Best. Wedding. Proposal. Ever.

[andrewducker]

(Courtesy of matgb, whose own wedding proposal was a tad more haphazard.)

Comments

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

That's incredibly sweet. Awwwww.

[intelligentrix.livejournal.com]

Wow. Just. Wow.

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

That is fab.

[dreema.livejournal.com]

cool

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

Awwwwwwww....

[yalovetz]

Am I the only one who thinks elaborate proposals like this just come off as a bit creepy?

[andrewducker]

Probably not the _only_ one.

Elaborate public proposals where you aren't completely sure the other person will accept are definitely bad, because you're exerting about 10 tons of peer pressure on them.

In this case it seems to have gone down pretty well though, so one assumes that it was entirely welcome.

Someone should probably tell Zara that you wouldn't appreciate the effort though.

[yalovetz]

It's not just the publicness of the proposal, it's the elaborate and presumably secretive process of setting the whole thing up. Feels a bit stalkerish somehow; all that work going on behind her back, all of which is focussed on her but she doesn't know it...

Someone should probably tell Zara that you wouldn't appreciate the effort though.

Ahahaha. You haven't talked to Z about her views on marriage, have you?

[andrewducker]

No moreso than for a surprise party. It doesn't creep me out, but obviously it's not for everyone.

And no - and now I'm curious! Point her in this direction?

[yalovetz]

Yeah, I find surprise parties kind of creepy too. :)

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

*waves*

I think marriage is fine, for other people. *shudder*

Actually, I'm not really sure it's entirely fine for other people, but... whenever I start talking about that, it gets ugly, so I keep it to myself.

Oh what the hey. I think love between two people is a wonderful and amazing thing and should be celebrated in whatever manner one desires. I think the state having any kind of monopoly (hell, even having the ability at all) to grant relationship status is regressive and obnoxious.

Anyone who would think of asking me to marry them is clearly not the right person for me. So I don't need telling about G. ;)

(...and of course this one went down well, because really, who is going to kick up a stink in public? Even if the person doesn't feel pressure, they're not likely to say no. Surely you want a marriage to be a calm, considered decision between the both of you, not something that the man proposes and the woman accepts? That puts both parties into a power inequality which is unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. Women being able to propose doesn't alter this, either, consider how many women propose and how many people still think it's strange. My thoughts on extravagant and public proposals like this is that they are -- apart from a gesture of expansive love -- a gesture of dick-sizing. Yes, I have my asbestos suit on.)

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I have been in relationships more than once where the woman made it clear (*very* clear) that if I was to ask her to marry me, she would say yes ... I have also been in a relationship where the woman made it clear she wasn't interested in getting married (again) and so I shouldn't ask (at the moment) ... but I let her know that I'd like to hear when she was ready ... she married someone else eventually.

I think if either partner says they would say "yes", then if the other partner can come up with something "wow" to make that proposal special, unique and memorable, then that is *fantastic* and if you can share it with friends so they can be happy for you as well, well, that's an optional nice thing too.

However I would *never* do it if I had even the slightest doubt that the answer would be anything other than "hell yes".

[andrewducker]

There are certain legalities that go with marriage that are very handy - being included in life insurance, pensions, etc., right of attorney in an emergency, access to bedsides in hospitals, inheritance rights, alimony, etc. All of these _can_ be done separately, but frankly it's a huge pain, and the vast majority of people will just never get round to it, leaving them stranded in the case of unpleasantness.

Which isn't to say there can't be problems with marriage, but it does have numerous upsides too.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

See, that's part of what I think is wrong with marriage, as a concept. (I want to stress, again, that I don't have a problem with the actuality of people being together and happily committed)

Those upsides are only available (as a neat, easy-to-obtain packge) to a man+woman romantic couple. (With civil partnership, where it is equal to marriage legally in everything but name a nice addition to this limitation)

[andrewducker]

All of those other things _are_ available, if you want to set them up outside of a romantic relationship. but the fact remains that most people want them linked to the person that they are in a relationship with.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

'most people want them linked to the person they are in a relationship with'

...maybe because that's the way it's set up?

I know they are available for others (how do you think I have my life set up, after all, if I believe in keeping the legal and personal aspect completely separate and avoid state sanctioning of romantic relationships?), but as I say, you only get it in a neat easy package if you get married, which privileges man+woman romantic relationship.

I've also seen, first hand, people with power of attourney get screwed over because they aren't the husband/wife. Same sex couples, polyamorous couples, de-facto couples, and friends, alike.

What's wrong with expanding the model? Making so that you could get a designated partner/s of any gender, any age, any relationship to you. Disconnect the legal from the personal. Then everyone would be free to have their committment ceremoies without them entailing the legal side of things. Joy and happiness abounds. I don't see why, legally, a man+woman who are willing to sign a piece of paper that the state approves are able to get a raft of benefits with two signatures that other man+woman combinations have to jump a variety of hoops for, via time, paperwork, etc.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

(In other words, I'm about expanding it, not limiting it, if we're going to have it at all)

[andrewducker]

which privileges man+woman romantic relationship.

Not in this country it doesn't.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, I already qualified it once, don't make me do it again. :P

Yay for legal segregation of same sex couples. Excuse me if I don't cheer.

[andrewducker]

I wasn't in favour of the way it was done, to be sure. I was intensely glad it was done though.

And qualifying it to then go on and ignore that qualification seems a tad like a rhetorical trick...

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

(I haven't even started on the property and sexist aspects yet. This is one of those discussions for which we need several beers and a good long evening ahead of us.)

[andrewducker]

Goddamn - looks like I've have to come visit you at some point then. I'm not waiting two years to deal with conversatis interruptus.

I will say, cos I can, that in general the property aspects tend to work better for women than men on the ending of a heterosexual relationship. Which is as it should be, as it's usually the women that give up their jobs to raise kids.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

*boggle*

I was meaning the traditional connotations of woman=property, but you just gave me even more stuff to run with ;)

Property aspects tend to work better for women? ... hah!

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

Dammit. I have to head off to the BL to work.

[andrewducker]

Have a lovely day. I'm just out of the shower myself and about to head that way :->

[andrewducker]

As in, on divorce, it's generally women that get property from men, which they would not get if they hadn't been married, and therefore given a legal right to it.

And I don't, and never have, given a damn about traditional connotations of anything. Thankfully I don't live in the 1740s, 1890s or even the 1970s. I'm primarily interested in the status and uses of marriage in 2007 Britain.

[yalovetz]

Goddamn - looks like I've have to come visit you at some point then.

Yay, come to Sydney! We hoping to find a flat with a spare room for guests...

[andrewducker]

I'll add it to the plan...

[andrewducker]

Oh, and of course the state grants partnership status - all rights emanate from the state. If you want some other body to grant you partnership status then you can do so, but nobody is forced to recognise that you're married in the eyes of the First Tuesday After Pentecost Revivalists, so if you want the legal rights you have to go through the agency that creates and upholds laws - i.e. the state.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

Well, no...

I don't want anyone granting partnership status. :)

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

(or at least, not in such a limited fashion)

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

(no, screw it. I think relationships are private and personal, and legal contractual obligations to other people are entirely separate. Messing the two together is asking for trouble, espeially where you're privileging one type of relationship over all others.)

[pisica.livejournal.com]

I'm currently in a weird little situation. My partner and I have been together for 5 years but have no plans to marry. (Thankfully, parental pressure is nil.) However, my visa status is based on our being in a relationship Just Like Marriage and I have to produce joint utility bills to prove it. I don't think this visa gives me any domestic rights at all, and if we split up I doubt I'd have the slightest claim to anything, but it keeps me in the country.

It's a great solution, because while I won't entirely rule out marriage, I am absolutely not willing to make that choice for visa purposes.

[andrewducker]

Glad the visa rules currently cover relationships as well as marriages - my brother basically got married because otherwise his girlfriend kept having to go back to Ohio...

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

It's tough enough to kick up a stink in private actually. i accepted a proposal of marriage once because tbh the alternative is usually to say "this relationship is going nowhere" (neither of us had particular ethical objections to marriage of the type you have) and I wasn't ready to say that. This is why I horribly cynically often guess a sudden proposal is a sign the relationship is going downhill, and the partner who is scared is trying to nail it down tight(and sadly i've often been right.) No I am not much of a romantic:-)

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

You know, that makes me a bit glad I'm ethically opposed, otherwise I'd be terribly cynical.

Hard enough keeping my perky idealism alive without bringing personal relationships into it.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

(I'm also fairly certain that I present, in initial relationships stages, as unconventional enough that it scares off the romantically inclined types. The one time it didn't was a relationship disaster...)