Quick poll - if you got married in church, did you choose to 'obey'

[Wuldric]

And did anyone you know choose to obey?

After 22 years of marriage DH told me how very shocked he was when I told him I wasn't going to obey. He seemed not to blink an eyelid at the time. Apparently he was surprised by my radical feminism and how far out I was.

But was it radical? Really?

On September 12, 1922, the Episcopal Church voted to remove the word "obey" from the bride's section of wedding vows. Other churches of the Anglican Communion each have their own authorized prayer books which in general follow the vows described above though the details and languages used do vary.

So women were ditching the obey as far back as 1922. Please tell me I am not out in left field. Not that there is anything wrong with being in left field, I just didn't think I was IYSWIM.

And FWIW both the husband and wife are to submit to each other; then Ephesians uses the phraseology submit for the wife and love for the husband "as Christ loved the church" - i.e. laud down his life as a servant king.

Nowhere does the bible say the wife should obey. If you really want to take the bible literally in your vows then say submit.

MrsGSR.

You are totally right, but you don't need me to tell you that

I would disagree that Christ submitted to the church, but I think that is a different debate!

Submit sounds even worse than obey, to my ears. Submit makes me think of physically and sexually [sad.]

Nearly every wedding I have been to has used 'obey', but then they have all been inevangelical protestant churches. Have only ever been to one civil wedding and I can't remember what they said.

fail in previous post!

2010 and I said it. we discussed it and it was fine by me. still is. doesn't give me a lesser role in our relationship.

" the minister said that even if the husband was going to make a terrible error, such as a bad investment that would lose the entire family savings, the wife's duty is to respect his decision and she should not overstep the mark by trying to make him change his mind."

This is the thing with 'obey', isn't it?

I love my DH dearly but my god he can be a fuckwit at times. (It's possible that I might also, very occasionally, be mistaken in minor matters )

Surely we all need someone to point out to us (politely) when we're about to do something stupid, rather than just assuming that possession of a penis makes all one's decisions infallible...?

I'm sorry, Mrs GSR, but if you say things like this:

Surely equality is all about women being considered intellectually equal to men, and able to make their own decisions without being judged? If a women chooses to say ?obey? in her vows that should be up to her and she shouldn?t be made to feel bad for that, especially in the name of equality.

... you really need to think harder. If you are promising to obey your husband, you are subjugating yourself to him. Therefore you are not equal.

There is no equality here.

The historical use of obey in marriage vows was more than just a result of church views; it referenced the unequal status of women in law. Women were considered property and had very few rights; men had a legal obligation to control their wives, so society expected women to obey their husbands. The gradual dropping of obey from marriage vows mirrors to some extent the attainment of greater legal rights by women in Western societies.

I think biblically, the idea of 'obey' comes from the passage, much misquoted where wives are invited to submit to their husbands.

Eph 5 v22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy,

For Christ, this meant death on a cross. For me, this means that although I promised to obey my husband, he promised to die for me, I take this metaphorically to mean mutual submission, so don't have a problem with the wording.. I certainly don't think my husband thinks I submit to him in everything!

However I do agree with Scone, that traditionally the use of obey was referencing the status of women as chattels, moving from one man's protection (father) to another's (husband). I would be interested to know whether those who are so vehement in their opposition of 'obey', were given away by their fathers?

I consider myself equal to my husband (as does he). We don't have the same roles in our relationship but we are of equal worth.
We are equal in that we both choose what vows we wanted to say to the other.

I was not given away by my father, and neither was my daughter. My father escorted me down the aisle, and the priest (US Episcopal) said, "who presents this woman and this man to be married to each other?" My dad responded "On behalf of their families, I do."

When my daugher got married, DH walked her down the aisle, and then sat next to me on the first row. There was no giving away or presenting.

I understand that you both chose to say the vows, but the vows to me sound fundamentally unequal. I mean if the wife says obey and the husband vows to die for her, that's fair enough (although possibly a different form of inequality). But that's not what the vows say, is it?

If you consider yourself equal, why did you say those words then?

Because I don't think being equal means being the same. We're of equal worth, of equal importance. He promised to protect and I promised to obey. I'm not saying this is the right way or that everyone should do it, I'm not trying to push my views on anyone (as it seems some people are). The OP asked who said obey, and then later it was asked why. I just answered why we personally chose those words.

We're of equal worth, of equal importance. He promised to protect and I promised to obey.

But this isn't about equality. He is promising to take a dominant - more important - role and you have promise to take a more submissive role.

It's your choice, obviously but don't try and pretend that this is about equality.

I'm not saying it is about equality, I'm just saying it doesn't stop us being equal.

When I mentioned equality in a previous post in was in relation to general equality between men and women, due to equality women can now choose their vows, just as they can choose to go back to work after having children. In my opinion that is a good thing and women shouldn't be judged for their choice of vows, or for choosing to be a SAHM.

It's all about the roles we feel comfortable playing, is it not? I couldn't say obey - because I wouldn't obey and I would feel hypocritical promising to be obedient.

Although there was something a little bit hypocritical about my saying vows in Church in any event, given that I am not a believer. But still it was important to DH and everyone was there.

So should we not respect the position of wanting to obey in the way that we respect women who wear a burkha (which for me is another symbol of inequality). I think so, even though it seems puzzling to me.

I'm getting married this year and plan to obey. As I understand the Middle English origin means to listen/honour/respect and it is in this vein that I shall say it. My partner knows the meaning I have given the word, and it will surprise people!

Groupie: if you really think that it means listen/honour/respect then why won't you both be saying it?

wuldric I think I agree with your last post! If your not comfortable saying it you definitely shouldn't. I respect your right to choose whatever vows you want :)

I would never vow to obey anybody. I wouldn't actually obey my dh (we've currently got no plans to get married anyway, we're happy "living in sin" ) so to my mind it would be a bad start to the marriage. Promising to do something I have no intention of doing would cast doubt on the rest of my promises.

We had this discussion at work a few weeks ago and there were quite a few of us who were very surprised that anybody would include it in their vows now. One woman actually had included it and seemed incredulous that we were surprised. She even told us that it was all down to the choice of husband, ie if you choose the right man then he will make all good decisions and you would be happy to obey him. I just feel that if you include obey in your wedding vows then realistically what you've promised is to give in every time you have a disagreement, that's really not me.

GroupieGirl - and is your fiance going to commit to listen/honour/respect you?

Because if he isn't, then you don't have an equitable relationship.

And I suspect your friends won't be surprised - they will be shocked/disappointed.

I got married 9 years ago in a church, the CofE vicar didn't even offer the obey version, it was all ''love, honour and cherish''.

My SIL vowed to obey, she got married a few months before me. I said to her ''you do realise you're marrying my brother'', but she had this quaint idea that marriage would change him and make him responsible and put others first. No prizes for guessing how that turned out.