Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!hao!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social Subject: marriage vows Message-ID: <1083@opus.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 02:47:17 EST Article-I.D.: opus.1083 Posted: Tue Feb 12 02:47:17 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 19:04:36 EST References: <295@stat-l> <1117@houxm.UUCP> Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO Lines: 22 Xref: utcs net.singles:5625 net.social:410 Greg Skinner, replying to a comment on eliminating the "'til death do us part" of marriage vows: > A lot of people seem to be writing their own vows these days. I guess that's > the best thing to do if you're going to get married by the state and you're > not sure that you can keep the traditional marriage vows. Cheap shot, Greg! "...not sure you can keep the...vows" is pretty laden with emotion. That's pretty heavy to lay on the people who would like their vows to say something about THEIR relationship, instead of being just one more tired copy of the same time-worn vows of centuries gone past. Should people also still expect that the bride vow to "love, honor, and OBEY..." [emphasis mine], just because of tradition? Marriage "by the state" is also somewhat of a red herring. I think that a more accurate distinction is whether you're going to get married by a representative of an institution (or faith or whatever) which will not allow modification of its wording of the vows. In fact, many religions (and particular clergy of some religions) DO allow varying degrees of modification to the vows. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Cerebus for dictator!