With This Ring, I Thee Wed

I have a problem with marriage, other than the obvious problem I have making one last longer than the wedding cake.  Apparently, most of the country also has problems with marriage.  Divorce is so common, it is not only accepted, but is almost expected.  Perhaps some basic understanding might help clear up the problems.

For all the people who are happily married, I admire and respect you.  You are making something work that is not designed to work in today's world.  Some of you are in your first, and probably only, marriage, while others are on their second, third or fourth.  Regardless, if you're able to make one work then you are both incredible people.  For the ones struggling with marriage (or despairing of ever finding the right person to marry), keep your chin up.  I hope that you will find a solution that brings you happiness.

The problem with marriage is easy to see when you try to define marriage.  What exactly is it?  I know some of you are scratching your heads wondering what is wrong with me, but bear with me, I'll explain.  Marriage can be defined in at least three different ways:  a legal contract, a social convention, and a religious institution.

Many of the arguments for "traditional marriage" rest on the status of marriage as a religious institution, a covenant between a man and a woman sanctioned by God.  If this is true, then marriage should be granted protection under the First Amendment.  Don't start shouting "hallelujah" yet.  As a part of religion, marriage would only be bound by the beliefs of each individual church, making polygamy and gay marriage legal.  It also opens up the door for people to marry their pets, their vehicles, even their deity.

When I was in school, it was common for a boy and girl, who were dating, to exchange class rings.  This showed a commitment to each other and stood as a symbol to others of that commitment.  No laws or religious doctrines regulate this, it's merely a social convention, and as such it changes from place to place and changes over time.  Now I think the procedure is a status change and a post on Facebook.  As a social convention, marriage varies from place to place and has changed dramatically over time, that is what social conventions do, they reflect the local attitudes and beliefs.

Now to the legal contract portion of marriage.  Technically, I should reduce my font size for this.  Marriage is a contract between two people with certain rights and responsibilities clearly defined, it even requires a license.  Over time, as society changes, laws change, and this is certainly true with marriage.  Originally, the marriage contract was between the groom and the father of the bride.  It was in effect, a change of ownership, with payment made prior to transfer of title.  And the groom could, after the marriage, get some or all of his money back, if the property in question was not as advertised.  The property in question, is the wife.  The reasons behind this were quite simple, a woman, under the law at the time, had no rights.  She could not sign a contract, own property or initiate any legal action.  A remnant of this practice is in common use today with the father of the bride, passing her off to the groom in front of the legal representative to witness and sign approval of the transfer.

 Now do you begin to see some of the problems?  As most of the United States has slowly come to realize, women are not property.  They are actual human beings with feelings and even thoughts and therefore should be given at least some rights.  Of course it's ridiculous to think about giving them equal rights.  If you're going to do that you might as well outlaw sarcasm.

Under current laws, from a legal standpoint, a marriage is equivalent to a business partnership.  Like any partnership, members have certain rights and responsibilities, there are tax benefits and it can be dissolved if the members are not satisfied with the arrangement.  The only difference is that marriage, along with the rights, responsibilities and benefits, is not equally available to all Americans.  Imagine being denied a business license because your partner is not the right sex.

Looking at marriage under each individual classification, a fair definition should make marriage open to everyone.  However, a narrow-minded view, supported by many, is that one viewpoint should prevail.  The question in my mind, is how far can this be taken?  If marriage discrimination is legal based upon sexual orientation, why can't we ban interracial marriages?  Interfaith marriages?  Marriages where one or both people are too old?  Too fat?  Too stupid?  The trend over the past century or so has been to remove discrimination.  It has been a slow process, but progress has been made.  Is it in our best interest to start putting discrimination back into our society?