I think one of the more stupid and cruel things that we as a society put out there is the idea that marriage is primarily a romantic relationship. I mean, yeah, goodness me I am romantic with my husband and it's great. I do love him. But there's a lot more to it than that.

Marriage is a partnership (I speak of marriage as not necessarily being between two people, by the way). It's about mutual support. It's about the fact that we as humans are social creatures and do need to form partnerships and bonds -- for the rearing of children, for living in general. It's not just the kids and it's not just the romance.

Right now I'm sitting in the living room. My husband is on the sofa with his girlfriend. She's been having trouble with her car, so she's crashing at our house. We just had a family dinner. He's working on a graphic novel he's drawing. She's creating something for her job. I'm working on some files for my business and my son is doing his homework. Later I'll be packing up bento (I have a hobby of Japanese lunch boxes) for everyone to take to various schools and jobs tomorrow. No kissie snugglie going on, but the partnerships, and the mutual support are very real.

Is the LEGAL relationship necessary. Possibly not, though law does tend to administer property. Perhaps monogamy and marriage as we know it needs a good redecoration, but the mutual bonds and partnerships we form, which is what marriage is about, are pretty much hardwired into human behavior.

I agree with Noel. My marriage was a celebration of the love I have for the man I married. My vows did not contain the words "forsaking all others before thee" or anything similar, they just said I was commited to being an open, communicative, caring, respectful, and loving wife and mother. I took the liberty of creating my own definition of marriage, my own ceremony, and my own vows so that I knew exactly what I meant when I said "I am married to the most beautiful creature on earth." So, I suppose that, in the eyes of the church, my marriage is not a marriage, but I didn't get married in the church for a reason. I got married by my own definitions, and I know that the love and support I give my husband is more complete and genuine than many shallow marriages that preach fidelity but are truly empty and loveless. (Not to ever claim that either monogamous or polyamorous marriages are never wonderful or never horrible, but the point is the commitment is there. The commitment to happiness and admiration, pride and support.)

I'm with Noel and company.

Hell we married in 1971, in the era of free love. Our maid of honor was also our third. Monogamy wasn't implied or expected.

38 years and many lovers later we are still married and still in love and still make it work through the tough times and the wonderful ones.

Having a "non-traditional" marriage doesn't lesson the value or reality of the marriage.

Hugs,

Rig Daddy

Marriage has not always meant monogamy, nor does it mean monogamy everywhere, so "traditional" seems like a misnomer to me, unless it's qualified (traditional Western ideal of marriage common for the past several centuries). Our alt.culture version of polyamory/open marriage is not exactly new. My favorite historical description of an open marriage comes from a woman in South Africa, Mpho 'M'atsepo Nthunya (telling stories of her life in 1990's, her marriage occurred in the 1950's):

~~I was never afraid he would leave me for one of these women. I think it was because I trusted myself; I knew I would never leave him. So I thought he would never leave me. When he wanted another woman, he could have her. He would come and tell me, "I love this woman. Can you tell her?" ... When I would fall in love with another man, I could have men-friends, the same that Alexis could have women-friends. He didn't mind about my friends, and I didn't mind about his. ... I would never have a man-friend unless his wife loved me too, and didn't mind. If there was a woman who didn't want me to love her husband, I wouldn't do it. Life was different in that time. ~~~~

Just how sexual her relationships were, I'm not sure... but she made sure to use the words "fall in love", and didn't when describing a very close committed (but non-sexual) platonic friendship with a woman. She also made it clear that her marriage wasn't the norm, but that it was accepted among her neighbors and friends, and that it was a historically accepted lifestyle.

On this note, however, my guy and I have put off having our commitment ceremony in part because we can't figure out how to write our vows. One of our biggest issues with default marriage vows is that whole "'til death do us part'" bit. We want to make it clear that we want to be together as long as we both shall grow and benefit from it, not as long as we both shall live. Mmmm, maybe there's the vow? I took "forsaking all others" out of my last marriage ceremony and the minister didn't even bat an eye.

How my ramblings could apply to you: Maybe you could try doing a new ceremony on your anniversary, to revise the commitments you wish to make?

Thank you for all your responses. I was thinking we should renewing our vows under a different more compatible contract, but my wife seems uncomfortable with it, and will not really express why. Maybe she doesn't really know why? Ironically this whole poly thing was her idea in the first place... and she is the one with multiple relationships. My work seems to get in the way of my desire to maintain a healthy and rich social life. Sometimes being a hard working responsible person can really suck.