Rufus- I tend to agree with you. I think I was unclear. I didn\'t mean to suggest that either term, marriage or civil union, is more or less meaningful than the other-I was referring to the concepts embodied in either of those terms nowadays (such as an egalitarian relationship) vs. older concepts of marriage, particularly the domination of a man over a woman, or the idea of possessing a spouse as property. I was addressing Matthew\'s question about whether a different concept of marriage, or civil union, is meaningless simply due to the fact that it\'s new or has been redefined, which I disagree with. I\'m referring entirely to substance, not terminology. I do agree that "civil union" seems to ring somewhat hollow when it is used in the context of the exclusion of gays/lesbians

I\'m not about to argue for strong differences between "marriage" and "civil union", although a religious person might.  But it seems bizarre to me that if you\'re going to then declare one of the terms meaningless, you would declare the ancient vernacular one that resonates with all the real people meaningless, while reserving meaning for the recently invented term that is basically bureaucratese.  If either term is meaningless, clearly it is "civil union", a term invented largely to fob gays off with "I can\'t believe it\'s not marriage".

But in any case, the english language contains masses of synonyms and near-synonyms with subtle or not-so-subtle differences in connotation.  Being a synonym for something doesn\'t make a word meaningless; if it did, we\'d have to throw out half the language.

This IS a great and thoughtful post...although being married myself (pretty recently) I have some comments.

I think the most important difference of opinion I have is in regards to the view that marriage is meaningless if it is attached a different meaning over time than it may have had at its origins. Institutions are as fluid as the cultures that they exist in; changing attitudes towards marriage represent a social evolution of the institution following from changes in cultural values. From that perspective, I think modern-day "loving and egalitarian" relationships, as Rufus terms them, are in fact the truly "meaningful" ones; outdated concepts of marriage that conflict with current-day cultural values are more appropriate to refer to as meaningless in today\'s context, and particularly in the context of theoretical anarchist and participatory societies. Then there is the concept of "meaning" on an individual level, which  of course is up to no one but the individual to define. My marriage is "egalitarian". We have eschewed the tradition of the wife taking the husband\'s name due to symbolic implications that made us uncomfortable. Does that make our relationship a civil union? I agree that the terms are pretty nearly synonymous, but I am certain that the substance of either is pretty much the same. We consider our relationship a "marriage." I grant that subconsciously this choice of term may be in part due to family tradition; but what\'s most important is OUR definition of what it means and how meaningful it is; within the context of the society we live in, according to the ideals of a participatory society, and in our personal experience of the relationship.

Secondly, the recognition of our marriage by the state is largely to be able to have some of the advantages of that recognition (although, I I have recently learned, this does not apply in any way to taxes...booo! ). While in a participatory society certain conditions would be in place that would remove both the recognizing authority and make such recognition uneccessary, we\'re not there yet, and this is not the area in which I think it would the most wise or effective choice to engage in some sort of personal protest by refusing the advantages of state recognition.

Lastly, there can be an aspect to marriage that I would describe as spiritual. This of course is dependent entirely on one\'s views in that area. Neither myself nor my wife are religious; we would each identify  ourselves as agnostic. But we would both agree that there is an undefined element that I will only describe here as a sense of union on a level beyond the physical, social, or emotional. Beyond that further explanation is difficult, and at any rate it\'s between the two of us. Traditional anarchists along the lines of Bakunin would likely freak out at the mention of this type of thing (i.e. "If spirituality existed in marriage it would be necessary to abolish it!!!! YAARRRGHHH!")

All that being said, I\'d be fascinated to jump 100 years into the future when we have implemented a participatory society :) and see what people think then. Whatever their future institutions may be, I\'d venture to say that they\'ll be equally as meaningful to them as this "insititution" in which I take part is meaningful to myself and my wife.

Thanks again for a very thoughful and thought-provoking post!!!!!!!!!!

Rufus,

  Thanks for your input. There is something I wanted to comment on:

"But I can certainly see a choice to get married as being both a decision to consciously make a commitment to that relationship, and a community celebration of the relationship and its place in the community.  That strikes me as something common to an awful lot of the societies, Christian and otherwise, that have celebrated marriage.  I don\'t see a problem or an emptiness in that."

If marriage is both 1.) a decision to consciously make a commitment to a relationship and 2.) a community celebration of that relationship and its place in the community, then how does this differ from a socially accepted and legally recognized "civil union" between two people? What would be the difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" in this instance? It would seem to me to be the same thing being called by two different words, in which case, "marriage" in this context is meaningless because it\'s not meaningfully distinguished from a "civil union". I don\'t see the difference in concept or meaning between the two in this particular case and so marriage isn\'t anything more another synonym for "civil union" and is too fluid to have any real meaning. I see it as a distinction without a difference.

  Matthew

Interesting and thoughtful, but I don\'t entirely agree.

That\'s particularly true when it comes to the state issue.  Marriage has existed for a long time, and not only in Christian societies or even only in agricultural societies.  But many of those societies didn\'t have what we would consider "the state".  And while in our particular society state sanction of a marriage is legally necessary, it certainly doesn\'t seem to be the core of the concept for people.  Rather, marriage is a primarily social ceremony.  It\'s essentially about recognition of a relationship by the community.  Anarchism certainly doesn\'t deny the social or community elements of the human experience--quite the reverse.

But that in turn suggests to me that when you get rid of sexist elements and patriarchal elements, when you get rid of issues of property and sexual orientation and even gender, there\'s still something important left.  Certainly one can have a loving and egalitarian relationship without a marriage, and marriage shouldn\'t be enforced as mandatory or even coerced by expectations.  But I can certainly see a choice to get married as being both a decision to consciously make a commitment to that relationship, and a community celebration of the relationship and its place in the community.  That strikes me as something common to an awful lot of the societies, Christian and otherwise, that have celebrated marriage.  I don\'t see a problem or an emptiness in that.