Ask Anscombe: Does Marriage Even Make Sense Anymore?

The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.

Dear Anscombe,

I recently read an article in Medium entitled “Does Marriage Even Make Sense Anymore?” The author writes that, on the one hand, the desire for marriage boils down to a desire for social validation and personal security – “we’re happier with finality.” But on the other, she admits getting married is a matter of individual choice and the personal pursuit of happiness (and that “deeper happiness” depends upon a more “complex approach” than getting married). What do you make of this author’s opinions? Is marriage simply a matter of social acceptance or personal choice?

Before diving into this question, it’s important to first clarify what exactly the author is arguing. Kris Gage writes, “please note: we aren’t comparing ‘marriage’ to ‘bachelorhood’ or ‘single parents,’ and we aren’t using ‘marriage’ as synonymous with ‘monogamy.’ This post is about long term, monogamous, cohabiting couples — why are we still getting married?” At first glance, it seems like the only difference between the two is the signing of a marriage contract, but as the article develops, it becomes clear that the idea of marriage Gage is arguing against lacks the loving commitment that must be at the core of marriage.

Throughout the article, marriage is described as merely a contract — a legal institution that attempts to keep a couple together regardless of their desire to actually be together. However, describing marriage in such legalistic and contractual terms strips away the foundation of what marriage really is: a comprehensive and permanent union. Marriage is not just a prohibition against divorce, but the reflection of the fact that a couple have chosen to unite their bodies and wills in order to love each other in their greatest capacities. In that sense, legal marriage is but a recognition in law of the comprehensive union of two people who have committed themselves to each other. That is to say, the contract is not the marriage, but is simply legal evidence of it. This is why marriage is the most important human relationship, because it is the only one which demands permanence (barring actions by either party that violate the sanctity of marriage). Friendships may weaken and wither over time, but the commitment of marriage exhorts each spouse to actively maintain the marital union. Divorce is, therefore, not a tragedy because a legal contract has been broken, but because the comprehensive union and commitment at its core has been compromised.

Now, framing marriage in this way places a lot of pressure on the act of choosing a potential spouse. Should one opt for marriage, choosing the person to whom one makes such a comprehensive, lifelong commitment is very likely the most important decision one will ever make. But, how can one possibly know if the person one is currently dating will still be as loveable five years down the road, yet alone for the rest of one’s life? After all, people change, and it is unreasonable to expect that someone will remain the same person forever. Gage argues this very position, writing, “deeper happiness means we understand that the only thing we control is ourselves. And that everything changes, and sometimes people change, and contracts mean very little to the human spirit at the end of it all.” But this ultimately self-centered view of marriage ignores the crucial — even central — role that commitment plays in marriage. By forming a comprehensive union, both spouses have agreed to do everything in their power to maintain that union. Because a married couple has agreed to be united in will, this involves making the decision to change in ways that cause them to grow closer to one another. Marriage, then, is not a union of convenience for times of fair weather and tax incentives. It is a far deeper commitment of two souls, driven by the conviction that marriage is a loving union for all times – good, bad, and ugly. People in such marriages understand that to grow is not to grow apart, and that such a union necessarily involves loving compromise, understanding, and sacrifice in the interest of that sacred union of love. 

Clearly, however, this is not the prevailing view of marriage, as is easily evidenced by a significant divorce rate in the United States. Gage advocates for the removal of the marriage contract that divorce breaks. She states, “I’d rather leave the door wide open for my partner than hold him legally obligated to stay. When I kiss him each morning, I want to know he’s there because he wants to be.” But this is misguided. Because marriage requires such a high level of commitment between spouses, it is imperative that its legal bond not be taken lightly. If we follow Gage’s advice to “love [our partner] healthily and hard every day,” then we should feel pain if one day they change their mind and decide to leave. 

Besides, having a legal protection surrounding the marriage does not mean that either spouse does not want to remain married. Instead, that legal protection acknowledges the fact that a stable marriage is indeed a good. The legal bond of marriage exists precisely because the underlying commitment to a perpetual union of love is worth fiercely protecting. The way to solve the divorce issue is not to make a marriage easier to leave, but to show couples how to strengthen their marriages and encourage them to do so.

Gage’s article argues that while choosing marriage is more socially acceptable, long-term cohabitation is what can actually lead to “deeper happiness.” Though marriage is indeed more socially acceptable, that ultimately has very little to do with its main goal of fostering a permanent love between spouses. Cohabitation may seem to be able to provide the same benefits as marriage, but without the promise of commitment, it fails to establish the permanent and comprehensive union that marriage does. 

One may view the prospect of lifelong commitment to a single person to be daunting. It may be preferable to leave options open and move on when one is no longer satisfied. But people are not utilities, and choosing a partner is not a commercial endeavor. To invest as deeply in a person as healthy marriage counsels is to be to the other person their everything. This is to learn their deepest dreams, hopes and fears, respect their feelings, sacrifice for them, and always be there for them through trials and tribulations. It is to overlook their flaws, hope for them the very best in life, confide in them all of one’s own mind, and, ultimately, to love them more than one would one’s own self. A commitment of such gravity can hardly be made without a firm prospect of its perpetuity. 

A marriage is the deepest and most profound investment one will ever make, and it is driven by the belief that the union of love will endure long after the investments are made. The deepest happiness of a marital union, then, does not come from one’s ability to leave it at will, but from the desire to honor, cherish, and love the person to whom one has committed and given oneself, and the selfsame desire that one in turn draws from one’s spouse. Such a marriage cannot die — not because it is contractually protected by law, but because it has been immortalized in the understanding of the spouses as an eternal union of deep commitment and sacrificial love.

Sincerely,

Anscombe

Anscombe

Comments

comments