Why Have a Wedding?
Category: Unitarian Universalism - General
In her book One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding, Rebecca Mead examines the wedding industry and argues that it has exploited the vacuum of meaning around contemporary American weddings. With gender dynamics changing and religious institutions decreasing in influence, American weddings have taken on a plethora of meanings, many of them determined by commercial interests rather than by more substantive concerns. Mead recounts asking a group of brides “What is a wedding for?” She reports:
All wanted their weddings to be significant; and all were searching to identify the metal of that significance, seeking to burnish it until it glowed. But there was no consensus on where that significance lay; indeed, there were contradictions. A wedding was a celebration of family; a wedding was a celebration of self. It was a religious sacrament; it was an excuse for a big party. It was an expression of personal taste; it was an enactment of tradition. What a wedding was for, it seemed, was up for grabs.
A few days after the finishing Mead’s book, I was sitting on a bench on Boston Common, enjoying the park on a sunny a day. One bench over sat three women in their early twenties.
One, who worked in the wedding industry (I’m guessing as a wedding planner), remarked to her friends, “I never wanted to get married before. But now, seeing all these brides, I’m like, ‘I want a wedding. I want to have a big party. It’s so fun.’”
“Yeah, but it’s a lot of work,” another commented.
“I know,” the first replied, “and sometimes they say to me, ‘I just can’t wait for this be over.”
“But then what happens when it’s over?” the third woman asks, rhetorically.
“It’s like a big let down,” the second adds.
“No, then you get to decorate your house!” the first replies.
What comes after the wedding? The marriage, of which home decorating is only a very small part. If this fact has been obscured by the wedding industry, Mead argues, it’s because a vacuum of meaning exists and the wedding industry rushes in to fill it.
This vacuum is one that religious institutions can seek to fill. Here I part ways with Mead: She implies that the power of congregations and clergy lies mostly in their ability to carry on wedding traditions. So if a couple chooses not to follow the traditional liturgy of their religion(s), then religious institutions have lost out on their chance to give meaning to the wedding.
I disagree. Unitarian Universalism in its contemporary form does not place a heavy emphasis on wedding traditions; most Unitarian Universalists probably do not consciously strive to imitate early Unitarians or Universalists in their wedding liturgies. In addition, we have reconsidered the scope of marriage and now advocate for marriage equality.
It’s not through a re-enactment of religious tradition that we have developed a meaningful vision of marriage, but rather through a reconsideration of tradition.
Unitarian Universalists have officially supported marriage equality for over a decade (see the Unitarian Universalist Association’s 1996 Resolution of Immediate Witness), and through our activism on this issue have explored the meaning of marriage. We’ve officiated and celebrated marriages and commitment ceremonies between members of the same sex, preached about the meaning of marriage, and been active in the public square and in the voting booth to support marriage equality. Unitarian Universalists have explored both the sacred and the civil meaning of marriage; we’ve discussed marriage and support for marriage equality as a celebration of love, while also recognizing and advocating for the many legal benefits that come with marriage, and which all committed couples deserve.
Within Unitarian Universalist congregations, we also have interfaith couples (like my husband and I), agnostics, atheists, and other constituencies that may challenge popular notions of who has a religious wedding and what a wedding in a church should mean or include.
The freedom that exists within Unitarian Universalism for couples to develop their own wedding ceremony, with the support of clergy, is an advantage. Creating a custom wedding ceremony, when done in a way that reflects the deepest values and experiences of the couple, can be a meaningful opportunity to explore the significance of the wedding and of marriage.
Unitarian Universalist individuals, clergy, and congregations have an ongoing opportunity to engage with the questions of “what does a wedding mean?” and “what does marriage mean?” In addressing these questions, we may not find a one-size-fits-all message, nor will our answers necessarily accord with earlier Unitarian and Universalist traditions. However, we can offer answers that are meaningful and that provide a definitive counter to the industrial view of wedding and marriage as solely commercial ventures.
September 21st, 2008 09:46
Shelby, this is really an insightful observation. Thanks for posting it.
September 21st, 2008 10:41
We treated our wedding as the public recognition of the joining of my family to his. Both sets of parents blessed the union and the minister’s words placed heavy emphasis on our responsibilities to each other and how the marriage was something we created and this wedding was a mere societal recognition of the creation. In some sense, it was almost like a child dedication.
Anyway, worked for us on all the necessary levels and we were told it was “very quaker.”
CC
September 21st, 2008 12:06
I’m REALLY not into weddings. I actually don’t subscribe to the religious wedding paradigm at all.
However, it seems to me that the commercialization of weddings seems all about things that cost money, so that time and effort are paid to flowers, clothes, and food whereas very little effort and time and money often is paid toward the actual ceremony.
September 21st, 2008 13:43
A minister friend of mine has now taken to charging a sliding scale for his fee for weddings outside of his congregation — based on the budget for the whole event, including the reception (not sure what the exact suggested percentage is). His thought is that the ceremony should be the centerpiece, and if a couple is willing to pay huge amounts of money for the “trappings,” they should be willing to place the same kind of value on the officiant, particularly in a UU setting where the ceremony is individually crafted. Makes sense to me.
Our wedding was ten minutes long, followed by a party with great music. We were “unchurched” at the time, already had a child and had been living together for almost three years, so the ceremony was more of a formalization of what we had already built together. It worked for us.
September 22nd, 2008 20:53
Hi Chalicechick and Jess, Thanks for telling me about your own weddings. It’s nice to hear how both of you had a clear sense of the meaning of your wedding and were able to celebrate in a way that reflected that meaning.
Ms. Theologian, I wonder if part of the problem is that many couples simply don’t know where to start in crafting a meaningful ceremony with an officiant whom they value, especially for couples who aren’t religious. While the wedding industry is aggressive, the officiant industry (if it could even be called that) is not.
Ms. Kitty, thanks for stopping by! I always enjoy hearing from you and reading up over at Ms. Kitty’s Saloon and Road Show.