I Will!

 

I must admit that I was, rather uncharacteristically, at a loss as to what to write about today, so I noodled around on Google (goodled around on Noogle?) for a bit, looking up various iterations, in various forms, of the subject of Will, and it occurred to me at one point that the most recent Royal Wedding has ignited a rather unexpected debate on various “mommy blog” and social networking sites. A debate on a topic I last thought seriously about myself exactly 37 years, one week, and six days ago.

To put it plainly: People are talking about the proper way to celebrate and bless a marriage, and why Harry and Meghan said “I will” at a crucial time, rather than “I do.”

Now, you may rate the importance of this topic, in your own mind, somewhere down there with Liliput’s Big-Endian/Little-Endian controversy, but I’m a bit of a language nut aficionado, so it caught my interest.

I was raised a high church Anglican in the UK, and the church of my childhood adhered to the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. So the marriage ceremonies I attended in my youth contained the following direction and Q&A session:

If no impediment be alleged, then shall the Curate say unto the Man,

[Name]: WILT thou have this Woman to thy wedded Wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?

The Man shall answer, “I will.”

Then shall the Priest say unto the Woman,

[Name]: WILT thou have this Man to thy wedded Husband, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?

The Woman shall answer, “I will.”

I’m a woman. Last time I checked, anyway. So, when I was asked the question in a slightly different way on July 24, 1981, that’s what I answered.

Now, it wasn’t exactly a traditional wedding. We got married in Conway, NH. On a camping trip. The bride wore shorts. The groom was hirsute, and wore jeans and a shirt that looked like one of Barry Gibb’s cast-offs. There were three children present; one acted as best man, one took photographs, and the third took the role of flower girl. The setting was lovely; a cottage garden filled with beautiful flowers and birds, including a few hummingbirds; and the officiant was a wonderful old gentleman who wanted things to be just right. So I said my piece (Ruth 1:16-17) and the about-to-be Mr. She said his (Sonnet 116). And at some point, I said, “I will.” (I can’t remember what Mr. She said, actually. Something, I suppose.)

Afterward, we repaired to The Elmwood for the reception, and if memory serves, we all ordered the Chicken Parmesan special, $1.45 a plate, and a piece of cake for dessert. Done and dusted. And within our budget of $25 per day for all five of us for the trip. And here we still are. So I guess it took. Hope it does for Harry and Meghan too. But, as usual, I digress. (Only, this time because Love. Something worth holding onto. And keeping. Wherever you find it and no matter what.)

The conclusion, as far as I can see, among the “I Do/I Will” crowd, most often fell on the side of “I Will!” being an exclamatory declaration of intent in perpetuity, as opposed to “I Do!” being more of an “in the moment” sort of thing. Intertwined with much (sometimes almost correct) history, speculation about the Church of England, Henry VIII, the Puritans, the fundamental differences between the Brits and the Yanks (who knew?), and Lord knows what else. A bit over-the-top, in my estimation. Me, I don’t judge. Either “I Will!” or “I Do!” is fine in my book, although I’m a bit of a stickler, and quite traditional with regard to the rituals of my faith, and I know which I prefer for myself.

Here’s another rather uncharacteristic gesture from me — a link to a Beatles song, in this case sung by an older Paul McCartney. That’s good, I think. I’m not really certain it’s a young man’s song. It’s the Lennon/McCartney song, “I Will,” originally released in 1968 on The White Album. I think this is a charming version, as one of the comments says, just one man and a guitar, owning the stage. (Can’t embed the link and play it here; the poster on YouTube has disabled play on other sites).

And another version, much slower in mood and tempo, from Alison Krauss. It takes her a while to get going, but I’m a sucker for some good banjo playing/pickin’, so I love this one too:

Let’s raise a glass to Love, wherever it may be found. I Will! How about you?

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 43 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    To me, the difference is how the vows are asked.

    If the question is, “Do you take this-“, then the correct way to answer is, “I do.”  If the question is phrased, “Will you take this-“, then the proper way to answer is, “I will.”

    Note that the answer “I guess” works in both situations . . .

    • #1
  2. She Member
    She
    @She

    Stad (View Comment):

    To me, the difference is how the vows are asked.

    If the question is, “Do you take this-“, then the correct way to answer is, “I do.” If the question is phrased, “Will you take this-“, then the proper way to answer is, “I will.”

    Note that the answer “I guess” works in both situations . . .

    Yeah. The question is different so the answer is different. I don’t know when, or how, that evolved either. “For now,” is the answer I often think most appropriate for the times, though. That’s the cynic in me coming out, I suppose. 

    • #2
  3. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Whatever happened to obey?  Not even in 1662?

    • #3
  4. She Member
    She
    @She

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Whatever happened to obey? Not even in 1662?

    It’s in there. For the woman.  And also in the vow.  I was never too bothered by “obey,” I always figured that “with my body I thee worship” was a pretty good trade.  And that it was very much a two-way street.  Story about that later when I have something other than a phone to type on.

    • #4
  5. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    She (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Whatever happened to obey? Not even in 1662?

    It’s in there. For the woman. And also in the vow. I was never too bothered by “obey,” I always figured that “with my body I thee worship” was a pretty good trade. And that it was very much a two-way street. Story about that later when I have something other than a phone to type on.

    Ah, I missed it.  I was looking for love, honor and obey.

    • #5
  6. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    “I do,” or “I will,” or even “I shall” work just fine.

    As long as he didn’t say “Get my mouthpiece on the blower,” it’s legit.

    • #6
  7. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Sweet She,

    Thank you for the post. For whatever reason, it seems to lift my spirits on this Monday morning. Perhaps there really is something to the difference between I do and I will. Maybe you have a point English Woman and we Yanks should think about it.

    I will.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #7
  8. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    In the old days, before the 1960’s cultural revolution, “I do” was interpreted in the context of unspoken, implicit assumptions about every man and woman who was part of the society.  Today it is misinterpreted as being a statement merely about the moment  because those shared assumptions, shared values, don’t exist in the modern mind.

    It was an assumption about the inner nature, the spiritual nature, and the character of the man or the woman speaking.  What was affirmed in the moment was, because of this assumption, implicitly affirmed about the future.

    Today, if a person says “I do”, it is interpreted as being an event of the moment, one that does not imply anything about the future, just as “I do” from a parrot or a speech synthesizer would imply nothing about the future.

    It’s about the deeper meaning of words.  A man still living who remembers that earlier society understands and believes in his heart what a man meant when he said to his young son, “A man’s word is his bond”, just as person of this age understands it when a column on writing a resume teaches that “A person’s word is her/his brand.”

    • #8
  9. She Member
    She
    @She

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    In the old days, before the 1960’s cultural revolution, “I do” was interpreted in the context of unspoken, implicit assumptions about every man and woman who was part of the society. Today it is misinterpreted as being a statement merely about the moment because those shared assumptions, shared values, don’t exist in the modern mind.

    It was an assumption about the inner nature, the spiritual nature, and the character of the man or the woman speaking. What was affirmed in the moment was, because of this assumption, implicitly affirmed about the future.

    Today, if a person says “I do”, it is interpreted as being an event of the moment, one that does not imply anything about the future, just as “I do” from a parrot or a speech synthesizer would imply nothing about the future.

    It’s about the deeper meaning of words. A man still living who remembers that earlier society understands and believes in his heart what a man meant when he said to his young son, “A man’s word is his bond”, just as person of this age understands it when a column on writing a resume teaches that “A person’s word is her/his brand.”

    Oh, I am sure you’re right about that.  “I will,” at least in the way it’s acted upon, seems to have largely lost its meaning, too.  Hence the cynicism about so many ‘romantic’ entanglements these days, no matter whether the commitments are ‘done’ or ‘willed.’

    • #9
  10. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    Our wedding was low-budget, though considerably more traditional than yours. I think it should be a day to be enjoyed with friends and family and that too much extra baggage is more harmful than helpful. I am a bit surprised that more of your marvelous family members whom we have read about were not present. Did you have a later celebration with them?

    • #10
  11. She Member
    She
    @She

    JoelB (View Comment):

    Our wedding was low-budget, though considerably more traditional than yours. I think it should be a day to be enjoyed with friends and family too much extra baggage is more harmful than helpful. I am a bit surprised that more of your marvelous family members whom we have read about were not present. Did you have a later celebration with them?

    Oh, thereby hangs a tale!

    Thank you for your lovely comment.  I agree with you—weddings are for people, people are not for weddings.  We found that a difficult line to toe when my stepdaughter got married—much pressure from many places to do things in ways that would have been utterly stifling—but I think we got there in the end.  It was a very different wedding from mine, but also lovely, individual, and unique.

    • #11
  12. Nanda Pajama-Tantrum Member
    Nanda Pajama-Tantrum
    @

    Truly lovely…I love that McCartney song, too…The sadness and the hope in it. (He’d not yet met “The Lovely Linda”, I think.)  Cheers!

    • #12
  13. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    She (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    In the old days, before the 1960’s cultural revolution, “I do” was interpreted in the context of unspoken, implicit assumptions about every man and woman who was part of the society. Today it is misinterpreted as being a statement merely about the moment because those shared assumptions, shared values, don’t exist in the modern mind.

    It was an assumption about the inner nature, the spiritual nature, and the character of the man or the woman speaking. What was affirmed in the moment was, because of this assumption, implicitly affirmed about the future.

    Today, if a person says “I do”, it is interpreted as being an event of the moment, one that does not imply anything about the future, just as “I do” from a parrot or a speech synthesizer would imply nothing about the future.

    It’s about the deeper meaning of words. A man still living who remembers that earlier society understands and believes in his heart what a man meant when he said to his young son, “A man’s word is his bond”, just as person of this age understands it when a column on writing a resume teaches that “A person’s word is her/his brand.”

    Oh, I am sure you’re right about that. “I will,” at least in the way it’s acted upon, seems to have largely lost its meaning, too. Hence the cynicism about so many ‘romantic’ entanglements these days, no matter whether the commitments are ‘done’ or ‘willed.’

    She,

    I was thinking of something deeper though only at a subliminal level. Saying ‘I do’ sounds more like you are signing a contract. Unfortunately, as we know contracts can be broken. Saying ‘I will’ sounds more like a pure moral commitment. What you are pledging is the same but what binds you to the pledge is different.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #13
  14. She Member
    She
    @She

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    In the old days, before the 1960’s cultural revolution, “I do” was interpreted in the context of unspoken, implicit assumptions about every man and woman who was part of the society. Today it is misinterpreted as being a statement merely about the moment because those shared assumptions, shared values, don’t exist in the modern mind.

    It was an assumption about the inner nature, the spiritual nature, and the character of the man or the woman speaking. What was affirmed in the moment was, because of this assumption, implicitly affirmed about the future.

    Today, if a person says “I do”, it is interpreted as being an event of the moment, one that does not imply anything about the future, just as “I do” from a parrot or a speech synthesizer would imply nothing about the future.

    It’s about the deeper meaning of words. A man still living who remembers that earlier society understands and believes in his heart what a man meant when he said to his young son, “A man’s word is his bond”, just as person of this age understands it when a column on writing a resume teaches that “A person’s word is her/his brand.”

    Oh, I am sure you’re right about that. “I will,” at least in the way it’s acted upon, seems to have largely lost its meaning, too. Hence the cynicism about so many ‘romantic’ entanglements these days, no matter whether the commitments are ‘done’ or ‘willed.’

    She,

    I was thinking of something deeper though only at a subliminal level. Saying ‘I do’ sounds more like you are signing a contract. Unfortunately, as we know contracts can be broken. Saying ‘I will’ sounds more like a pure moral commitment. What you are pledging is the same but what binds you to the pledge is different.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I agree with you, in that that is how I think of the meaning of “I will” also.  It is is an explicit and willful commitment forward into perpetuity.  I have absolutely no doubt that’s how people who mean “I do” in that same way, think of it too, but for me the two phrases are a bit different. That’s what I was saying in the post.  Not judging, but I like “I will.”  In the comment above, I was just saying that I think there’s been such a cheapening of dialog that we sometimes can’t really be sure what people mean when they use words we thought we understood, but perhaps we don’t anymore.

    • #14
  15. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    For whatever reason, it seems to lift my spirits on this Monday morning.

    Probably the pictures of a hot, young She.

    • #15
  16. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    This has started a fine conversation. Isn’t it amazing what one can come up with when one commits to something, even if one has no idea how to fulfill the commitment in the moment? It’s a true spur to creativity.


    If you would like your creativity spurred, why not sign up for the Group Writing Series? This conversation was spurred by the August theme for Group Writing of Will. Will you sign up and find a new will to create?

    • #16
  17. Nanda Pajama-Tantrum Member
    Nanda Pajama-Tantrum
    @

    Arahant (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    For whatever reason, it seems to lift my spirits on this Monday morning.

    Probably the pictures of a hot, young She.

    Still hot, and young-at-heart, ‘Hant. :-)

    • #17
  18. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Nanda Pajama-Tantrum (View Comment):
    Still hot, and young-at-heart

    Did I say anything different?

    • #18
  19. Nanda Pajama-Tantrum Member
    Nanda Pajama-Tantrum
    @

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Nanda Pajama-Tantrum (View Comment):
    Still hot, and young-at-heart

    Did I say anything different?

    Wondered, but thanks for confirming… :-)

    • #19
  20. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    She (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    In the old days, before the 1960’s cultural revolution, “I do” was interpreted in the context of unspoken, implicit assumptions about every man and woman who was part of the society. Today it is misinterpreted as being a statement merely about the moment because those shared assumptions, shared values, don’t exist in the modern mind.

    It was an assumption about the inner nature, the spiritual nature, and the character of the man or the woman speaking. What was affirmed in the moment was, because of this assumption, implicitly affirmed about the future.

    Today, if a person says “I do”, it is interpreted as being an event of the moment, one that does not imply anything about the future, just as “I do” from a parrot or a speech synthesizer would imply nothing about the future.

    It’s about the deeper meaning of words. A man still living who remembers that earlier society understands and believes in his heart what a man meant when he said to his young son, “A man’s word is his bond”, just as person of this age understands it when a column on writing a resume teaches that “A person’s word is her/his brand.”

    Oh, I am sure you’re right about that. “I will,” at least in the way it’s acted upon, seems to have largely lost its meaning, too. Hence the cynicism about so many ‘romantic’ entanglements these days, no matter whether the commitments are ‘done’ or ‘willed.’

    She,

    I was thinking of something deeper though only at a subliminal level. Saying ‘I do’ sounds more like you are signing a contract. Unfortunately, as we know contracts can be broken. Saying ‘I will’ sounds more like a pure moral commitment. What you are pledging is the same but what binds you to the pledge is different.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I agree with you, in that that is how I think of the meaning of “I will” also. It is is an explicit and willful commitment forward into perpetuity. I have absolutely no doubt that’s how people who mean “I do” in that same way, think of it too, but for me the two phrases are a bit different. That’s what I was saying in the post. Not judging, but I like “I will.” In the comment above, I was just saying that I think there’s been such a cheapening of dialog that we sometimes can’t really be sure what people mean when they use words we thought we understood, but perhaps we don’t anymore.

    She,

    Yes, yes English Woman, now we are understanding each other, good, good!! Now we dance!

    Disclaimer: The King and I is an almost pure example of the concept ‘Cultural Appropriation’. As all art will automatically employ ‘Cultural Appropriation’ it is really superfluous to mention it. Obsession with ‘Cultural Appropriation’ stops one from asking whether the art shows aesthetic taste and is, therefore, superior art. Actually, I think that the concept ‘Cultural Appropriation’ might be renamed ‘Cultural Mutilation’. Those that are obsessed with ‘Cultural Appropriation’ might be referred to as ‘killjoys’ and often are behind their back.

    Regards,

    Jim

     

    • #20
  21. She Member
    She
    @She

    On phone, which doesn’t do “quotes” well, but would like to nominate #15 and #17 for Ricochet Comments of the Month!

    Full disclosure: Family friend  @jamesgawron didn’t need the photo, as he knew the genuine article, several years before even these photos were taken. His father and mine were dear friends and colleagues for years, and Jim’s parents were some of the kindest and most gracious people it’s ever been my privilege to know. I was delighted to discover him on Ricochet.  I think we joined up about the same time. 

    • #21
  22. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    I think “I do” sounds better…

     

    • #22
  23. She Member
    She
    @She

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    In the old days, before the 1960’s cultural revolution, “I do” was interpreted in the context of unspoken, implicit assumptions about every man and woman who was part of the society. Today it is misinterpreted as being a statement merely about the moment because those shared assumptions, shared values, don’t exist in the modern mind.

    It was an assumption about the inner nature, the spiritual nature, and the character of the man or the woman speaking. What was affirmed in the moment was, because of this assumption, implicitly affirmed about the future.

    Today, if a person says “I do”, it is interpreted as being an event of the moment, one that does not imply anything about the future, just as “I do” from a parrot or a speech synthesizer would imply nothing about the future.

    It’s about the deeper meaning of words. A man still living who remembers that earlier society understands and believes in his heart what a man meant when he said to his young son, “A man’s word is his bond”, just as person of this age understands it when a column on writing a resume teaches that “A person’s word is her/his brand.”

    Oh, I am sure you’re right about that. “I will,” at least in the way it’s acted upon, seems to have largely lost its meaning, too. Hence the cynicism about so many ‘romantic’ entanglements these days, no matter whether the commitments are ‘done’ or ‘willed.’

    She,

    I was thinking of something deeper though only at a subliminal level. Saying ‘I do’ sounds more like you are signing a contract. Unfortunately, as we know contracts can be broken. Saying ‘I will’ sounds more like a pure moral commitment. What you are pledging is the same but what binds you to the pledge is different.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I agree with you, in that that is how I think of the meaning of “I will” also. It is is an explicit and willful commitment forward into perpetuity. I have absolutely no doubt that’s how people who mean “I do” in that same way, think of it too, but for me the two phrases are a bit different. That’s what I was saying in the post. Not judging, but I like “I will.” In the comment above, I was just saying that I think there’s been such a cheapening of dialog that we sometimes can’t really be sure what people mean when they use words we thought we understood, but perhaps we don’t anymore.

    She,

    Yes, yes English Woman, now we are understanding each other, good, good!! Now we dan

    Disclaimer: The King and I is an almost pure example of the concept ‘Cultural Appropriation’. As all art will automatically employ ‘Cultural Appropriation’ it is really superfluous to mention it. Obsession with ‘Cultural Appropriation’ stops one from asking whether the art shows aesthetic taste and is, therefore, superior art. Actually, I think that the concept ‘Cultural Appropriation’ might be renamed ‘Cultural Mutilation’. Those that are obsessed with ‘Cultural Appropriation’ might be referred to as ‘killjoys’ and often are behind their back.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Crumps . Anna and the King of Siam.  Absolutely perfect.  One of the very few iconic performances I’ve actually seen live, Yul Brynner as King Mongkut, at Pittsburgh’s Syria Mosque (speaking of cultural appropriation) with my stepdaughter, only a month or two before I got married.  Well done all round!

    • #23
  24. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    Of course you could say “I will, I am, I can, I have, I do”…

     

    • #24
  25. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    She (View Comment):
    I think we joined up about the same time. 

    He was two weeks later.

    • #25
  26. Nanda Pajama-Tantrum Member
    Nanda Pajama-Tantrum
    @

    Arahant (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):
    I think we joined up about the same time.

    He was two weeks later.

    Doesn’t “about” add approximation?

    • #26
  27. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    To all and She,

    As soon as I became aware of Ricochet, I simultaneously joined and retired my Facebook page. I felt that I had graduated from Facebook and was now on a higher plane. I still do. Getting to read beautiful posts by She is just one of the pleasures of Ricochet.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #27
  28. She Member
    She
    @She

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    To all and She,

    As soon as I became aware of Ricochet, I simultaneously joined and retired my Facebook page. I felt that I had graduated from Facebook and was now on a higher plane. I still do. Getting to read beautiful posts by She is just one of the pleasures of Ricochet.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Kisses, Jim.  X

    • #28
  29. She Member
    She
    @She

    She (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Whatever happened to obey? Not even in 1662?

    It’s in there. For the woman. And also in the vow. I was never too bothered by “obey,” I always figured that “with my body I thee worship” was a pretty good trade. And that it was very much a two-way street. Story about that later when I have something other than a phone to type on.

    OK.  Home with an actual keyboard, so now I can type.  Here’s the story about the two-way street:

    After completing a youthful stint in the United States Marine Corps, Mr. She (who’d signed up for it after bouncing out of his second year of Carnegie Tech’s Engineering School) went back to school, and began a lifelong teaching career, most of it as a professor of Medieval Language and Literature at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh.

    A feature of some Medieval literature is something called the demande d’amour, or “love problem,” a puzzle-story that’s told and then discussed at court until a solution is found.  There’s one, for example, at the end of Chaucer’s poem, Parlement of Foules.

    The demande d’amour Mr. She posited to me before we got married, knowing that I was a fellow lover of the Medieval school and that I would “get it,” was something like this:

    Suppose we have an important matter to discuss, that we simply cannot agree on, but we need to agree on, in order to move forward.  How will we come to an agreement so that we can get on with it?

    The solution we agreed to had two parts.  Part One was this:

    We would both speak our minds.  We would listen carefully to each other, because we’re both pretty bright, we’re both of sound mind and goodwill, and it’s likely we’d each have some good ideas.  Once we’d said our respective pieces, Mr. She would decide, and I would acquiesce and would abide by his decision.

    Part Two was this:

    At this point in the process, Mr. She would acquiesce to my decision, and we would move forward together, honor having been satisfied on both sides, and each of us having submitted to the will of the other.

    Hard as it may be to believe, the intellectual and the bluestocking found this to be an admirable (and amusing) solution, and shortly thereafter, with the further caveat that, having done this, we would go forward, not second guess or revisit, pick apart, bring up, throw in the face of, moan about, etc. etc. etc. any decisions that turned out poorly, we got married.

    I can’t say that we absolutely abided by the above in every single circumstance, but we did pretty well at it, most of the decisions turned out well (and on balance, I think I “won” about as many skirmishes as I “lost” in terms of securing his buy-in for the outcome I preferred.  All in all, I think it’s a strategy that’s served us well.

    Oh, that, and the separate checking accounts, of course.  Mustn’t forget them.

    • #29
  30. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    She (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Whatever happened to obey? Not even in 1662?

    It’s in there. For the woman. And also in the vow. I was never too bothered by “obey,” I always figured that “with my body I thee worship” was a pretty good trade. And that it was very much a two-way street. Story about that later when I have something other than a phone to type on.

     

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.