It is a glorious day. On Saturday, my sister called to say she had just gotten engaged. I had been wondering when it would happen, having considered her fiance to be part of the family for a while now.

It got me thinking about marriage and its function in a patriarchal society. Not all weddings glorify male supremacy, but many do. Take the bride’s dress, for example. Some people believe her dress color should reflect her “purity” — as judged by her level of sexual experience, however that may be determined. White is designated “pure” while other colors represent varying degrees of “taint.” By comparison, the groom’s attire and sexual history receive little scrutiny.

Once the bride is in her dress, she will probably go through a ritual called “the giving away of the bride.” It’s interesting. Normally one gives money in exchange for food, clothing or other commodities. One may give presents, like a book or CD. At weddings, women are “given away” by the father to the groom. First, the groom is casually escorted, representing his relative independence, to the front of the sanctuary by a member of his family. This independence means security to the father, who will be giving away responsibility for his daughter. Once the groom is positioned at the front, the bride and her escort (typically the father, if possible) dramatically make their way up the aisle. The contrast is a display of male power.

The idea behind this “transfer” is men are naturally independent and justly exercise great authority, while women are naturally dependent. It begins with the (optional) tradition of the groom asking the father if he can marry his daughter. The idea of asking permission from the mother doesn’t really come up — never mind that it should solely be the bride’s decision. It is, after all, her life.

To “give” the bride away is a pretty big deal. It is to say that the groom is responsible enough to take care of the bride, who is apparently fragile and unable to live as a sovereign, independent person.

This is why the focus is on the father, as the “bread winner.” He passes the torch of responsibility and power on to the groom.

Once marriage vows are taken, the two become man and wife. The person directing the ceremony, usually a man, then gives the husband permission to kiss his wife. The new couple then takes off in a car, with the man driving (if either one does so). It would probably be awkward to drive while wearing a huge dress, but why is such impractical clothing expected in the first place? The reason is that the dress itself is an extension of the ornamental qualities of a woman, focusing more on appearance than other characteristics. In many weddings, the woman’s primary role is to submit to a power relationship. Her secondary function is to look pretty. (Apart from the obvious, legal marriage.)

By contrast, the man’s primary concern is to successfully “take the torch” and assert power. For most participants, it is probably done unknowingly, just following tradition. Moreover, the excitement of the day may make such differences seem trivial, at least to some people. But no one can deny the double standards and contrast of expectations.

Beyond the wedding, there is the more long-lasting name issue: What happens to the woman’s last name? Typically, the torch is passed and she takes the last name of the groom. It’s interesting that the groom isn’t expected, or even imagined, to possibly take the bride’s last name.

Fortunately, participants can plan their own weddings as they see fit. Knowing my sister and her future husband, they will have a good egalitarian wedding. And if I were to suggest otherwise, they would laugh hysterically.