Category: philosophy/religion topics
How do you define marriage? Is it a piece of paper? Is it the commitment between two people? Is it a ceremony? Is it sex? Is it a combination? I find it interesting to hear peoples' opinions. As a Christian, I especially find it interesting that this topic isn't discussed that much in the church. I've been online looking at how it's defined and there's so much more consensis than I would think, but lately I've been challenging that consensis.
To me, Marriage is a sacred testament of your loyalty and commitment to your husband and wife, sanctioned by God in the name of Jesus Christ. It is a promise that you will always be there for one another, no matter what. In my church, Marriage also extends beyond the mortal world into the eternity to follow, and so that commitment is an even greater promise to keep. While there are times when divorce is the only option, I believe a husband and wife should honor their commitment to one another and do their best to work through their problems. It is so easy to get married, and it is so easy to get divorced. Statistics say the divorce rate is extremely high, and I believe there's a reason for that. I don't believe two people should be married unless they're willing to communicate and at least valiantly attempt to work out problems when they arise.
While I don't believe that marriage extends into eternity, I do believe that marriage should be until death, being severed only on grounds of adultery or abuse. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that "open" and/or polygamous marriage is not marriage at all, as it is not monogamous.
While I believe sex should be reserved for marriage I realize that not everyone has this view. Sex can be a beautiful thing, but has been paraded on public display through the internet, movies, tv, etc.
The "piece of paper", as they say is a part of marriage as well. While I realize that a lot of this is cultural in nature, the piece of paper is legal proof that you are married, rather than simply sharing a house with someone. In some cultures, a man and woman living together would be considered married because of the simple fact that they would be sharing housing.
This is not as eloquent as I would like to be, but I believe that marriage is a covenant between two people and (if they hold a religious belief) with God, a legal institution, a sacred institution, monogamous for life.
Kate
Marriage in this day and age is nothing more then a legal agreement. When the divorce rate is so high, especially among those who are supposed to cherish it the most (Christians) then marriage has lost it's meaning.
Overall divorce rates are lower than the 70s now, though as I have no figures on demographics, you may be right in saying they're higher amongst followers of certain beliefs.
But here and elsewhere on this site, and on Facebook, we mainly see heterosexuals disputing over, even discounting the idea of, marriage.
And then there are people like my friend in San Francisco fighting for hers, often expressing things that make me realize how often I've taken the privilege for granted. I would say in this case those who discount marriage are merely the mirror image of those who would withhold it from others.
But it is nothing if not monogamous. Only the most backward of societies opt for polygamy, a state that disempowers women, perhaps not in fable but in actual history and studies done by anthropologists.
The license itself is, of course, as some say a piece of paper. So is your social security card, a driver's license for those who can get one, our society is full of pieces of paper. We're too large for some village-existence where everyone is identifiable by face. It would be a grnad exercise for some on here to read the writings of my friend, how hard it is for her family where her so-called piece of paper is not legally recognized. And actually, from a legal standpoint, divorce is easier to accomplish than the breakup of a live-in situation, because there is an actual process to it. If you buy a house, a car, and other things as a married couple, that is quite different from having joint names on items. And if two people break up with a bitter dispute, what intermediary do they have in a live-in situation?
But profoundly so, it's heterosexuals on both ends of this one, including the denouncement of marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps someone on here who has posted is gay and I didn't know. But gay people are having to struggle now as many of us have struggled in other ways. If marriage is so frail, dated, deprecated or otherwise useless, I find it hard to believe an intelligent woman like my friend would risk what's been risked, make no less than a profoundly courageous effort to preserve the best life she can for her family. Her child.
Very good point. leo.:)
Actually Leo you really can't say the divorce rate is lower now then it was in the 70's because it's always fluctuating, not to mention a decade is a long time.
The rate for Divorces in 1970 was 3.5 per 1,000 population, however if you look at 1979 the number is much higher at 5.3 per 1,000 population. In 2001 the divorce rate was 8.2 per 1,000. If you look at 2009 the divorce rate was 6.8 per 1,000 population.
Something many people don't take into account are the number of marriages in a given ten year span. In hard economic times people are less likely to get married in the first place, which attributes to the lower divorce rate as well.
Sources:
http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
Second link has a link to a PDF with more info if you're interested.
I for one just really don't want to deal with the possibility of divorce, custody, alimony and the rest of the bullshit. Someone else can go through that hell. I'm staying out of it.
Well I stand corrected, and certainly your position is respectable. But for those who are ready to discount the idea of marriage across the board, why would a segment of the population with higher-than average intelligence, higher-than-average incomes, risk life, limb and resources to try and fight for it for themselves? They'd have to be fools to do that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe someone on here who has spoken against marriage is in fact gay. But I strongly doubt it. Think about the innumerable things you may guard as a blind person, that someone else who can see can simply debate over, take for granted, etc. Like the ludites who debate the merits of technology.
The reason The homosexual community wants marriage is because they've never had those rights in this country before. People fight for what they want, but at the same time the homosexual community has never had to deal with the downsides to marriage either.
Once the homosexual community gets the right to marry, wait 15 to 20 years, and you'll see them discounting it as well.
Oy vay gotta love people who fail to cite statistics on divorce correctly. According to your second source, the divorce rate for 2009 was only 3.4 per 1000, and not 6.8 per 1,000.
Also, according to the statistics I have seen from the United States Censes Bureau, there does seem to be a downward trend in the divorce rates over the past few decades. I have mostly come across this information in textbooks used for college courses, but I am sure you could probably obtain this same information from the Censes Bureau directly.
What are you on about cat?
Okay I stand corrected. The correct stat for 2009 is indeed 3.4 per 1,000 population. Also no need to be a dick about it cat.
"Also, according to the statistics I have seen from the United States Censes Bureau, there does seem to be a downward trend in the divorce rates over the past few decades. I have mostly come across this information in textbooks used for college courses, but I am sure you could probably obtain this same information from the Censes Bureau directly."
There is also a downward trend of marriage as well which can account for much of the lowering divorce rates.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-28/news/30098843_1_marriage-census-data-divorce
First one is older (2005) but still valid.
What is marriage?
It is the decision made between 2 or more people to put their lives together. You decide to become one unit, with your mate or mates.
Decision is made with your partner in mind and how they will affect the unit.
Needs are shared and become needs of the unit.
Dreams, hopes, wishes, plans are joint and all efforts are made to make sure the unit gets them accomplished.
We are human and will go through many changes during a life time, so these are changes the unit must bear and live with. If the change is temporary, such as health, the unit strives to heal. If it is permanent, the unit adapts and lives with it.
Selfishness does not exist in marriage. Possession does not apply.
It is like a body, in that the head leads, and the trunk serves, but the head cannot live without the trunk and the trunk cannot live without the head. The head thinks I need the hand to pick up that item and the hand picks it up. If the head has no hand it cannot get the item, and the hand cannot operate without the head guiding. The head never decides to hurt the hand and the had never decides to cut off the head. If this happens the body dies or is crippled.
This is true love, and when we can give and receive true love we are happy all of our days.
If any or all of these things break down than marriage dies and we must try again, or remain single.
that was a poetic answer.
Marriage is a state of mind. It has been clothed in religious dogma, and codified in socio/legel systems, but even though those institutional dictims may be binding, they are only meant to sanctify what is essentially a state of mind between people. The paper becomes worthless if the people refuse to be bound. The state of marriage can exist with no legal notice at all. Historically in many cultures marriage has not formally been recorded. It is a social contract between the participants. That is one reason why common law marriage is recognized.
I love, love, love the last post. I too believe that marriage is a state of mind as much as it is a decision of tewo people to bring their lives together to form a family or a partnership.
Does anyone disagree with the belief that two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together have to get married?
i'm not going to try to define what marriage is, but here are my thoughts. I went to school with this girl, have known her since 1977 and we dated all through highschool. Obviously, that wasn't going to work out, but we remained friends, and even to this day, we're still closer than a lot of maried couples I've encountered. I don't think the little piece of paper alone is going to make anyone happy. take a couple who get married and have a few kids. They end up hating each other, but because they're very religious, and because they think they're doing what's best for the kids, they stay together.
Now take a couple who live together, are deeply in love, are really afraid of marriage, or it's impossible for them to get married because they're of the same sex. They don't have that little piece of paper. I think I know which situation I'd rather be in. The downside to it is, without that piece of paper, if your lover gets sick, you might not even be able to get in to the hospital to see him or her, since you're not regocnized as family.
so true, anthony. so true.
Marriage is a societal construct built for the purpose of reducing sexual and property conflicts within a community.
Rather than having territory disputes over partners, the lineage of children, or who owns land, marriage allows (usually) women to be bartered as a commodity - they often come with some land, and of course with the potential to produce offspring that can work the land.
There's layers of complexity as you add in religions, but then it gets too specific.
No. perhaps that was the purpose of marriage back in the day, and perhaps that's the technical barebones way to define it. But that's now what marriage is. This type of description only serves to minimize the relevance and validity of marriage, and it casts it in a bad light.
Marriage is a partnership of a couple or, hell, let's include polygamy here for technicality's sake, a group of people who enter into a partnership and then work within their partnership to live their lives together. Marriage is much more than just a technical legality, though many skeptics will say otherwise.
I fail to see what's special about it myself. Anyone who can be trusted can change his/her mind. Hell, if you're loyal to your partner, and you both know it, isn't that as good as it gets? This way if it turns, then at least you don't have to get the law involved.
So the only person who opposed marriage but had the balls to respond about why the gays would be fighting to get this right was Rob aka AgentR08. The rest of you academes can't be bothered apparently, calling it just a piece of paper, and probably calling folks like my friend and her wife to be fools.
Shows there's really no tactical difference between the college kids and the Chik Fool-A curmudgeons. Interesting, erm, bedfellows on that issue.
Ah, but in my response you never heard me say it had to be legal, or documented at all.
Yes, a state of mind.
I can have sex without it.
Love as well.
Hmmm, if I'm reading your post correctly, Leo, I resent being told that I would probably call anyone anything. if your friend wants to get married, I certainly won't be standing in her way. I'm just saying that I myself don't require that piece of paper. To me, the piece of paper isn't going to make my partner any more or less loyal. I wouldn't want someone to stay with me if they were unhappy, saying that they feel that they have to do it, all in the name of honoring the piece of paper. Take that how you will. I have no control over that. As I've said, the only downside of not having the paper, to me at least, is that I couldn't be there for my partner in times of extreme sickness. If I've misinterpreted, I appologize.
OK, why gays would fight for that. Maybe they want freedom of choice? Fine with me there, pal, I'm all for it. Better to have the option and not want it than to be denied it on some moral/religious ground. Doesn't change my opinion that it's still an unnecessary complication.
Let me expand on what I said a little more, in the governmental sense only.
That slip of paper, in the academic and legal sense, is a control mechanism. How hard have people had to fight for the right to any type of dyadic union in this country? By the federal government (so far) refusing to mandate same-sex marriage, there is still a social control in place. It absolutely restricts the right of partnerships that some powerful sects of society have deemed inappropriate. It restricts the right of caregivers and family members based on a simple signed document.
Marriage is not partnership. Partnership is partnership. Partnership doesn't have to be dyadic, it doesn't have to be heterosexual, it doesn't have to be racial. But at each turn, we've been fighting the same battles against a control mechanism.
Sure, but if you are looking at the term it is both, and if you say you are married, or life partners, or mates, this is what you are saying to me.
I feel same sex persons should be able to get the legal rights as others however they call it. Give them the document, if need be.
OK fair enough everyone. And for what it's worth Anthony I hadn't thought of your response when you said personally that you might not wish to do this.
But speaking from the other side, all I can say is, partnerships deserve to have the legal recognition that the so-called piece of paper provides, so that the members of that partnership can act on the interests of the partnership: joint accounts, houses, land, power of attorney for each other when one is too sick or injured to speak for themselves, parental rights without the adoption problems my friend has had to face. It doesn't make the partnership. It seals said partnership in the eyes of the law and any entity that wants to do business with that partnership in a way that just a pair of roommates can't quite seal.
I had no idea of the strain my friend and similar face until she shared this. Sure, I'm a pretty normal guy, so I'm saying give the gays the same opportunity as the rest of us if they want it. But I had no idea since I had the luxury of being a heterosexual parent, not having my fatherhood challenged when taking the baby to the doctor, and similar draconian problems we used to have with the mixed racial couples, and now the gays are saddled with.
Of course, that doesn't mean every gay should marry, but should partners wish to remain with one another perhaps legally sealing the deal will make things infinitely simpler for the unit as a whole. After all, like everyone says, the unit is already there and in force.
How else, for instance, is your private insurance supposed to know that your partner is in fact your partner and not just a good friend of yours that moved in when they got sick? The reason businesses have struggled with the domestic partner benefits has nothing to do with prudes and wannabe punk religous moralists that treat life issues like characters in a video game. The reason is, when it comes to benefits and insurance, or other things that impact entities and units, there does need to be a piece of paper that shows the unit decided they want to be a unit. Of course, divorce court is the way to absolve it, and as ugly as that is, at least there is a process and hopefully some form of equitable justice for splitting the property and dealing with custody issues.
Birth certificates were at one time managed exclusively from a faith-based perspective also. But their paper, like marriage certificates in Latin American countries, is completely civil government. Now your birth certificate is just a piece of paper. It doesn't define you, you came first. However, it is legal proof that you can use to show your date of birth, location of birth, and for us adoptees there's other information on it.
Again sorry Anthony I hadn't meant you, but if I was you and read my post I also would have taken it the way you did, so I apologize. To the rest, you make valid points. Whether it gets called marriage or whatever you call it, though, there needs to be some paper that legally proves the unit exists so that unit can do legal business as a unit. Sorry romantics, I'm not reducing the love partnerships to a business arrangement, but just advocating the reason for the paper is merely legal in nature.
leo is absolutely right. if marriage is just a piece of paper, why are those who are gay fighting so hard for that right? can you Christians who are set in your beliefs that marriage is only between a man and a woman, answer that?
I'm not one who thinks marriage solidifies a relationship, by any means, but for legal reasons, it really does make a world of difference for all involved.
Ah, okay, that's cool. Yes, I do feel that same sex couples should be able to get married, if they want, and there may come a day that I myself will want this. I'd like to know that, should that day come, I would be free to choose that path.
I don't understand why it is such a big deal for some people. It's not like same sex marriage will directly affect most of the people who bitch and complain about how unethical it is. I have friends and even family who are gay, bi, and lesbians, but that's not something I hold against them. Unfortunately though, the law and people in general don't have the same point of view.
In a funky way, I see that as no different than saying, I know someone who is blind, but I don't hold that against them. just a random thought there. I'm sure that's not how you meant it.
You know Anthony made the point that he couldn't see his mate, lover, or whatever if they were sick in the hospital and he was not a family member.
I wonder if that bar is on same sex couples? My reason for asking this is I've never heard a complaint from a same sex couple that is living together that the woman or man had any trouble with this.
Sure they do when it comes to insurence, but they normally have their own, but not, is seems with anything else.
A woman can usually say she lived with a man for years and get granted rights.
Anyone know about this, and I'm not talking from a legal point of view, where it comes down to a fight, because if there is not any disagreement, it seems same sex couples just don't have the worry.
Are you serious? If you ever know someone who is in intensive care, try to get in there and see them and see how fast they reject you if you are not immediate family. If the partner's parrents or other family is against the coupling, they can make life extremely difficult. The lover couldn't even get information from the family. The lover is out in the cold.
To answer that question, yes, hospitals do sometimes prevent a same sex partner from having family priveleges to visit, or speak with the doctors. I think the problem is lessening as gay couples become more openly common, but the problem still exists. The legal factor is important, but a domestic union would solve that issue. Yet, gay couples want marriage, not domestic unions. All these posts make it clear that even the term marriage is inconsistently defined. A Common Law Marriage has no piece of paper, but is still a legal marriage. To really break this down much further would require us all to agree on terminology, but how can we when the entire culture disagrees on how to define terms.
Anthony's right about hospitalization. Then again, he, like me, is old enough to remember the AIDS challenges of the 1980s.
The gays want marriage rather than civil unions because there are state-specific rights that differ between the two. In a civil union, the union is not technically functional as a legal unit. When you marry, you inherit the other's credit, for one thing.
On a related note, how will our hetero-gyno-centric family court system manage gay couples' disputes? Issues like alamony and child support are for the most part based on the academic theories of patriarchy and similar dogma today, just as they were based on anti-communist and old-testament dogma in the 1950s. Dogma is dogma, though, and uniquely inflexible and incapable of dealing with reality. They will not be able to automagically award custody to the woman where both partners are women, just as they won't be able to automagically collect child support from the man where both partners are men.
For a mirror image of what we have in the gynocentric west, look at the androcentric east and parts of Africa where there are even laws on the books for execution of gays. Yes, they say it's their religion, but I think it has more to do with an existing system's attempt to remain automated and functioning: Who could be blamed in an androcentric society, for example, if both partners in a domestic relationship were gay?
Call my ideas out there, maybe, but that is how I've been able to explain some Western Women's visceral reaction to a pair of gay men, arguably a couple of guys she would probably find the least threatening in her environment. Except in the gynocentric west, their relationship dynamics could potentially upset the applecart we call the family courts. I have confidence the gays will figure it out. And who knows? It may be like the deaf and insurance, where the existing insurers wouldn't insure the deaf so the deaf created their own insurance companies with better rates and benefits exclusively for the deaf. They've got gay churches now, so why not gay family law agencies that can independently and legally manage settlements when the marriage / union dissolves?
I think if I were gay, I wouldn't want to trust the existing family court system in either East or West to manage the dissolution of my union. Of course, saying "If I were gay," is quite a stretch I realize, since I have no idea of what that is like, or how difficult that is.
Yes Anthony, I understand the legal issues, but seems to me if a man is in the hospital and his girlfriend shows up the staff don't think twice about letting her see him, nor telling her about his condition, providing the family has not specificly barred her.
Now on the other hand a partner shows up of the same sex they get asked all sorts of questions, or denied any information regardless if the family has specificly bared them or not? Am I correct in my thinking?
This seems to go just the same in other aspects of life as well.
Hello all, I hope this message finds everyone well. Marriage to me is a sore topic. My parents got married in the 60s. No matter what happened in the family our parents didn't get a devorice. I been asked twice to get married and I refused do to the choices the men made in there lives. To me, there are more dvorces today than ever before. I could get married today and get a dvorce in a week. To me relationship doesn't stay together, work probelms out, people are wanting to jump out of a relationship. Yes I agree having a marriage paper could help in getting assurance and for medical reason; I don't believe in getting a marriage paper will keep two people together. Talking, communication, trust, are things you need in a marriage. I believe Gays, Bies and Lesbians need to be treated equal as far as getting married. All of us needs to be treated equal and I don't see that happening in my life time, thanks for reading.
Wayne, I'm absolutely incredulous over here. Yes, to be totally blunt, you are absolutely wrong. How does the hospital staff know that the visitor is the man's boyfriend or girlfriend or lover or anything else. Breache of confidence is a sueable offense, and the hospital staf is well aware of that. My god! Sorry, I just can't believe this. If you're sick and in the hospital, you think just anyone could request access to your information? all they'd have to do is say they're your lover and they'd have the key? You think the hospital staff will say, "Well, we know this isn't legal, but we'll tell you anyway, and no one else has to know about it?"
That shouldn't be a reason to be afraid of getting married. In fact, I think that should be more encouraging. If there was someone who you cared about enough, and both of you decided to get married, that's only the first step. Like you said, marriage is an ongoing work effort that entails communication, and even more trust between both persons. Marriage seriously is not taken as seriously anymore, and people jump at it too quickly.
I figured the same thing that Anthony said. You should have the rite to deny questions that you feel are inappropriate. The problem with many things today is some people are su happy, and they'll su if they feel violated in any way, and so hospitals and just about any business that has to do with health care need to cover their asses.
wow, Wayne, I can't believe you're so ignorant. Anthony already said what I would've, so I won't repeat it. however, if there is a next time, maybe you should talk to one of us who knows just how difficult it can be for someone in a gay relationship to visit their partner in hospitals.
I've been married, and I also date.
I also know other people that have gone to the hospital and gotten information easy.
Let me tell you a personal story.
I went to the hospital with a girl I had not had sex with, wasn't my girlfriend, or anything at all. She was in labor, and a friend me and my girlfriend at the time were helping out.
I was not only able to sign her in, but the staff had no trouble taking us to the room, and if I had notrequested to be taken from the room, so she could have privacy while having her child it never would have happened. I ask, and the nurse actually ask her if she didn't want her boyfriend to stay? Now when my girlfriend came up, the nurse ask her if it was okay for her to be in the room.
My uncle was in a position were only family were suppose to visit, but his girlfriend at the time had no trouble visiting him at all, and told us his condition, not the other way around.
Call me stupid if you like, but seems to me if I'd been a female the girl wouldn't have been ask that question, and if my uncles girlfriend had been male she'd have been questioned where is his family, and do you think they should be contacted before we allow you in his room?
The hospital isn't necessarily doing anything illegal until a complaint has been lodged.
I do see your points however, but I am wondering if the rules aren't easily set aside for different sex couples more then they are enforced for same sex couples?
Put yourself in the position of being really sick and in the hospital though. Would you rest easy knowing that anyone could come in and request information about you? All they have to do is say they're your lover or whatever, and they've got access. I know you probably don't have anything to hide, but what if you had an illness that you really didn't want the public to know about?
Where I agree with you whole heartedly, this is a marriage issue, or society issue.
I like the rules, or mind sets to be the same no matter the couples gender configuration, but saddly, I think it is not, and have experienced it being not.
My question is only do others see this, or have scene it, and do they agree I am right?
Wayne, are you gonna answer Anthony's question? if you put yourself in the position of being hospitalized, can you really say you'd rest easily with even the thought that anyone could have access to getting your information? I know I couldn't.
maybe you've just never had to deal with this sort of thing, but I'm sorry to know that, in 2012, people are still so ignorant regarding issues of this nature.
What the hell? A gender configuration?
I believe I answered his question. I stated I whole heartedly agreed with him, however, my question remains. I think it is just easier for what is thought of as regular couples, to get access to their mates.
2012 1712, doesn't matter much.
The so-called piece of paper will seal the situation so that what Anthony is talking about will be all right, and further, the spouse has power of attorney over the other one should they be unconscious or unable to consent to medical treatment.
I've known of a woman who had to sign to have her husband's leg cut off after a severe accident and the doctors gave her the information and let her choose for her mate who was not conscious.
This is why the gay marriage is so important, so the corerect person is allowed in and not some random stranger after some identity theft, or some family member with an ideological childish pet peeve.
Thank you Leo.
Now if that woman had been his male mate it wouldn't have been done. This is my point.
Omg, yes, Wayne, it wouldn't have been done, since so far, gay marriage is illegal, so there wouldn't be that piece of paper. You're totally missing the point. The only reason the woman could decide for her husband was because of the little piece of paper. Since the gay couple wouldn't have that paper, it wouldn't have been done. I can't figure out how to make this any more clear.
I am saying you don't need the paper at all if you are a "regular" couple here. I'll be back with my reasons.
Okay. Here is some meat for my point.
In about 9 states common law marage is legal. All you need to do is cohabitate with a male or female for a set amount of time, and you are married
She, or he can get benefits, ask questions at the hospital, call herself by your last name, and such stuff.
In some places if you sign a hotel registration book as Mr. and Mrs. you can be married. Take a lease on a place in your names, and that is good enough.
Now, if a same sex couple does the same things, they can live together 10 years and never get any rights at all.
This is why I say a woman can walk in to a hospital and get information about you faster than your male partner can. Your male partner, even though you've live together 10 years, and he's the only person in town until the "next of kin" shows up, can't do anything for you at all.
The woman can have only lived with you, say a month, and if she claims she's your wife no one thinks to actually check it. That was why I could have stayed in a room with a woman that was nothing more to me then a friend if I had not suggest I be taken out, but kept close by, because she was in labor and not really thinking about it at all. She'd have been mad after the fact, but the thing would have been done, and the hospital would have put up a fight she probably couldn't afford to fight, so she'd just let it go.
That is my point here.
Call me dumb, but that is how I see it, and others as well.
Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman who love the Lord.
Umm, so, ifyou dont' love the lord you can't possibly be married? What a crock of shit. lol
Wich lord?
And do they have to love the lord before getting married? If they stop loving the lord after being married, are they divorced? What about the people who were married before the bible was written, were they married? If not, what do you call them? Is it only your lord that has marriages, or all lords? are we talking of lord as in God lord, or lord as in like lord Nelson, or a noblemen of some sort? Can they love a baron? If they love a baron, is the groom gay? So many questions.
I shall get married, and support my lord Voldemort until the day I die!
Fuck that! It's all about Lord Vader.
I say it is as I posted. No papers, lords, or otherwise required. You are married if you believe it so in your mind.
I've known people that "love the Lord" get married because of this saying, discover they really weren't suited, and still "loving the Lord" get divorced.
Of course you can do as I suggest and still change your mind, but that is all it is anyway.