Down with Marriage!
April 13, 2011 2 Comments
Over the past nine or so months there have been many conversations at St. Stephen’s University around sexuality, gender, marriage and singleness. Thus I have been thinking about the institution of marriage as it relates to culture, the Church, the State, and the status quo.
Let us be honest, we live in a society that is both hetero-normative, and well as marriage-normative. There is very little room given for those who are same gender attracted, as well as those who choose a life of singleness. While those who are same gender attracted or those who desire a life of singleness are not the statistical majority in North America, this does not give society the permission toward a strictly utilitarian ethic and law attached to relationships and marriage. The greatest good for the greatest number does not work. Universalizability is in many ways, simply a sham (thanks, Immanuel Kant).
What is all the more disturbing to me is how marriage is bound to the State, essentially saying that what makes a marriage ‘real’ is some licensed document that proclaims it as such. I find this to be a cultural misnomer—that marriage license=marriage. It is a misnomer that many my age believe to be true, and thus it needs gentle correction.
A wise, elder-friend of mine told me a story a few days ago. His great grandfather was a slave in the United States. Slaves, as it were, were not allowed by law to be married. Because of this, this man’s great-grandfather and grandmother had to make their own ceremony of commitment to one another: while they were surrounded by witnesses, they jumped over a broom stick to signify their commitment. These two people stayed together until death, though the ‘legality’ of their marriage was suspect as it was not recognized or protected by the State.
What makes a marriage real is the commitment being made in front of those who will actually walk along side two people during the course of their lives. No marriage is an island. Marriage is a deceleration of together-ness, but one that recognizes that such together-ness needs more than legal protection. It also needs protection from the destructive, selfish forces we find within ourselves. The forces that ask us to abandon and leave a person. The forces that do not take into account the greater affect such a union will have on those peripheral to it.
Why does the state reward those who choose a non-serious, uncommitted ‘marriage’, one that does not carry with it the weight of accountability (i.e., the people and the broom stick) and can be easily undone, yet ostracize those who want a true union, one that seeks recognition from those around them—namely family, biological or otherwise? Is that not truly what makes a union? Or, is it simply a piece of paper that people sign? Does it have to be both/and, or can it be one or the other?
The divorce rates in North America are so high, I am curious about whether we’ve gotten it all backward? Why do we as a culture put such a high value on the legal recognition and protection of ‘marriage’, one that fifty-percent of the time fails? I know a handful of people who are not ‘legally’ married, who have committed their lives to one another and each others families ceremonially that are considerably more healthy in their union than those who have sought a legally recognized union. I am not suggesting that marriage is unimportant or should not be sought for those who desire it out of the serious, and almost insane truth that you cannot live your life without ‘this person’. Rather, I am suggesting a new seriousness be attached to marriage. That the entire family infrastructure—that is, those who stand and recognized the union of two people, feels again the true weight of responsibility toward those whom they witness being united.
In the mean time, should the State get out of the business of marriage? Should it instead embrace ‘civil union’ as the proper and just terminology for those seeking legal protection and benefits in relation to their union? Similarly, should the Church not also wash it’s proverbial hands in relation to its involvement with the legal side of marriage as well? Or, are we simply too late?
I wonder, what are the % of gay divorce rates? And the % of unmarried divorce rates?
I like how you often reflect that God is love and that because of this we too should also be loving.
I’d offer this. Not only is God love. He is also faithful. He is a covenant God who is 100% faithful to his word. To miss the covenant story within the ‘God narrative’ is to miss a large part of his nature and hence a part of what it truly means to be human. (Actually, our whole narrative falls apart without covenant.)
I’d say this quite emphatically –
By ignoring covenant, we dehumanize ourselves.
I think a major point that most people miss about marriage is that it is and (adequately generalized) always has been about covenant. And in addendum to that, I’m quite convinced that most people aren’t aware of what covenant really is.
We can see the theme of marriage as covenant throughout history. It has been attached to the joining of families in alliances, the sale of property, peace making between kings / cities, the growth and propagation of family lines – many different expressions attached. It’s taken many forms and nuances, but it’s always been a binding covenant. And the binding covenant is often not just between the two people, but a covenant within communities of people.
Marriage today continues not just to be something between two people, but a covenant that has profound effects on the entire community within which it is lived out –> another point which I believe is lost among many, with tragic consequences for the whole community.
The essence of covenant has always been ‘exchange’ and ‘faithfulness.’ Only in this can true intimacy, security and fulfillment of our basic needs be found.
I like the way that some traditional wedding vows word it, “And to thee I endow all my earthly goods.” The covenant exchange is one in which ‘what is mine is now yours, what is yours is now mine.’ We can see this same idea of covenant in scripture. My favorite reference is 1 Cor 7:4. We see that in the marriage covenant even our bodies are not our own, they belong to our spouse.
Unfaithfulness to covenant was seen as so serious that it often carried a sentence or agreement of death as the consequence of breach.
Within scripture, we can see that adultery is forbidden because it is a breach of covenant. Fornication is also prohibited because it is also a breach of covenant. Sexual intercourse was the consummation of the covenant. You married someone by having sex. (Another insight lost by many today.) By having sex with someone who was not your covenant partner, you were in breach of covenant to the one who either was or was to be your covenant partner.
That said, if we are to have ‘covenantal’ marriages, they must be a legal matter where ‘all that is mine is yours, and all that is yours is mine.’ I don’t believe we can sidestep the ‘legalities’ and still have a true covenant.
I find it interesting that because of the vast numbers of people who chose to live together out of true covenant, the government, in order to deal with a number of deep problems, had to institute the idea of ‘common law’ marriages. In Canada, if you live with and have sex with another person for more than a year, you’re married in the eyes of the law. In other words, even though they are trying to avoid true covenant, the government has to step in and institute it anyway because our whole social order depends upon it whether we like it or not. Trying to avoid it creates disaster and chaos, individually and socially – again, we dehumanize ourselves.
As far as breakup / divorce rates go and how high they’ve become, I’d suggest that it’s not because the idea of the marriage covenant is broken. It is because we are broken, more selfish, foolish, dysfunctional and can’t even sustain the most primary relationship.
I’d also suggest (based on my experience as a pastor / counselor) that our inability to remain in faithful covenant has something to do with our ever so common ‘unfaithfulness’ in our marriage covenants in the form of promiscuity / fornication. But how our sexual brokenness has made us covenantally dysfunctional is a whole other discussion.
When you say that ‘we should attach a new seriousness to marriage’ – I fully agree. We should recognize the covenant for what it is and treat our marriages and sexuality as such. This also needs to be recognized in the context of community as opposed to individualistically, separate from community. A functional covenant is to the great benefit of the community. The community is involved in nurturing the covenant relationship. And the whole community suffers when something breaks down in the covenant.
Should the church wash it’s hands of the legalities of marriage? No. If the church is a covenant community, then it should continue to be involved in establishing and nurturing full covenants.
On a practical level, why complicate things and add extra steps by excluding the church from the ability to solemnize a legal marriage covenant? As if there aren’t enough things to do already in planning a wedding.