The Problem With Marriage

I do not support gay marriage. I do not support "straight" marriage. I simply do not support marriage. Marriage is an antiquated and outdated institution that bears little relevance in the modern world. It can have a positively detrimental affect on individuals and society as a whole.

Marriage comes to us from a much simpler time when it was used in many cultures as a bartering system. "You get the woman, I get some sheep" was the overall methodology. Some areas of the world still employ this model when it comes to marriage. In other cultures, marriage became a more sacred thing, reserved for two individuals who loved one another deeply. That was all well and good, for it was a simpler time; a time not filled with fast food, one night stands and Las Vegas. If we look at marriage today, we see a pattern that is sad in its predictability. Close to 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Some sources say more, some less. Regardless, the number is high enough to be very telling. Is the problem that divorce is too easy? Santorum would argue that it is. But, no. The problem is that marriage is an institution that has long since outlived its prime.

We all know the elderly couple who lives down the block who has been married for 60 years and are just as in love as they were when they first were married. This however, is not a common occurrence. It is the exception that proves the rule. Most couples will never last this long, and of the ones who do, how much of their marriage is based on affection, and how much of it is based on feelings of obligation? A feeling of "I made my bed, and now I've got to sleep in it". Many couples do not stay together because they love one another, they do it because they feel obligated to do so for one reason or another. Perhaps it is their children; they don't want to cause them emotional upheaval. Maybe it's pressure from their family who considers divorce tantamount to the ultimate sin. Regardless of the reason, it isn't about love. I will concede that such couples exist, but even a strong proponent of marriage will admit they are few and far between.

In his article Wolfson lists numerous homosexual couples who have been together for years and have remained devoted to one another. Couples like this have stayed together because they love one another, and have a commitment to the family they have created. Is not this a truer union than a marriage based on feelings of obligation? Granted, these feelings of obligation can be present in a situation of co-habitation, but they are not as prominent. There is no legal recourse for a person who is co-habitating to simply pack up and leave. Many do not however. Santorum argues that these sorts of situations are extremely harmful to our society - I argue just the opposite. A union based on love and trust is a stronger and more beneficial one than a union based on litigation and obligation, both to the individuals involved and society as a whole.

Homer Simpson once remarked "Marriage is like a coffin, and each child is another nail." We laugh, but there is an element of truth in these words. Marriage can ultimately prove to be a stifling experience for many, leading husbands and wives to commit distasteful acts. Ultimately some individuals will be driven to such measures regardless of the circumstances, but for many it is marriage specifically that leads them down such a path.

Am I suggesting two people should avoid entering into a relationship knowing that there is a sizable chance things will not work out? Absolutely not. I believe it is the fundamental of all human experiences to give and receive love from a partner. And on a more practical level, it is required in order for us to continue to reproduce and maintain the human race. I simply put forth that marriage is not the ideal union for two people. During the height of the Roman Empire, the penalty of death entailed being nailed to a cross and left to hang for days at a time until one starved to death. This process was known as crucifixion, and was undoubtedly one of the most cruel and unusual punishments ever devised by mankind. Capital punishment evolved from crucifixion over the centuries to beheading, to hanging, to the electric chair, and more recently lethal injection. Our most current system is obviously not perfect, but it has come a long way from crucifixion. I think given the choice, most would choose lethal injection over any of the alternatives. I do not seek to liken marriage to any of the above practices, but provide this example to illustrate the idea that marriage is an age-old tradition in need of updating.

What then is the answer? I cannot provide one readily, as I believe there are no easy answers. To do something such as abolishing marriage would ultimately do more harm than good in the foreseeable future, despite my chagrin when it comes to the entire practice. My ideal would be to do away with the concept of marriage, and replace it with civil unions providing many of the financial benefits marriage provides. I recognize this is not likely to occur in the near future, so I move on to my second, and ultimately more achievable point: any couple aught to be granted the right to enter into a civil union regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. The state is not responsible for regulating these types of situations, although in recent years people have gotten the idea that the government aught to enforce their own personal views through legislation. Such is not the case. If you are opposed to the homosexual marriage, the answer is very simple. Don't marry someone of the same gender.

A democracy is a system of government that is not based upon the whims of a fringe group. If group X hates group Y, group X does not have any legal grounds to limit the rights of group Y. This is the ideal of democracy, but the truth lies somewhere in between. I would put forth that the majority of Americans are apathetic when it comes to the idea of homosexuals being able to marry. This indicates that the group that is strongly opposed is hardly a majority. As such, how can we in good conscience limit the rights of one specific group?

Marriage is not ideal. But until a better system is devised, the right to marry should not be denied to two human beings based on which gender they find more attractive.