On Marriage: A Non-Possessive Ceremony.

My longer-term partner (recently to include nesting) and I decided to elope. We have been connected to each other for almost four years, and moved in together in October. Upon the finalization of her separation from the person she had been living with prior, we simply didn’t see that there was anything else to do but whisk our parents away to a pretty notorious-for-elopements resort in a beautiful area on Vancouver Island, and “make it official”. We bought cute black outfits, I did both our hair, and we got married on a bluff overlooking the Pacific ocean on a beautiful and much to my dismay, rain-free, day.

Now, when I say “make it official”, I mean we decided to formally acknowledge, with both of our parents there to witness, that we intended to do our lives in parallel for the foreseeable future, and hopefully until we’re old people. There are perks to being married legally, like access to health benefits, but there is also a pretty indisputable sense of intention. I am interested to see how our conflict resolution goes down the tubes and is subsequently rebuilt in the next year or so, because I think we both have a sense of permanence in each other’s lives, but now more-so. We might speak a little sharper or more freely now that our pesky abandonment issues are checked a little.

Before looking at the practical benefits, though, we chose to do this in a legal sense because of politics. We are both queer people, have had every opportunity to blend into heteronormative privilege, and have done so previously. We are both very tired of that and the erasure that comes along with it. We also love each other a great deal and intend to be old ladies together. With that in mind, we felt pretty okay about making this move toward an bureaucratic commitment. It means we get to occupy the marriage institution as visible queer people, which we both think is pretty important. We have a lot of issues with erasure as bisexual people, both presenting as relatively femme, and would rather be erased into lesbianism than straightness, since it seems we are forced to choose. Hopefully with more people talking about this openly, there will be less erasure.

I lean more toward relationship anarchy because I actively politicize my relationship choices. My partner isn’t into choosing a label for her leanings. Needless to say, we’re both extremely non-monogamous. We prioritize each other’s agency over our garbage bad feelings, and are good communicators. We always want to be supportive of each other’s relationships, and strive for that first. We talk about hierarchies. We know that in choosing to marry each other, we are presenting as supportive of a structural hierarchy within our personal relationships where each other is at the top of the pyramid. This is not a structure we wish to perpetuate if one or both of us wants to introduce others as significant to us. We think a lot about this, and hope that other people we care about are aware that they are as important, or can be. If she decided to go live with someone else for a while, I would accept that. I don’t think we would separate our union. I think she would just go do that for a while, maybe forever if she likes it, and we would still be very important to each other and supportive of each other. Since we don’t intend to have children, this is pretty much the only thing that shows up as something we don’t currently have immediately available to other partners: cohabitation. That being said, I would argue that has as much to do with the insane state of Vancouver’s housing market as it does with the fact that our roommate is amazing and we both love living with her, as it does with the fact that we love living together.

So, with all that said, I have included here our ceremony. I wrote most of it, under my partner’s watchful eye, and I think it is good if you are looking to shed some of the possessive wording that usually comes with standard marriage ceremonies. We included some language stemming from Buddhism (my partner practices). I drew inspiration for the ring exchange from the meaning behind why engineers wear an iron ring. The wikipedia about that can be found here. I hope it is helpful to anyone who is struggling to find some bare-bones suggestions of a starting point in writing their own ceremony.

~*~*~

Commissioner: Welcome Everyone. We have gathered here today to rejoice and celebrate the love and commitment two people exhibit; *name* and *name* have decided to choose a path together, to share in some of life’s incredible moments, and to assist in making each other’s dreams, realities.

Before going further, I wish to acknowledge the ancestral, traditional and unceded Aboriginal territories of the *insert first nations band specifications for your region*, and in particular, the *insert specific band name* on whose territory we stand.

This marriage is being created through equality, mutual respect, and love. *name* and *name* bring with them the experiences which drew them together, and their dedication to their personal growth. They bring the intentions of their hearts as a treasure to be shared, and they bring with them the ability to view the world, themselves, and each other with patience, liberty, and a loving sense of humour.

Legally required wording to be married, repeated after the commissioner by both parties:

I solemnly swear that I know of no lawful reason why I, *name* should not be joined in marriage to *name*, and I ask those present to witness as I take them r to be my lawfully wedded wife/husband/person.

Commissioner: Will you please turn to face each other as you share your vows.

*VOWS* (We wrote our own, and it was very nice. We spoke about what we were going to do to support each other and defend each other’s agency, Our eyes managed to stay relatively dry.)

Commissioner: Rings, please. Your wedding rings are a symbol of your intentions toward one another. There is three of them to remind you that your selves, each other, and your connection are all of importance to both of you. Let these rings always remind you both that you are choosing every day to be part of something you both care deeply about: understanding that just as we are a mystery to ourselves, each other person is also a mystery to us. These rings symbolize a pledge to be curious, to seek to understand yourselves, each other, and all living beings, to examine your own minds continually and to regard all the mysteries of life with curiosity and joy.

You can each repeat after me, and place the rings on each other’s hands as you do:

“I am giving you this ring as a reminder of the ethics we are associating with our relationship: that we are committed to supporting and engineering what each of us wants, together and as individuals. We are architects.”

*time taken for signing things*

You may now kiss, if you want to. Congratulations.

~*~*~

Relationship Anarchy Discussion: October Edition

Kale of Relationship Anarchy and I have been hosting a discussion group in Vancouver in conjunction with some Facebook group-based community (Relationship Anarchy, Relationship Anarchy Vancouver). Our sixth (!!!) discussion was wonderful; we touched a lot on creating a supportive space in future discussion groups. Here are the general notes on what was covered.

Label Use

~ the more we try to come to common ground about what the labels mean, the more we feel restricted by them
~ with the rejection of labels seems to come in-fighting and disagreement in groups
~ touched on the BDSM community’s handling of starting to let go of labels to define kinks
~ labels can help us find “our people”, in some situations
~ an intentional rejection of the implications that come along with the labels is important activism
~ prefixing any description of yourself with “I think” in order to broaden the definitions and take ownership of your perspective
~ using labels to describe our people can be a consent issue; agreement on the words used to describe someone is important
~ does this even matter if it’s really none of their business?
~ small talk is hard to navigate when you don’t want to do the emotional labor of explaining

Support Systems for Practicing RA

~ opposite time: how do we as individuals feel supported in group setting discussing our relationship choices?
~ talking about how great everyone is doing at the thing is alienating
~ sharing ways to work around the system and make sure that the people you’re involved with are taken care of/managing to circumvent the laws in place
~ self-compassion and solidarity with others who are struggling with how to go about this
~ we have a desire for more diverse relationship models in normative media
~ talking about our non-romantic/non-sexual relationships in discussion groups as much or more than the romantic/sexual ones
~ personal anecdote: finding time with loved ones: schedule chicken sucks and no one wants to do it.

Intimate Relationships

~ aren’t necessary for someone to do relationship anarchy
~ terms of intimacy should be negotiated
~ commitment vs: exclusivity: commitment is adherence to a cause or activity while exclusion is restrictive

Transitions

~ flow vs. termination
~ how do we navigate changes in our relationships with compassion and care?
~ more communication about expectations means less surprise means transitions move more easily. everyone is informed
~ taking away the “bomb” of a “breakup” can be a relinquishment of control over whether the person is in your life or not
~ the concept of failure within relationships is hard to deal with, and scary
~ what are things we are doing by default that we want to change in specific relationships?

The discussion groups occur once a month on the first Tuesday at the Tipper Restaurant and Review Room.