My first thought was one of surprise. The state of unmarried domicility is so common now that I thought only a few hard line zealots even noticed. So then I set to considering why the institution of marriage is still considered important by the denizens of conventional culture. Having often discussed this issue, I’m aware that two primary reasons are given.
The first is religious. Marriages are made in heaven. If the union isn’t sanctified by God, the union has no validity. Well, that’s a matter of faith, and those who subscribe to it are entitled to their position on the matter. It means nothing to me, of course. One of the reasons I so hate church weddings is that the stuff trotted out by ministers on such occasions makes me seethe.
The second has more substance, but it seems to me to be equally nonsensical. There is a conditioned view in the tram line mindset that marriages are more stable than unmarried partnerships. This, claims the received view, is important if there are children involved. I agree that it would be important if it were true, but I don’t believe it is. I’ve known plenty of unstable marriages in my time, and I’ve know plenty of stable unmarried partnerships.
The real issue here is commitment, and people like to think that marriage establishes it. What’s more, they like to have it handed to them on a plate. But marriage doesn’t establish commitment. Commitment resides within the mind of the person making it. You don’t need a ceremony to be committed. If you feel that a commitment needs to be stated verbally, or even in writing, then do it properly. Make the effort. Decide what you want to say, what you consider important, and what you want to commit to, and then say it. And if you really must have a ceremony, design your own. If you’re going to claim that a committed relationship requires effort to make it work, then start with the commitment itself. Reading off a piece of paper and repeating vows given to you by a minister or registrar is, I would suggest, an abdication of the very first line of effort.
There is one advantage to being married. The system is so entrenched in its view that it bestows tax advantages on those who walk the proper line. The system always does reward conformity, of course, and its practice of giving tax breaks to married couples says more about the workings of the system than it does about the value of marriage.
It should go without saying that I’m not trying to tell people they shouldn’t get married. That’s a matter of personal choice and none of my business. What I am suggesting is that they should consider the reasons in terms a little deeper than ‘because it’s the right thing to do and it will ensure a more stable future for our children.’
Meanwhile, Ed Milliband has demonstrated a fundamental weakness in his makeup by promising the country that he will get married when he has the time. And I was beginning to have high hopes for him. Oh well, here’s to Utopia.
No comments:
Post a Comment