I’m cynical about the institution of marriage
Remember back in 2015 when the US Supreme Court finally allowed LGBTQ folks to get married? Why did that take so long? Queer sexual activity and relationships were legalized in the US in some states in 1963, and nationally in 2003, so why was taking that extra step to make the relationship official from there such a trial? Going back further, it wasn’t until 1967 that interracial marriages were allowed in the US after the Loving v Virginia case led the Supreme Court to decide that “anti-miscegenation” laws were unconstitutional. In both cases, the court decided that “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State” and that “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.” If that’s the case, why does the government even get a say in marriage at all?
I understand some of the benefits of getting married. In 1983 a lesbian couple was confronted with the spousal rights issue when one of them got into a car accident and the other was denied the right to care for her on the basis that they were not recognized as legally married. Yet in 1984 the city of Berkeley, California passed the nation’s first domestic partnership law, while in 1989, court rulings in New York and California defined LGBTQ couples as families, and in 1992 LGBTQ employees began to receive domestic partner benefits from Levi Strauss & Co. and the state of Mass. In 1997 Hawaii became the first state to offer domestic partnership benefits to LGBTQ couples, yet in 1998 Alaskan and Hawaiian voters approved state constitutional bans on LGBTQ marriage. Why were some of the benefits of marriage granted to LGBTQ couples while the marriage itself was denied?
Part of the issue can be traced back to religion, with the idea that the church owns marriage. Historically, marriage has been organized not as a private concern, but as a public institution that works for the common and social good, not only for the benefit of individuals but also of society as a whole. The Anglo-Saxons viewed marriage as a strategic tool to establish diplomatic and trade relations between tribal groups. In the 11th Century, marriages were conducted to secure economic or political advantage. What the couple in question actually wanted mattered little, as it was the families who arranged it all to benefit them.
In patriarchal societies like Rome and Greece, marriage arrangements were made on behalf of the bride as a way to bind the women to the men. Women were obligated to wear engagement rings to demonstrate that they were owned by the men. Women were seen as property at best, and a liability at worst, so she was married off to take her off her families’ hands. She often came with a dowry to make her more marketable to the husband and his family. And just to punctuate the transactional nature of marriage, dowries are still a thing in Jewish, Slavic, Arab, East Asian, North African, and Sub-Saharan African cultures, though they are more casual and informal.
While the concept of marriage dates back to 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia, it wasn’t until 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments. But, in 1670 Parliament passed an act allowing John Manners, Lord Roos, to divorce his wife, Lady Anne Pierpon, setting a precedent for more than 300 cases of divorce between the late 17th and mid-19th centuries. In 1858 divorce was allowed to be conducted through a legal process, though it remained expensive, and wives had to prove “aggravated” adultery, essentially that their husbands were guilty of abuse, neglect, bigamy, incest, sodomy, or bestiality. When the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 passed, no such reasons had to be provided, marital breakdown was a good enough explanation, which kind of renders the whole sacrament thing moot.
The Clandestine Marriage Act of 1753 required couples to get married in a church or chapel by a minister, otherwise, the marriage was considered illegitimate and they had to issue a formal marriage announcement, called banns, or obtain a marriage license. This act made the penalty for not following these rituals much harsher. It wasn’t until the Victorian Era that marriage became about love and in some communities today, they still aren’t really. They’re about adding to the family, whether through union or through procreation. In the 1930’s artificial contraception was accepted by the Anglican church and today the Church of England no longer considers contraception to be sinful.
Yet while the Catholic Church still considers having children to be an essential function of marriage, more and more married couples are eschewing the tradition of becoming parents. In 2005, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales held the first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act, and it was thought that this law would end the inequalities that LGBTQ couples faced. Yet, despite the existence of marriage prior to that of Christianity, the Church decided that it was territory they owned and with the entwinement of Church and State, it has remained a legal matter.
The problem with marriage coming with conditions beyond the simple union of two people who love each other is that they can often be outdated, as is the case with dowries, and the values involved don’t often resonate with modern standards, as with the issue surrounding children. At best they are obsolete, and at worst, they can be harmful when individuals involved feel entitled to such benefits.
Civil and domestic partnerships and common law marriages have allowed the rights and responsibilities of marriage to be bestowed on couples who have not legally obtained a marriage license. Sex outside of marriage is legal, and there are laws in place to prevent sexual assault against those who are underage. This means that laws around marriage aren’t even essential for protecting minors.
All of this raises the question, why is the government still involved in marriage? With all the work it took to get where we are with LGBTQ couples getting married, and it still being illegal in so many countries, I’ve come to think that the institution of marriage itself is archaic. With the constant fluctuation of civil rights progress, maybe it’s time the government stops playing a part in what should be a private relationship status.
