Vows

Mendelson really wants you to understand that the classic "'til Death do us part" marital vows are the singular greatest structure in marriage, ever. To the extent that she talked about other traditions, she basically claims this is unique; I don't recall the Ketubah even getting a mention, but that might be wrong! To the extent that she mentioned other traditions of similar structured statements, it was mostly to dismiss them as fundamentally inferior. I picked up this book hoping for a cross-cultural investigation of what marriage means, and why claims of shared duty matter even outside of a single tradition, and what I found instead was a relatively uncritical series of observations that really only made sense from the perspective of a straight, Christian woman (particularly who has grown up under Catholic rites) who has only ever seriously considered a marriage in that context.

Before I get to my primary complaint, though, I have a particular gripe with the claim that "taking vows" means getting married. I have never heard that phrase used to signify a marriage, I've only ever heard it in terms of joining a religious order. If someone says, "oh, I'm going to be taking vows next week," I'm going to congratulate them and then ask what monastery or convent they found that inspired them to such service. We'd both have quite a shock at what the other meant or expected.

Coming from a Jewish background, the idea of a contract underlying a marriage is hardly new, and hardly originated in Christendom. Taking one example I'm familiar with, the Jewish marriage contract (ketubah), originally a matter of making sure the bride was financially protected, originates in antiquity. This isn't as romantic as Mendelson wants to push the Sarum Rite as, but admittedly the Sarum Rite is also not as romantic as she's gauzily stated―and then, to her credit, expanded on, but not until she'd already built it up as words that were said out of love over obligation.

For my real fury, though, there's the throwaway remark about how great Obergefell was of a ruling, because now the gays can take part in this tradition too! In one paragraph, the entire history of Loving and the fight against antimiscegenation laws, and the through-line to Obergefell is summed up as, "Great! Now you get to use these too!" No thought was given to how many centuries of couples who were denied that recognition, to examples of gay marriages performed hundreds of years ago, or of how different a meaning marital vows might have for people whose right to have their relationship recognized has been a matter of political violence and continued strife even in the years since 2015―the idea that being in a loving relationship can be a rebellious or subversive action. Instead, the entire concept of what these vows might mean to groups who were historically denied recognition is simply ignored in favor of focusing on how important the words are.

In a year where womens' agency is coming under threat, when the improvements to how we understand equality in American society over the past hundred years seem to be standing on shaky ground, and powerful groups are threatening to invoke the power of the state to harm minorities, maybe we needed a little more insight, and a little less personal meditation. After all, what does it mean to commit yourself to a relationship when that relationship will go unrecognized by the legal system and by strangers at every possible moment? That's a question that she simply doesn't consider within the scope of her study, and it would lend a great deal more relevance and weight to this book if she did.