Logic of In-Laws

Yesterday me, the wife (Shaunna), and Lacey experienced the marriage celebration of an old friend. Towards the end of the celebration a weighty thought entered my consciousness, albeit a very cheesy one, so I snatched a piece of paper and jotted down five words in order to recall the thought for further consideration.

In-Laws or In-Loves?

Those are the words I wrote. (Hey, I warned you it was cheesy.) Despite the cheese of the question, there is something there that draws me into further exploration and consideration. I posted recently regarding a
question of does marriage require a wedding, and this seems to be in the same vein. We refer to our spouse’s parents as in-laws immediately following the legality of our wedding. I wonder, as you can see from the afore mentioned post, what would it be like if we viewed the wedding ceremony as a celebration of the marriage commitment between two people, and not as the moment in which marriage occurs. Would that lead to the viewing of our spouse’s parents, not as in-laws (for that is fairly irrelevant), but as in-loves.

Let me here pause to again state that I realize that is totally corny, but indulge my romantic notions for a minute. If marriage is an intangible and imperceivable joining of two people into one, then it is for love that such occurs, not because law decrees it. (Consider how many people are “married” on paper, or legally, but really have no marriage at all.) If we realize that love is the motivation for the marriage commitment, then wouldn’t a better perception of our “in-laws” actually be as in-loves?

Nevertheless, congratulations to Ashli and Matt. You guys looked soooooo happy. Clearly, in love.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,