a wedding ring

While working at the hotel yesterday I was standing at the front desk when a woman came over and stood near me. For some reason I glanced down at her finger and noticed her wedding ring. A simple gold band. No diamonds, no platinum, no "rock". It made me think about how people think about the symbol of a wedding ring these days.

Now, this obviously doesn't apply to all married/engaged couples, and it's strictly my opinion, but I can't help but feel like there is a correlation between the ring to long lasting marraige ratio that has changed from years past. So often I notice that the marriages that have lasted the longest don't carry the biggest rings. When people were getting engaged in those days it didn't matter so much about how many carats a ring was. The important thing was the commitment that the ring represented. Now a days I feel like most women are disappointed if their ring isn't visible from the moon...like the person giving it to them doesn't love them enough. And beyond that, if it's not something that their friends will oooh and aaah over then it's not worthy of their finger.

When did carats become a measurement of love?

And like I said, I know this doesn't pertain to a lot of people. I have a handful of friends who have really great committed marriages that come with big rocks too. If you have the means, by all means! I guess I just see too often that other people who are more concerned about how big their ring is, usually don't have marriages that last.

So as I looked at that simple gold band on the woman's finger, I decided, if and when I get engaged, I know it will be for the man, not for the ring. While it's a wonderful symbol of love and commitment, it doesn't make up for love and commitment if it's not already a part of a relationship.