Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Well, it's sure tough to answer this one.

Every wedding I can recall, with the exception of one, a man gave the bride
away (a few wedding's I've been to are fuzzy...). 

On why; I can only speak for myself. I didn't think much about it (it's so
dopey; if he wouldn't give me, I'd go without him!). I did try to get my mother
to walk down the aisle and 'give me away' too. She refused. I couldn't get a
cogent reason from her on why. Collusion, and fear of disapproval, come to
mind.
	Mez

    From what I understood at my wedding, the minister (female) had to
    include the 'giving away' of the bride.  There are certain things that
    have to be done at a wedding and every part has a name.  Like the 
    "Interigation (sp?)" which is 'do you take this women to blah blah
    blah" and so on.  
    
    I didn't want to 'be given away' since I was older and already living 
    with my husband and hadn't been anyone's 'dependent' for almost 10
    years.  So what we did was, my husband and I together walked down the
    alise.  When the question, 'who gives this women blah blah blah' my
    family all said 'we do'.  Both males and females in my family.  
    
    Anna
    

    Since I'm Lutheran and Neil's Jewish, we took the things we liked
    best from each wedding ceremony and put them together.  Since I
    had been living on my own for several years, and Neil and I were
    paying for the wedding, which was being held where we were living,
    it seemed rather pointless for my father to hand me over to my new
    head of household.  Not to mention that I didn't like the
    symbolism.
    
    So we had both our parents give both of us away. I'm told that's
    the traditional Jewish wedding procession, and it represents the
    union  of the two families, or at least their approval.  
    
    --bonnie

Tradition, of course. (Shades of Fiddler on the Roof) ...and symbolism.

The father, whose name the daughter bears, is giving up his offspring to 
be wed to another.  While the importance of last names has changed the way
some people call themselves after marriage, the symbolism of giving away
the bride is clear.

In the many weddings I have attended, swept up after, and been in, the 
Bride has one rule:  do it the way you want it - it is your day.
Of course, that may be a throw back to tradition, as well.  May as well
have the bride awiting the Groom to promenade down the aisle.

If there are traditions that cause friction in *your* wedding, do without
them (where something stolen and something green).  However, if a friend
or relative wants to hold to certain traditions (being given away), allow 
them the latitude to incorporate "stone age" traditions in their marriage.

-------

Some interesting wedding occurences:

In churches where there are three aisles, ushers seat the guests from the two
side aisles.  This gives the first-comers seats close to the middle aisle to
see the Bride *and* keeps the center aisle untouched until the Bridal party
walks on it. (Purity)

I have seen a few weddings now where the couple and the wedding party face
the congregation and the minister has his back to the congregation.

P.S.  If I am around for my daughters' weddings, I want very much to be 
      the one to bring her to her new husband.  For a father (like me, I 
      suppose), giving my daughter away will be very difficult and this
      ritual helps somehow pyschologically; sort of like "being there"
      and "being a part of it."  

      I suppose the brother symbolizes the family (as does the father)
      from which the bride comes.  Enough chat...

    I think the symbolism in "giving away the bride" is gut churning.
     The idea that all women must "belong" to a man - first to daddy
    and then he gives her to her husband - sickens me.  If my daughter
    gets married, I certainly hope she and my ex-husband don't act out
    this tradition.  Of course, I don't believe in organized religion
    anyway, so I also would hope she doesn't get married in a church
    anyway.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Most weddings I have attended (and my own two years ago!)
    have had both parents escort the bride to the altar. I 
    liked the security of one on each side, and this was
    a meaningful moment for them as well! The symbolism  
    for my husband and myself was that two families were 
    now joined together.... I never thought of it in the 
    traditional sense of the daughter is being given away! I
    thought this was great idea, even though at 28 I may have 
    qualified as an older bride!  I would go for a brother
    escorting his sister! 
    
    (these were Catholic weddings if that makes a difference) 
    
    

    In this country, I believe that "giving away the bride" is mostly just
    a carryover, and as much a part of the wedding as is tossing of rice,
    even tho that has lost its symbolism of conferring fertility upon the
    couple.
    
    Recent weddings that I've attended have had both parents walking the
    bride down the aisle and "giving away" the bride.  I like that.  For my
    wedding, which will be very informal, my former stepchildren have asked
    if they can "give me away".  I think they're just glad to see me
    happily settling in and want to be part of that.
    
    In countries where marriages are arranged, and there is a dowry or
    bride prize, "giving away the bride" has much more significance.  It is
    a part of the contract, as in legal "consideration" or compensation. 
    Many abuses of the dowry and the bride prize system have been
    documented here and elsewhere, and in light of the Valuing Differences
    policy of Digital, probably should not be rehashed.
    
    Marge

    Re .3
    
    For the record, this wedding that's coming up is a Jewish wedding.
    But as far as I know, only the bride is being given away, and by
    her brother.
    
    (Incidentally, anyone know what the smashing of the glass symbolizes?)
    
    Dorian

    
    I was just married in June, in a catholic church. I was having major
    problems with my family and they refused to pay for the wedding.
    I also had been out of the house for six years and had been self
    supportive during that time.  And, six months before the wedding
    I had moved in with my fiance (we have been together for seven years).
    SO, I decided I would walk myself down the aisle.  I walked down
    alone and then when I got to the halfway point (it was a looong
    aisle) my husband-to-be walked up from the other end to meet me
    and then we walked together the rest of the way.  
    
    It was really nice and it shocked everyone because noone knew but
    my husband and I.
    
    Whenever we tell someone about it Kelly (my husband) always sais
    that it symbolized the fact "his wife will never have to walk 
    alone again."
    
    Brenda

    re: .8
    
    Neither of us is very religious, so I wouldn't want to claim that
    we got either the Jewish or the Lutheran ceremony right.  The
    pastor who married us checked with a rabbi he was friends with
    about whether what we wanted was appropriate -- maybe there's more
    than one tradition.
    
    We included the smashing of the glass, which supposedly symbolizes
    the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.  What that has to do
    with weddings, I'm not sure.  There's an associated tradition that
    whoever breaks the glass first will control the marriage.  My
    father-in-law tells us that when he and mother-in-law got married,
    he needed a glass for the ceremony and asked his sister if she had
    a glass he could borrow.  He didn't say what he wanted it for, so
    she, being an older sister concerned that her brother was clumsy,
    gave him a heavy water tumbler that he wouldn't be likely to
    break.  He didn't notice, wrapped it up in the cloth, and
    proceeded to stomp away, unable to break the stupid glass.  My
    mother-in-law, being a well-brought-up lady, didn't try to beat
    him to it . . . 
    
    --bonnie

To my knowledge, giving the bride away is just another tradition
that goes along with the whole ceremony.  When one of my close
friends from college got married, both parents walked her down
the isle.  My sister is getting married next May and both of
my parents are walking her down the isle, and my roommate- who
is getting married next July is having her mother walk her down
the isle (her father is not participating in the wedding).

Like every tradition, things can (and often should) be tinkered with.


Terri

    Re .10
    
    Thanks - that's a great story!

        Lorna, your comments reminded me of the words to an old folksong
    called "The Wagoner's Lad"

    "Hard is the fortune of all womankind
    she's always controlled, she's always confined.
    Controlled by her parents until she's a wife,
    a slave to her husband the rest of her life"

    liesl

    I attended a wedding several years ago in which both parents walked the
    bride down the aisle.  When asked by the minister, "Who gives this
    bride to be wed?"  Both parents stood and together proudly announced,
    "With our love, our daughter freely gives herself to be wed."
    
    Neat.
    
    Carol
    

    My Father was the only one that walked me down the aisle.  I asked my
    mom to walk with us but she refused - she's so traditional sometime.
    Instead of having the "Who gives thes woman......"  the minister asked
    both my parents "Do you commend Suzanne to David's care?" and then he
    asked Dave's parents "Do you commend David to Suzanne's care?"
    A little different - we liked it.
    
    Suzanne
    
    P.S.  Commend means to "praise or represent as worthy or qualified;
    recommend"

   >We included the smashing of the glass, which supposedly symbolizes the
   >destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.  What that has to do with
   >weddings, I'm not sure.  

This is true it does symbolizes the destruction of the temple.  A wine
glass is traditionally used which represents the sweetness of life.  It
reminds us that even in the happiest of times we must remember that
there is sadness in this world.  It is also the symbolic end of the
wedding ceremony.

    Robin

    Like in .3, my twin sister had both my parents escort her down the
    aisle.
    
    --Lynn
    

    My first wedding followed the tradition of father escorting me down
    the aisle and "giving me away."  I didn't like the symbolism then,
    but was too nice to rock the boat.  The marriage didn't last.
    
    For my second wedding, Ron and I were preceeded down the aisle by
    (1) best man escorting matron of honor, (2) my two children (ages
    14 and 16 at the time) -- I believe we finally talked David into 
    lending Laura his arm, but I'm not sure, then (3) Ron and me.  When 
    the minister asked, "Who gives this woman...," my children said, 
    "We do."  We all liked the symbolism of the children, who had been 
    with me forever, including Ron in our new family circle.
                               
    Karen

    Well, dad is escorting me down the isle in 10 days!  It's a very short
    isle at that - small church.  I asked my mother if she'd like to escort
    me also, but she decided it was a moment for daddy and me.  When the
    minister asks "who gives this woman..." Daddy will reply "her mother
    and I do".  We look at it as a symbol of the joining of the two
    families.  I've never felt to be either my father's or my fiance's 
    posession or property.  I just look at it as a very sentimental moment
    for daddy and I.  I'm not sure if he'll be holding me up, or I'll be
    holding him up!  At any rate, I will cherish the moment for always.
    
    Judy
    

    I was 28 when I married two years ago [does that qualify me as an
    "older" bride???].  I asked my father to walk me down the aisle,
    and that he did.  We never had that question asked about who gives
    this woman.  Catholic ceremony; it wasn't there.  I'm glad.  But
    I had been out of the house for several years.  But Dad & Mom still
    helped with the costs of the wedding.  I was thrilled to have my
    dad walk me down the aisle.  I was thrilled to have the dance with
    him to Daddy's Little Girl... because I was always was, and always
    will be.
    
    My younger sister married a little over a year ago.  She had both
    parents walk her down the aisle.  That was her preference and kind
    of nice, too.
    
    I attended a wedding several years ago where the bride had a natural
    father [who she loved] and a step-father, who she had lived most
    of her life with and loved, also.  She wanted to offend neither.
    So she and her fiance walked down the aisle together [a Catholic
    ceremony].  That was real nice, too.  Kind of like, "We're starting
    on this thing together..."
    
    But for heavens sake, don't be caught up in what people think, want,
    what does this mean, etc.  Do what YOU WANT.  And be happy.  Enjoy
    your day, and may you have a wonderful marriage.

    I second .20 -- have a wonderful wedding and do what makes YOU happy!
    
    Those of my friends who have chosen to be escorted down the aisle by
    their fathers did it as a final close moment with Dad; a symbolic,
    special last walk.  A closing between old and new.  
    
    Others, who see life more politically, find it outdated and even
    offensive to think of their fathers "giving them away."
    
    About family marriages:
    When I was 13, my best friend's mom got married to George, the guy
    she'd been living with for a year or so.  She was five months pregnant
    and starting to show.  It was truly their kind of wedding. The place
    was a log cabin; the "official" was a friend; the "gowns" were sack
    dresses; the preamble was games of tug-of-war, fresh strawberries, and
    folk music.  Nobody gave anybody away.
    
    This was in the early 70's so it may not surprise you know that all
    five of them stood up front in the cabin and got married together:  
    my friend, her sister, their mom, George, and little "glerp."  
    
    Afterward we all had food and a square dance and shaving cream fights
    in the dark.  It was a great wedding. !

    Re .4
    
    "the symbolism of giving the bride away is clear"
    
    I guess I'm just dense, but to me the symbolism of giving the bride
    away isn't all that clear. As you say, the father of the bride is
    giving up his offspring to be wed to another; but isn't the groom's father
    (and, for that matter, his mother) doing exactly the same thing?
    Why wouldn't it make just as much sense for the groom to be given
    away as for the bride? I know it's "tradition," but that answer
    seems to beg the question...it doesn't really explain *why* the
    tradition is what it is.

    re.22 [just in case]
    
    'giving away the bride' does not symbolise the giving up of an
    offspring.  It symbolises the transfer of chattel.  The father
    transfers his title to 'this woman,' so to speak, to the husband.
    
    Traditionally, the groom is not 'given' because the man-child passed a
    point past which he was no longer considered a child, but rather a man
    and no longer his father's chattel.  Girl-children may have become
    women, but did not cease to be chattel and what disposition was made of
    them was in their father's hands.
    
    Widowhood often brought an end to chatteldom, but certainly not
    wifedom.
    
      Ann

    At one wedding I went to the couple explained that one of the
    traditions of the broken goblet is that the marriage will last
    until someone puts all of the pieces together again.  The groom's
    pesky brother gathered up the glass in the napkin and threatened
    to take it home and glue it together.
    
    On the other tradition: there was no aisle at our wedding (outside
    by the river) and no one was "given away".  Though all the parents were
    there and they seemed happy enough.
    
    I loved the wedding where a friend was getting married for the second
    time and her two kids, age about 6 and 8, gave her away.  Seems like
    they should have a lot more say in the matter since they'll be living
    with the couple.
    
    			Bb

    
    I am just planning my processional.  I like what I am 
    planning... what do you think?  
    
    First of all, there will not be any 'who is giving the
    woman...' it is just not traditional in my family so I
    did not have to deal with it.
    
    First my fiance's parents will walk him down the isle (I
    got their OK). Then everyone else in the party will
    be escorted (Including Grands).  Then both of my parents
    will walk me half way down the isle where my fiance will
    meet us.  Then I will walk the rest of the way with
    my fiance and my parents will follow behind.
    
    Yes, there is a little bit of handing over the
    'chatle' but there is also joining of two families.

    
    re chattel:
    
    Sometimes theres even a bill of sale (ketuba)...

    
    I thought the ketuba basically gives the woman rights
    if the man leaves her?
    
    

    Re: .27
    
    > I thought the ketuba basically gives the woman rights
    > if the man leaves her?
    
    And when *that* fails, Amy, there's always her lawyer. :-)
    
      Alan

    
    A funny story about the glass breaking at a Jewish wedding.
    I was maid of honor at a wedding for my girlfriend (who is jewish)
    and her fiance (who is Chatholic).  They were married at the hall
    in which they held the reception.  They had a Rabbi and a Priest
    marry them.  The rabbi (i believe he was a cousin of the bride)
    would explain some of the jewish traditions to everyone as
    the ceremony continued.  When it came to the glass breaking part
    the rabbi looked at the groom and said  very seriously
    "well Kevin, this will be the last time  you will be able 
    to put your foot down"
    Everyone broke up laughing it was funny.
    
    About giving away the bride.  My sister is getting married
    next Spring, and since my father died last year, she asked
    her Godfather (who is an Greek Othodox priest) to give her
    away.  He will also help out our priest in the Alter.
    
    Kathi
    

    The first time I married I walked down the aisle and about half-way
    my father met me and "gave me away" to my husband.
    
    Just recently re-married, I had my father to my right (was told
    I should be "under his heart"), and my 14 year old son to my left.
    I felt 3 generations walking down the aisle together was nice and
    felt right.
    
    Helaine

    Re: .31
    
    >             < Another Illusion Shattered >
    
    Whose illusion?
    
    I've just put in a Note in BAGELS, asking about the glass-breaking,
    and what it symbolizes/represents.
    
    When I get some replies, I'll post the reasons here.
    
      Alan

In Jewish weddings, the tradition is for the groom's parents to walk him down
the aisle and the bride's parents to walk her down the aisle.  It has nothing
to do with 'giving away.' As my mom is fond of saying these days, when a child
is born into a Jewish family, the parents and rabbi bless the child (at his
bris, her naming) praying that the parents raise the child 'to torah
{study/first five books of Bible}, to good deeds and to the huppah {wedding
canopy}.' So, in a sense, when a child gets married, the parents have
fulfilled their final responsibilities to the child and the walk down the
asile is a symbol of that, of the parents standing by their children as they
enter the next stage of life.

I feel a little uncomfortable with this, because I know there are people out
there who do not WANT to make a lifelong committment to a significant
other--and this leaves them out ...  but I must say I have trouble
understanding such people...

Sorry for the sidetracking, but someone asked about the ketubah...  a ketubah
is a Jewish marriage certificate.  If you were Jewish a couple thousand years
ago or you are Orthodox today, a couple getting married gets a ketubah,
written in Aramaic, the Jewish business langauge of a couple thousand years
ago.  It basically promises that the groom will take care of the bride and
lays out how the bride will be provided for.  If you are Reconstructionist,
Conservative, Egalitarian, or Reform your ketubah might be in Hebrew and/or
some other langauge, might include a provision where the bride can ask for a
divorce, might include promises of how the two of you promise to be caring
and work to build a Jewish home...  in short, whatever the couple wants to
put into it.

Tamar

re: "what does stomping on the glass mean at a Jewish wedding?"

Note:  I am a Jew, but I am not a rabbi, although I have done some
studying of Jewish Law, particularly wrt weddings, since my brother
turned to me as the "rabbi in the family" for information.  I'd 
be happy to correspond with people wanting to know about other
Jewish wedding rituals, but there's a wealth of information in
the BAGELS notesfile.

I was always taught that the breaking of the glass symbolized the
destruction of the Temple.  Also, most of our ceremonies and rituals
include the theme of "remember sorrow in the midst of joy" (for example,
even during the part of the Passover Seder when we are supposed to be
rejoicing over our liberation, we remember the victims and martyrs of
pogroms and other anti-Jewish acts).  It would not be inconsistent
for this "sorrow" reminder to be part of the wedding ritual.

I also seem to remember that the rendering of a utensil to be unusable has
some symbolism in Talmudic thought, I *think* with regard to permanance
as a "steady state condition", but I can't at the moment remember
enough about it to say whether that applies to this case.

In modern usage, the stomping of the glass symbolizes the end of the
formal ceremony, and is the signal to shout "Mazel Tov!", and
begin the reception festivities. :-)

SET MODE=anthropological_ digression:

It seems that some members of the anthropological community spend
their days thinking up reasons for why some ancient customs exist.
Some of these reasons subsequently turn out to be specious (I could
rant and rave about the "Jews are prohibited from eating pork because
of trichinosis in ancient times" rationale, but I won't --
do I hear sighs of relief? :-).

So there has also been an "anthropological" theory put forward that the
breaking of the glass represents the rupturing of the hymen.  
While I am not an anthropologist, this would seem to me to be
"gilding the gold, and painting the lily", because,
in Orthodox (and some, if not all, Conservative) wedding ceremonies,
once the final blessings have been said, the groom and bride retire to
a private room, where they are supposed to immediately consummate the
marriage.

Two kosher witnesses (there are laws determining the "kosherness") are posted
outside the (closed!) door of the room; they are not there to witness 
the "consummation", but rather to see to it that no one enters and
interrupts this delicate activity (so the bride or groom can't later
claim that the marriage was unconsummated, due to the interruption).

Now, of course, there's no way that most modern brides and grooms could disrobe
enough to consummate in the 10 minutes granted them :-)

To my mind, this part of the ceremony, which is *clearly an ancient
part of the wedding ceremony and NOT a modern addition*, obviates the need
for a symbolic gesture meaning the same thing.


Bobbi_who_is_FINALLY_recovered_from_her_brother's_wedding (long 
dress, heels, and hose, UGH :-)

    Wasn't it also an "old tradition" to have the wedding consummated
    immediately and the bloody sheet brought out as proof of the bride's
    virginity? I've also heard that a small chicken bladder full of
    blood was able to procure the same results in an emergency if a
    bride was afraid the aformentioned blood might not appear. liesl

    I was married eight years ago.  Both my father and the groom's father
    were dead.  It was an Episcopal ceremony.  We worked out the ceremony
    we wanted with our priest.  My brother escorted me down the aisle --
    which was a good thing as I was very nervous and his steadying arm was
    necessary.
    
    When we got to the alter, bro kissed me on the cheek.  He did NOT put
    my hand into my husband's hand or any such "handing over" activity.
    
    The ceremony entirely skipped over any giving away part.  Our Mothers
    both particiapted by reading our chosen bible quotations: my Mom read
    the old testament (Psalm 150) his Mom read from the new, two quotes
    actually, the parable about gifts followed by the quote about how the
    greatest gift is love.
    
    I've been to many weddings before and since that ran the gamut of style
    from naked in a stream (really!! so was the minister!!) to formal
    wedding with all the traditions intact.
    
    Two asides: I'm divorced now and it feels nice to be able to talk about
    my wedding.  I feel sorta out of it when other people have a discussion
    about weddings.  I feel like I cannot particiapte as mine was not
    "successful."  Also, the marriage ceremony was so planned
    out and so meaningful; the divorce does not seem real in comparison. 
    All the lawyer and court stuff does not seem a fitting offset to the
    beginning.  Ought to have a divorce ceremony to mark the new phase in
    life.  Something meaningful and life affirming, something that marks
    the end and the beginning with as much dignity as did the wedding.

    Back to the base note....
    
    My husband and I walked down the aisle together.  We decided 
    "together" to get married, so that was the way we wanted to 
    start our married life.  Our family situations made this an
    easy conclusion for us (my father died a few years ago, and
    his parents do not live in the U.S.).  I would have wanted 
    to do this even if my father was alive....he knew how 
    independent I was/am, and I have a big problem thinking of 
    myself as being "given away".  I am the only person who can
    "give" myself to anyone, and we chose to give ourselves to
    each other for LIFE on our wedding day.
    
    Our ceremony did not include the "who gives who" bit (Catholic
    with a wonderful priest).  He asked us each individually,
    "Do you come here freely to give yourself to (spouse) in 
    marriage?"  I wanted to scream "YOU BET I DO!!!" ;-)
                    
    The honeymoon isn't over yet!!!
    
    
    Linette
    
    

    Re .35
    
    Why was it so important that the bride be a virgin? Did anyone ever
    worry about whether the groom was? Did it have anything to do with
    men trying to make sure any offspring were their own and not someone
    else's?

    re .35:
    
    This tradition goes on today in some very small towns in very remote
    areas of Greece.
    
    Marge

    <                     <<< Note 786.38 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >>>
<
<    Re .35
<    
<    Why was it so important that the bride be a virgin? Did anyone ever
<    worry about whether the groom was? Did it have anything to do with
<    men trying to make sure any offspring were their own and not someone
<    else's?
<

I'll take this up in the side issues to abortion topic as soon as I locate it.
I heard a very interestng theory about this. liesl 

    RE: .38, when my Grandmother sold her house, while cleaning out
    closets, we found her original marriage contract (her family was very
    "ol;d country") which presented her as "Gussie the virgin" at least 3
    times in the document. This was in the earlier part of the 1900's.
    
    Eric

Re: .0
    
        Ummm....you might be interested to know that at our recent wedding
    My Wife was given away (Ie:"to me") by her uncle (her dad was sick and unable
    to attend) and I was given away (Ie:"to her") by my Mum!
    
    Phil

I won't be "given away" at my wedding (if anyone was crazy enough to marry me,
that is) because, right now, I'm totally self-sufficient.....my parents 
will no longer be "losing me" out of their family....I'm already on my 
own....therefore, I'll be only giving myself to my partner.

Besides.....it's MUCH more dramatic being the only one walking down the isle!
:-)

/kath

    Since I'm  in  the  midst  of  planning  a  Jewish wedding, let me
    explain some of the traditions we uuncovered.

    All four  parents  walk  down  the aisle, first the groom with his
    parents,  then  the bride with her parents. The groom welcomes the
    bride  under  the  chuppah (marriage canopy), which symbolizes his
    house (so there is some sexism there.)

    Nobody gives away either person, and the officiator doesn't ask if
    there are any objections to the marriage.

    The ketubah  is  not  so  much  a  contract as a record of an oral
    contract.  It  is  signed  not  by the bride and groom, but by two
    witnesses,  who  record  that  they saw the groom give the bride a
    ring  (of  more  than  some minimal value) and the bride willingly
    accept  it.  (Normally  a  contract  is  valid  if it is accepted,
    marriage  is  the only case where the acceptence must be willing.)
    The  bride accepting the ring makes the marriage valid, so neither
    person  is  asked  "Do  you  take  ...?" The ketubah is one of two
    things that belong to the bride (the ring is the other). The groom
    agrees  to  provide  a  considerable sum of money (and accepts the
    bride's  dowry  for a fixed sum that is more than the real value).
    He  doesn't actually have the money, but he agrees to mortgage the
    shirt  off  his  back  to  provide it in case of divorce. A couple
    cannot  legally  live  together  without  a ketubah, so it must be
    replaced immediately if it is lost.  

    The smashing  of  a  glass is an old tradition, with many symbolic
    meanings:  The destruction of the temple, remembering sadness even
    in  happy  times,  a reminder that somethings are irrevocable (the
    glass  can't  be repaired.) It's origin may have been when a rabbi
    broke  an expensive goblet at a wedding which was too riotous, and
    not sufficently mindful of celebrating the blessing of marriage.

    The yichud  (private  time  after  breaking  the  glass) is purely
    symbolic  of  consumation,  and  may  always have been so. Sex (in
    marriage)  is  a  blessing,  and there are requirements that it be
    gentle,  with  foreplay  and  not  be  rushed. Since 10 minutes is
    clearly  not  long  enough for unhurried sex, the yichud is mainly
    symbolic.  There  should be food in the room so the couple can eat
    their  first meal together in peace. (It may be the only food they
    get  that day, as they're supposed to fast before the wedding, and
    may be too rushed to eat at the reception.)

--David

    I think the "giving away" part comes from way back when a girl got
    marry she had accumulated a dowery (linens, china etc) and the father
    gave his daughter away with that.   Like many "traditions" it is just
    something started hundreds of years ago and no one ever questioned
    the tradition. Now a days, people question the reason for everything.
    
    My daughter got married June 1988. Both families Catholic.  She wanted
    the traditional wedding march to enter on her father's arm.  What
    preceded was the priest coming out and announcing that Lisa and Greg
    have come today to enter marriage and leave their families (She was on 
    her own for several years, he lived at home) to start a new life
    together.   Then the priest asked both sets of parents to come forward
    and his parents and my husband and I walked down the aisle up to the
    alter and each couple lit two white candles as symbols of our families.
    then his parents and I sat in the front pews and my husband walked back
    down the aisle and then proceeded the bring my daughter down to alter
    where her fiance met her  my husband kissed her and gave her hand to
    her fiance and the ceremoney began. We all thought it was beautiful!
    Once they were married they walked over to the two candles and with 
    one wick between them lit the large white candle in the center (of the
    two lit by the parents) and blew out the two smaller candles to
    symbolize their new life together. It was very touching.
    
    Barbara
    

    We did a similar thing.  
    
    The mothers of the bride and groom tend to play a smaller part than 
    anyone else at the actual ceremony. (everyone knows how much they 
    did in preparation!)  So, my brother-in-law walked my mother-in-law 
    down the aisle and she remained standing.  My brother then did the
    same with my mother.  Our mothers then lit the candles that we would 
    later light one candle from.  We received many comments as to the 
    warmth that our ceremony created.
    
    At rehersal when my dad was asked 'who gives this woman to be married
    to this man?' he replied in a jokingly "I'm not giving her, he's
    taking her away!"  The day of the wedding, however, he said 
    "Her mother and I"
    
    When my dad walked me down the aisle lifted my veil and gave me a kiss
    then put my veil back down for the remainder of the ceremony.  My
    husband lifted it at the end for our first kiss as husband and wife.
    He had always wanted to do this, and me being such a fool for romance
    I didn't mind one bit!  :-)
      
    -Michelle-

When I got to this one in my catching up I decided to do a bit of research. I
have checked with a lawyer (here in Britain) and with a Church of England vicar.

The consensus goes like this:

1) A woman under the age of legal consent and majority must have her guardians
permission to marry. The Guardian or his (note this is literal - the woman must
have the permission of a male guardian) representative answers the question to
signify consent (just as the priest asks the congregation if anyone knows of a 
legal impediment to the marriage.)

2) A woman who is the heir of an entailled fortune must have the permission of 
her executor. Traditionally this is her father - and this is the aspect that has
historical chattel significance.

3) Historically a woman was delivered to her groom as part of an arranged 
package and she was escorted to the church by an armed escort to ensure she 
wasn't abducted by rival claimants. Since women didn't usually carry arms the
escort was usually a man - typically the person who gave her in marriage.

Incidentally "gave" in this case is one of the verbs that has changed meaning 
significantly since the middle ages and originally didn't imply "gives away" 
(as in property donated without fee being payed), but rather signified the 
granting of permission. Thus in the CofE service no one needs to give the Bride 
in marriage if she is an adult and in personal possesion of her property.

/. Ian .\

    re .47
    
    I don't see a difference in the usage of "give" in this case.
    
    To require your male-only guardian or executors permission  to marry
    implies that this person has the right to give a woman's future
    and hopes, if not her body.  What happens if she truly loves an
    unacceptable suitor and her benefactor denies her the permission
    to marry?  Are not her dreams given away?  And what are we without
    our dreams and hopes?
    
    -maureen
    

    Marriage as a contractual system existed long before the marriage
    ceremony became a church service. Until then (1200?) marriages might be
    blessed in the church porch, but the actual marriage was a purely civil
    affair.

    The idea of giving (as in property) didn't come into it: potential
    brides were  effectively *sold* for bride-price and future inter-family
    dynastic benefit.

    However when it comes to canon law there was a division: a woman who
    had reached adult-hood could give herself (ie consent to the ceremony
    of her own free will)  in marriage [she had in fact transitioned from
    being a maid to being a mistress  - the mistress of her own destiny] -
    only minors (and heiresses) needed  permission, and indeed that (escept
    for heiresses) is still the case today. If  the guardian refuses
    pemission then the couple can appeal to a law court and  have a judge
    grant permission - in which case an officer of the court will  appear
    at the ceremony and signify that consent exists.

    The service in effect existed to prevent a terrible violation of
    liberty that  had occurred in earlier days of brigandage - that of
    kidnapping a young woman  and then forcing her through a marriage
    ceremony. Now the priest would first  ascertain (from the congregation)
    that the marriage would be valid within canon  law (not closely related
    or previously betrothed or currently married), that the  woman was not
    being coerced - the latter both by asking her guradian if she  might be
    too young to make a valid choice herself, and also by asking her 
    personally if she consented. Yes in former times the additional
    restraint  existed for heiresses, but this has long passed from British
    law - today only  under-18s require a male guardian to "give them in
    marriage". The presence of  the guardian is not a sign of diminishment
    of the bride, it is a symbol of the  guarantees that the marriage is
    indeed a matter of free and personal choice. It does *not* imply that
    the guardian has the right to give away her future and hopes for the
    simple reason that she also must give consent at the ceremony. If the
    *only* permission given were that of the guardian, then I would have to
    agree with you.

    I still see a difference between giving away property and granting
    permission  and bestowing parental blessings on the union.

    /. Ian .\

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    I would like to thank Dorian Kottler for the kindness and generosity of
    spirit she displayed in deleting her .31 in this string.  
    
    An objection was made to her note by an individual who then refused to
    even respond to my request for further information, instead taking his
    complaint to Corporate Personnel.  Although everyone who reviewed the
    note found it innocuous, Dorian volunteered to delete it rather than
    have it serve as the focus for continued acrimony.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie