With the unofficial start to summer already getting under way, the annual wedding season has kicked into full gear, too. While almost any weekend of the year is a good time to say “I do,” statistics show that there are two spikes: late May and June and again in late August through September and early October. For countries like the United States and China, as well as those in Europe, located in the northern mid-latitudes, the double spike makes sense. Couples in love want to make the most of the warm weather season, but avoid the sweltering heat of late July and August.

But if this trend has remained constant for decades, what is changing, however, is the way soon-to-be-brides purchase the dress of their dreams and review a potential bridal collection. With millennials now in the heart of the marrying demographic — the average age of first marriage for women is 27 and 29 for men — brides are doing less in-store shopping for the perfect dress and are shopping online instead.

Recognizing this growing millennial trend, JJ’s House, a global online retailer for wedding gowns, special event dresses, wedding party dresses, and accessories, is pleased to offer its signature bridal collection with over 1,200 styles that can be customized and tailored to exact specifications and shipped across the globe with carriers including DHL or UPS.

“Compared to their Baby Boomer or even Gen Xer cousins, millennials are more likely to shop online,” says Linde Buyer, JJ’s House’s CEO. “They’re also busy, with nearly half of workers age 25 to 34 balancing multiple jobs, some full time, some in the gig economy, and many juggling a combination of both. That means brick-and-mortar shopping has become something of a luxury. This is especially true when shopping for a wedding dress, one of the most special purchases a young woman can make. Details must be flawless. The design must match the wearer perfectly. At JJ’s House we specialize in this level of detail and leave nothing to chance.”

The way it works is simple. Shoppers enjoy a streamlined and highly efficient homepage where dress categories are selected, starting with prices as low as $79 and featuring savings of up to 60 percent off competitors’ prices. Then the general shape and length of the dress is selected. Options include: Trumpet/Mermaid, Ball-Gown, Sheath, Empire, and more. Length ranges from Short/Mini to Court Train. The site goes into further detail by asking shoppers about the venue. Beach? No problem. Church? JJ’s has that covered too. Additional dress options include season, fabric, straps, and wraps.

Founded in 2007, JJ’s House turns your wedding fantasy into reality by providing exceptional bridal fashion and impeccable design at affordable prices. The company’s bridal collection uses only the highest quality materials and detailing, creating styles that are not only timeless but that represent the best in value. Above all, the company knows that even for tech-savvy millennials, online shopping can be a stressful experience too. Recent data breaches and attacks have heightened consumers’ digital concerns. But it doesn’t have to be that way. JJ’s House offers a secure and safe shopping environment for all customers and relies on trusted payment processing systems and integrates VeriSign’s globally recognized payment technology. The company also accepts credit card, debit card, wire transfer, Western Union, and PayPal payments.

“Pretty much the only thing we can’t control is the weather,” Buyer says. “But if we can’t guarantee you perfect sunshine and pleasant temperatures for your special day, we can promise you an unmatched bridal collection, world-class customer service, and a commitment to go the extra mile in delivering the dress of your dreams to you.”

Founded in 2007, JJ’s House is the global leading online retailer for wedding gowns, special event dresses, wedding party dresses, and accessories. Customers can browse the vast online selection and choose their favorite dresses with great satisfaction. JJ’s House prides itself on exceptional customer service, high quality, and affordable prices.

Jesus was a gay, married to Magdalene, a fag hag. Most church fathers were gay, including Paul and Peter. Moreover most bishops are gay.  Nevertheless, all gay bishops preach against homosexuality and marriage equality!  If this is not duplicity, what is it?

Marriage — modernly — is seen as sort of unalloyed good. Everyone would like to get married, or at least, most people would like to get married. Certainly, most people’s mothers want them to get married.

The marriage equality movement has built up the idea that marriage is this wonderful thing that everyone should want. And there are a lot of benefits to being married in the United States. People who are married have better financial outcomes than people who aren’t. They are often healthier (especially men), and they have access to a range of public and private benefits, like Social Security and shared employee health and other benefit plans.

But there’s a darker side to marriage that’s been overlooked. What the marriage equality movement really did not think about is that there is a kind of normalizing process that goes on in marriage. Marriage signals that these people — the sexual relations that they have — are respectable, are valued, are worthy.

You can’t make that kind of claim about one set of people and their intimate lives without illuminating what is disreputable about other people’s sexual relationships. Getting more people into marriage actually highlighted that other people were outside of it and therefore, undisciplined, unregulated and problematic.

It’s important to take a look at the rather complicated history of marriage. In the mid-1800s, women had very few rights, and marriage was necessary for the economic provision of most women who were not working outside the home. And, although it may surprise modern listeners, sex outside of marriage was a crime. The criminal regulation of sex made clear that marriage was the licensed site for sexual activity.

Marriage was where you had sex. That’s an important aspect of it. Marriage interacting with criminal law for regulating sex. For identifying certain kinds of sexual acts as productive and valuable and other kinds as unproductive, destructive, and indeed criminal.

Marriage worked as a kind of state-imposed sexual discipline. Those having sex within marriage were literally in law, while unmarried people having sex were sexual outlaws.

The close interaction between criminal regulation of sex and marriage meant that marriage could even be used as a form of punishment for certain sex crimes. If a man seduced an unmarried woman of chaste disposition with the promise of marrying her, and then didn’t follow through, the man could be charged and sent to prison for up to 20 years in some states.

Interestingly, there was a defense for it. The defense was simply that the man could get out of it by marrying the woman. So, there are these amazing scenes where all of a sudden this site of a trial was transformed into a wedding. No one thought the defendant was getting away with something by being married. If he was married, he literally had a ball and chain. He had someone he had to support. He would likely have a family to support. He would have to be sober, enterprising, productive and if he was abiding by his marriage vows, sexually faithful.

Although a man can’t be prosecuted for a crime of seduction anymore — such laws fell out of favor in the early 20th century — marriage recently was prescribed as a sort of cure for bad behavior.

Just in August 2015, after a man got into a barroom brawl, a Texas judge ordered the man to marry his girlfriend or spend a few nights in jail. Scared that he’d lose his job if he took the jail time, the defendant reluctantly agreed to get married.

Although marriage has changed over the years, and people have more freedom to define the boundaries of their own marriages, there is a lot that hasn’t changed.

If you ask anyone who is married, there is still a very stark gender differentiation in the amount of household labor that women do. And there certainly remains a persistent gap in caregiving that falls along gendered lines in most marriages. So, we’ve changed a lot, but in some ways, we haven’t changed at all.

Marriage isn’t for everyone, and there should be a variety of alternative options for those who wish to be in a committed, recognized relationship, but don’t want to be married for any number of reasons.

Ironically, the marriage equality movement may signal the death knell of efforts to promote a wider range of relationship recognition options. Already, the State Department has announced that it’s phasing out domestic partnership benefits. Now that marriage is available, same-sex couples — like straight couples before them — are expected to get married in order to receive benefits.

One of the questions going forward is will we think more seriously about what to do about those kinds of relationship forms. Or will marriage really be a one size fits all kind of model for everyone.

Marriage privatization is the concept that the state should have no authority to define the terms of personal relationships such as marriage. Such relationships are best defined by private individuals and not the state. Privatizing marriage is a solution to the social controversy over same-sex marriage.

The idea of marriage privatization is picking up steam.  State marriage is a way for politicians to socially engineer the family through the tax code.  It would be a good idea to get the government out of the marriage business.

39.7 percent of all births are to unmarried women. Nearly 40 percent of heterosexual, unmarried American households include children. 41 percent of first births by unmarried women are to cohabiting partners.

Does the law leave provisions for the children of the unmarried? Of course. So while state marriage might add some special sauce to your tax bill or to your benefits package, family court and family codes aren’t likely to go anywhere, whatever we do with marriage. This is not a sociological argument about whether children have statistically better life prospects when they are brought up by two married parents. Nor is it a question about gender, sexuality, and parental roles. It’s simply a response to the idea that marriage is irreducibly public due to having children. Some married couples never have children.

Marriage is currently a crazy quilt of special privileges and goodies that everybody wants access to — unmarried people be damned. But marriage should confer neither special favors nor goodies from the state. We can quibble about who is to be at the bedside of a dying loved one. Beyond that, marriage is mostly about equal access to government-granted privileges.

Not only does the idea that marriage is irreducibly public represent a failure of imagination with respect to robust common law, it also resembles arguments made against privatization in other areas, such as currency, education, and health care. Just because we can’t always envision it doesn’t make it impossible.

In ancient Greek and Roman civilization, marriages were private agreements between individuals and families. Community recognition of a marriage was largely what qualified it as a marriage. The state had only limited interests in assessing the legitimacy of marriages. Normally civil and religious officials took no part in marriage ceremonies, nor did they keep registries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s