I’m missing something here, right? B/c as far as I can tell, I’ve just described every marriage everywhere- there’s a ceremony, there’s some paperwork, and there’s two unrelated, adult people doing the sorts of things that can possibly bring infants into the family. Last time I checked, when attending a religious wedding, we all turn to the wedding page in the hymnbook, not any other page. my secular friends go to a judge, and they have both papers, and a speech from the judge, and vows. They even get copies of the vows, and the speech, and some of them cross-stitch it onto a sampler.
So, how is describing a marriage “weakening” marriage?
Those are the minimums. The variants still meet the minimums.
We expect seeds to sprout when planted. When they don’t, we don’t say it’s “not a real seed.” We say ” it didn’t sprout.” When a couple marries, if they don’t have children, we say “they don’t have children.” not ” they aren’t really married.”
I put in the gossip about Augustus and Livia b/c I don’t feel like gossiping about current human beings. I could say ” so and so cheated ON HIS WIFE,” which is different than ” he’s not really married b/c he’s not feeling into it anymore.” One is a legal statement. The other is a gauzeous excuse for cheating, and runs up on the shoals of legal expression.
Marriage does have legal privileges and responsibilities. It’s a civil contract. Some people consider is a religious covenant- which is to say,a religious contract. We can date marriages, and divorces, and we settle property on people based on these dates. Louisiana has automatic allotments upon a person’s death- so much to the wife, so much to the children. There is not provision for mistresses, no matter how hot, or long- standing. Texas has community property statutes- a millionaire with a wife- they split their million dollars. The mistress has no claim on that property. None.
I’m not responding to the larger argument presented by the author of the article. First off, b/c I’m purely trivial about it- why else would one read the gossipy unauthorized biography of a minor public figure? except to find out their private amatory appetites? Unsourced, of course. It’s what makes Eusebius so much fun, discussing the great Roman emperors. And, second, she has a series of warranted statements to which I strongly disagree. Those, I am talking about.
