Today I’m going to talk #sinrecato about a very popular, and also ancient, trend in which couples hide an open secret and get married to silence reckless comments and gossip.
I’m referring to ‘lavender marriage’, named after the color associated with the LGBTQ+ community in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
This term originated in the Victorian era and refers to marriages of convenience between a heterosexual and a homosexual, whether male or female, to hide their sexual orientation from a prudish and repressive society.
One example of a ‘lavender’ marriage was that of King Edward II and Queen Elizabeth; the king had a boyfriend, Piers Gaveston, but as homosexuality was severely punished at the time, he was beheaded on the orders of the Earl of Warwick.
After Piers’ death, King Edward II met Hugh Despenser. By that time, Queen Elizabeth had abandoned the king and also found a lover, Mortimer.
During Hollywood’s golden age, when studios required their stars to maintain a heterosexual image, lavender marriages became very popular:
Rock Hudson and Phyllis Gates: the actor and his secretary married in the 1950s. Hudson was one of the first actors to be publicly diagnosed with AIDS, which raised awareness about the disease.
Judy Garland and Vicente Minelli: aware of her husband’s homosexuality, she was married for six years and they had a daughter, Liza. And, although they divorced, Judy Garland advised her daughter to marry a gay man in the future, because they were the “best husbands”.
Liza Minelli and Peter Allen: the successful singer, actress, and daughter of Judy Garland got married in 1967 and divorced in 1974. Seven years after ending his marriage with Liza, Peter admitted his homosexuality.
These unions, both historical and of celebrities, have been criticized for reinforcing stereotypes that persist in industries where image is paramount.
They emerged as a way to avoid the social stigma and persecution faced by homosexuals at the time, and although this trend didn’t always manage to maintain the facade, it became more common until homosexuality was socially accepted.
Today, in the 21st century, Gen Z has given renewed meaning to this concept and talks about unions based on friendship and mutual support, without romance or sex, in which they share thoughts, ideologies, and economic and legal benefits.
Psychologists agree that these unions have become a strategy for sharing expenses while moving away from traditional family models, which are based on falling in love or sexual attraction.
It’s a way of creating a “chosen family” as an alternative to living alone and also of separating companionship from the need for a sexual relationship. In this relationship, the focus is on platonic bonds.
This type of marriage is trending on social media with the hashtag #lavendermarriage, which has accumulated millions of views on TikTok, where users share their experiences.
From this perspective, lavender marriage represents economic stability, in addition to cohabitation, because it offers certain legal benefits such as insurance, inheritance, access to joint services, and is even linked to shared medical decisions.
In this model, some people have sexual or romantic relationships outside of marriage, with the prior agreement of those involved, as well as shared expectations that allow them to have a stable environment.
But it’s not all “lavender”. Some think that emotional structures need to be rethought in the face of a landscape marked by economic instability and the exhaustion of traditional bonds.
Based on the experience of some couples, this model not only proposes an economic alliance, but also an alliance based on friendship, empathy, and emotional stability, at a time when traditional marriages are in crisis.
And although the relationship model is platonic, some lavender couples achieve deep romantic relationships. Experts say that this is possible, although it isn’t the goal or the rule, which suggests that healthy cohabitation, even without romantic love, can generate emotional bonds over time.
Mental health experts say that maintaining cohabitation and a lifestyle where economic and social interests are the priority could disrupt people’s psyche. Therefore, it’s necessary to be cautious and, if it’s a viable option, it’s best to consult with a trusted therapist if you have any doubts.
In the end, it all comes down to “to each their own,” and if this lifestyle seems innovative to you, why not give it a try?
Traducción del español: Catalina Oviedo Brugés
