Here are a couple of things I have to say on the subject of contracts. Let's look historically at what marriage is. It is a financial arrangement. Once a man and woman married in exchange for offspring, status, care, regular sex, and possibly money, property and security. That really hasn't changed. The idea that we must somehow justify this by purporting to be "in love" seems a little like fishing for morally responsible reasons to have chocolate ice cream. It's a contract whose sole purpose is to place protections for each party. And the truth is, in the absence of arranged marriage, we are at a loss. We aren't taught how to negotiate a marriage contract so we can live it and stay married, we are led to believe that it's supposed to be spontaneous and organic.
I'm not against marriage. There are reasons for the state and federal governments to ask me to register my contract of marriage. They need to know who to point to when there is a problem. They also need to know who to give the spouses money too when he/she dies. Of course there are roughly, 1400 state and federal rights given to federally registered marriages, that protect women, children, and sometimes men from abuse and ruin. Admittedly, not all of them are financial but a huge chunk of them are. The others are to protect people in social ways.
The addition of romance to marriage is fairly recent and in a pragmatic relationship for the protection of family and meeting of needs it is a boon, sometimes, but not essential to its success. In fact, heaping the notion of romance onto the marriage contract was, in part, an exercise of social control over sex and childrearing. The selling of exclusive rights. That's what two people do when they love each other very much, they get married and have kids. Not really, two people with a blustering sexual attraction have sex, the rest is just to protect women and their subsequent children, from being used by unethical men.
There was also a time when religion wasn't actively involved in marriage. Those were contracts made by agreement between the families. Certainly, every religion, has a god ordained sanction. If it were entirely natural why would there be need for such mention. Religion also claims to define marriage for its adherents. One woman per man, more than one woman per man. etc. This is also about control and protection. If you make this contract a moral issue then somehow magically people will behave in more sensible and humane ways. Not true, but it is a theory.
What about the validity of other contracts? Civil unions don't give as many rights, a sort of marriage lite. Common Law Marriage is a default validation for living together long enough you probably own property or have children to protect. Hand-fasting, the temporary arrangement of two or more people who of want to "try out" married life with the understanding that it may not work out. And of course shacking up, which is kind of the buyer beware, 'as is' arrangement. But all of these including, the federal sanction, are contracts with varying degrees of protections.
As a responsible person, I have contracts for lots of things. My responsibility to itunes is a contract, my phone service has a contract, my home insurance, all contracts. My sex life has contracts too, so why is the marriage contract so jealously guarded? Why is it a thing to be feared?
Social convention. If you have a marriage that fails to evolve to accommodate the needs of the people involved, then somehow you are viewed and judged as a bad person. The truth is, some people might not benefit from marriage, some are not suitable for the majority of the market. Some people just don't want to be married. But socially, marriage is more than a mere contract. Marriage is a place of honor, a status symbol, an achievement. It places people in some elevated wonderland of social acceptability, until it fails. It is as if marriage validates the veracity of love, faith, and tradition rather than the other way around. They will tell you that it is to maintain the sanctity of family and protect children but does it really do that? If it doesn't it's time for a renegotiation.
Secondly, would you get a business loan based on a spontaneous chemical connection to some object or idea without a business plan? No, of course not, because the bank needs to know their risk is in the hands of people who have thought it through. Yet our only requirement for marriage seems to be love and religious sanction. If marriage were a known product that performed the same way for everyone, why would we need pre-nups? No wonder it's frightening.
Thirdly, marriage can be terrifying because of the baggage of role related expectation that often goes undiscussed. We get along and so often assume we are compatible in those subconscious beliefs about marriage. This, of course, isn't a problem if it's discussed but a lot of people just assume certain things and often they don't match.
Officially, the marriage license isn't even between the two partners, it's between the lovers and their government and interestingly it is silent on the essential expectations by law. These expectations aren't spelled out until divorce time. We agree to behave in a way that does not void the guarantee of protection from our lawmakers. Perhaps, in addition to the spiritual counseling often required by ministers, there should be a lawyer that informs you of your legal obligations, and how to make the most out of the contract.
As for my friends they have come to an arrangement and may eventually become federally registered as married but until then, they are doing what is right for them, which is really what marriage ought to be about anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment