"I hate the term commitment rings," she said - and I pondered it a bit. If it isn't an engagement ring, or a wedding ring, but it is a symbol of love and commitment, what else is one supposed to call it?
Then of course, there is our communal queer history of concepts like engagement and marriage representing things we were not allowed to do by law. And so what we could do, was commit verbally, in front of our friends, any family who hadn't disowned us and our cats. We could get Wiccan and call it a handfasting, we could head for the beach and murmur promises, we could do anything we wanted - and if we wanted to dissolve it later on, we had the freedom to simply say, "Piss off!" without worrying about legalities. If we were really serious about things, we could sort out our insurance and medical aid and wills and so on - but close relatives could always contest wills and in a number of cases, that left a surviving lesbian partner destitute.
Now that we're past the first flush of excitement and the rush to get legally married just because we could, we're still giving each other jewellery before we even start talking about engagement - and when that item of jewellery is a ring - and specifically one with no gaps - the perfect eternal circle - then I suppose that it's a commitment ring.
Perhaps the word 'commitment' is just not a very attractive one. Perhaps it's too serious, too soon. Perhaps it brings up notions of being committed, "With this ring I thee institutionalise!"
Whatever the word is, it's still a beautiful display of love and of loyalty. And I'm willing to bet that when that ring is replaced by engagement and then wedding rings, us queers have the most creative weddings on earth.
