A Good Base.

The other night Monkey and I were discussing "tradition." Somehow, as I write that word, Topol's image comes to mind...

Don was saying that David Mamet once wrote about how a marriage won't work unless the ceremony is performed traditionally. What he meant by "tradition," we don't know. Jewish? Catholic? Sikh? Or did he simply mean adhering to the tenets of the tradition at hand. I wish Don could find that book or article so that I could read it for myself for then I could have a shot at deciphering Mamet's words. What I do have, however, is the following passage taken from a 2004 commencement speech Mamet gave at the University of Vermont.


Any ceremony insufficiently strict, whose requirements are other than rigorous, and which permits recidivism, is worthless. I cite, for example, the commitment ceremony rather than marriage – these weak ceremonies do not propel the young towards the pursuit of the secret knowledge. We may call this secret knowledge “God,” or, “The mystery of life and death,” or “How to comport oneself honorably in a troubling and confusing world,” or we may call it marriage, or vocation – but the society which kills, in the young, their desire, their necessity of truly matriculating, is wounding them.

I wonder if Mamet is referring to all commitment ceremonies or only those in which the participants could obtain a (state-sanctioned) marriage but, for whatever reason, choose not to. If it's the former, then I'm able to deduce that Mamet believes that commitment ceremonies performed on the behalf of gay and lesbian couples are, as he says, "worthless." However, if it's the latter, it's a different story entirely. But, still, what remains is the concept of "tradition."

I'm more keen on the concept of beshert. If it's meant to be, it's meant to be. And, by extension, if it isn't, it isn't.