Marriage is different nowadays, writes Rob Rattenbury. Photo / Getty Images
OPINION:
Recently our youngest married his beloved partner in a simple ceremony in front of their two darling little daughters and just their immediate families in an idyllic rural retreat.
It was emotional of course, especially when the two little flower girls walked up the garden aisle in front ofMummy.
A serious but short-lived case of hay fever broke out among the group.
We then all adjourned to a city restaurant for a nice family dinner and then a social for the couple's friends and work colleagues.
A simple heart-warming experience. Everything went like clockwork in the end but, like all weddings, the weeks leading up were fraught with some issues, not the least being Covid.
Only the double- and triple-vaxxed could attend, meaning some friends could not come.
There was no entry into the restaurant without vaccine passes, while not half a mile away our Parliament grounds were full of people with different views.
I found out by accident as a young adult, as one used to in those days when certain matters were not mentioned.
Being a curious soul, I took advantage of a visit to the National Register of Births Deaths and Marriages in Wellington to have a nosey.
There it was in black and white, my original birth certificate with the names of both my parents and me but beside my name in brackets was "illegitimate".
By then, copies of birth certificates issued by the registrar to individuals for jobs and passports did not have that word attached.
So by 1970, that abhorrent practice had been recognised and stopped.
How barbaric, and not that long ago.
Nowadays I would say the number of children born out of wedlock probably rivals the ones born within wedlock in New Zealand.
It means nothing to the parents or to most families. What is important is that the child is loved and cared for.
While the rules have changed, marriage is still as important to many as it always has been, but only when the time is right.
No need for lengthy engagements, no fear of the condemnation of prissy old relatives, just shack up and get on with it.
By 1973, the year the nurse-bride decided I was the guy; marriage was still a societal requirement although many of us spent our "engagements" in domestic bliss, including children arriving.
The 60s changed many things and this was one positive outcome. People could relax about stupid rules around the morality of doing "it" or not doing "it".
Some old rules still applied, though. Police were forbidden to live in de facto situations and would be fired forthwith.
They also had to apply to marry and could be dismissed if this rule was breached.
Single nurses still had pressure to live in nurse's homes, either due to parental expectations or fear of employment issues.
We had to be sneaky.
Of course, things only got freer, we now have civil unions and same-sex marriage, impossible to imagine, even in the liberal 70s.
People are happier, there is less pressure and maybe more successful relationships as a result.
So when I sat at the wedding social and watched my beautiful new daughter-in-law dance with her guy I felt everything in my world was right.
We have two little granddaughters who rock our world and give us reasons to do things.
We have their successful parents who have provided them with a secure and loving home.
But we also have met another family, so very like our own in so many ways, a family that has quickly become dear friends.
This young couple, just by meeting and then becoming friends and then partners and parents, delight the worlds of many in their personal sphere, family and friends.
I still believe there is a place for marriage but not first place.