannot tolerate straying & so gays who are precieved to be permiscuious & 'stray' are untolerable. (Of course leabians may be different... if they ever get media attention)

As Laura Kipnis said in Against Love (ps read this book!) "conservative think tanks like the Institute for American values issued what was billed as 'nonpartisan' reports suggesting an end to no-fault divorce, as a way of ' strengthening civil society' and 'improving the quality of marriage.' How preventing divorce would improve marriages and not just further the unhappiness of the unhappily married remained unspecified."*


****though one would think that what it actually does is point s out how
divorce cheapens marriage. "life is short, dont wait till death do us part"