I am a geek [entries|reading|network|archive]
simont

[ userinfo | dreamwidth userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Sat 2005-07-09 17:42
I am a geek

I could tell I was a geek, because as I sat in [livejournal.com profile] fanf and [livejournal.com profile] rmc28's wedding this afternoon, I was sure that I was supposed to be thinking solemn thoughts about love, lifelong companionship, and possibly God. Instead I found myself – as usual at weddings, come to think of it – mostly worrying about the transactional integrity of the procedure.

What happens if the bride and groom have exchanged vows but haven't yet been pronounced man and wife, and then the ceremony is unavoidably interrupted by (for example) the church catching fire: does the wedding roll back, or commit? What happens if the interruption occurs after they've been pronounced man and wife but before signing the register: are they married in the eyes of God but not the Law, and might they have to rectify the legal side at a registry office at some later date? And worse still, what happens if one has made the vows to the other but not vice versa: do you end up with one person having sworn in the sight of God to be faithful to someone who has sworn nothing in return, and thus (at least theoretically) the latter is able to go and marry someone else leaving the former poor sap in a bit of a bind? It all seems terribly fraught with danger; there should be proper backups kept in case of accident.

Anyway; fortunately nothing of the sort happened and the happy couple are now safely married. I'm off out to the bring-and-share-food reception soon, but first I'm briefly back at home so as to cook the food I'm bringing.

Extra points to this wedding for having the hymn music in the service booklet as well as the words, so that I actually knew what I was supposed to be singing; unfortunately it turned out that I'd forgotten how key signatures worked (or at least couldn't dig it out of my dusty mental music-theory attic fast enough, perhaps because I was still worrying about wedding atomicity :-), but I got there in the end.

LinkReply
[identity profile] keithlard.livejournal.comSat 2005-07-09 16:58
does the wedding roll back, or commit?

T |N >K
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] geekette8.livejournal.comSat 2005-07-09 17:14
You know what's even worse than thinking those things at someone else's wedding? Thinking them at your OWN wedding. Yes, I did. :-p

Fortunately everything went smoothly with us too, so my concerns remained theoretical. But nonetheless, it does seem like a badly designed protocol. I also wonder about race conditions - presumably theoretically you could have two weddings going on simultaneously, with the same groom, and whichever committed first would be OK but the second would be bigamous.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] gerald_duckSat 2005-07-09 17:22
Actually, you could even have deadlock: what if simultaneously A made vows to B, B to C, C to D and D to A? Now, for anyone to complete a wedding requires them to be bigamous, but nobody can back out.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] geekette8.livejournal.comSat 2005-07-09 17:45
True. Of course in the eyes of the church, the wedding isn't binding until it's consummated, either. I am making no comment whatsoever on how that might apply to a A->B->C->D->A scenario. :-p

Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[personal profile] gerald_duckSat 2005-07-09 17:49
The hotel might place a surcharge on the honeymoon suite, if only to cover the extra cleaning costs…
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] gerald_duckSat 2005-07-09 17:18
I suspect it's implicit in the marriage vows that both parties enter the marriage simultaneously, and each makes their vows contingent on the other party also making them.

However, I also suspect that most law relating to marriage has been around since Time Immemorial, so we're probably now operating largely on precedent.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[identity profile] the-alchemist.livejournal.comSat 2005-07-09 19:21
However, I also suspect that most law relating to marriage has been around since Time Immemorial...

It hasn't actually. It was all revamped at some point in the eighteenth century. Before then, the law was very messy and random.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] the-alchemist.livejournal.comSat 2005-07-09 19:20
In civil weddings, the marriage is complete when the couple have said... I've forgotten what they're called... 'the contracting words' or something. (Source - my registrar ex-flatmate)

In terms of religion, it's the same. It doesn't matter what form of words they use, but they're married when they both say they're married, basically. The priest doesn't enter into it. It's the only sacrament where the person receiving the sacrament is also the minister of it.

Until the eighteenth century, clandestine marriages with only the couple present could be legal.

However, if only one person has said the vows, the marriage hasn't happened. The vows are implicitly understood as being conditional on the other person making similar vows.

Link Reply to this
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comSat 2005-07-09 21:38
That's why they make churches out of stone or brick and not out of something that will catch fire.
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] senji.livejournal.comSat 2005-07-09 22:31
Some couples go for simultaneous vows…
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] philipstorry.livejournal.comSat 2005-07-09 22:39
To be fair, the concept of marriage slightly predates the concept of ACID.

And another point is - what's the timeout on a marriage vow that's unreciprocated? If I trothed myself to someone right now, how long do they get to complete the transaction?

And what if the timeout is infinite? Then, I might wait a while and decide that my love is unrequited. So I go off and find myself another pretty, beautiful, intelligent thing - who's slightly less intelligent than the first, and reciprocates my vows.

Now, I can be attacked by the first person I attempted to marry - if they decide to marry me, they can, and make me a bigamist. Possibly without me ever knowing, and certainly without myself ever intending this to happen.

An aside is what we should call such an attack. Denial Of Monogamy? Denial Of Atomicity?

Surely the Vatican must have some dusty old parchment upon which these things are defined... A Godly RFC, if you will...
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.comSun 2005-07-10 12:51
ROFL. Except, at this wedding, everyone would probably have appreciated it if you'd stood up and said "STOP! The groom[1] may not be atomic!"

I thought it was official when they were written down in the book. Of course, if both or neither want to go though with a half-wedding it can probably be sorted, only awkward if they disagree. But isn't that what annulments are for?

[1] Monkey Island reference.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[identity profile] geekette8.livejournal.comMon 2005-07-11 10:00
Except, at this wedding, everyone would probably have appreciated it if you'd stood up and said "STOP! The groom[1] may not be atomic!"

They might have appreciated the joke but I bet they wouldn't have appreciated having to wait until the next day to be married! We were told by the Chaplain who married us that we should make sure none of our friends would try anything jokey at the "Does anyone know any reason why these two should not be lawfully wed" bit, because if anyone says anything, even if it's obviously a joke, the wedding is not allowed to go ahead that day.

At another wedding, my son, who was 10 weeks old at the time, chose that moment of slightly scary silence after that question to say "Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa". Cue me sinking into the floor. Fortunately the minister chose to ignore the comment.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] furrfu.livejournal.comMon 2005-07-11 09:26
Personally, I'd also be quite worried about man-in-the-middle attacks.
Link Reply to this
navigation
[ go | Previous Entry | Next Entry ]
[ add | to Memories ]