In the west, people have been saying "I do" for approximately 4,350 years.Maybe it's time we untie the knot of tradition, and ask ourselves why marriage is necessary.
Before the creation of marriage, according to anthropological research, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children.
As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. Love back then had nothing to do with marriage.
Marriage's primary purpose was to bind women to men. This would ensure man's children were his biological heirs. As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic Church as a sacrament.
At the Council of Trent in 1563, marriage was written into canon law. In time, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love as a motivating force for marriage only goes as far back as the Middle Ages.
Je t'aime.
Many scholars believe the concept was "invented" by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else's wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur's wife, Queen Guinevere.
You've come a long way, baby.
Have we?
Even with love as a requirement for marriage, divorce has become commonplace, disintegrating marriage and family. Living common law is becoming more prevalent.
According to a 2001 census, the prevalence of common-law relationships is not only higher in Quebec than in any other Canadian province, it is also higher than many Western European and North American countries.
And it's working.
Being from Montreal, I was exposed to many flourishing common-law couples. They surpassed many married couples by far. The general consensus amongst Quebecers is they don't need a piece of paper to seal their love and devotion.
Marriage as a tradition has proven to be unpredictable and unreliable. When you marry your spouse, you're also buying into the institution, and its economic and social implications.
Traditionalists feel people are making a mockery out of marriage. I say the institution of marriage is making a mockery out of us. When it comes to something as personal as relationships, live by your own rules.
If two people have a strong foundation, and a love that's enduring, why does it need to be legalized and sanctified?
For the children?
For morality?
Isn't morality equated with civility?
Do you call the state of marriage a moral and civil institution?
It's falling apart, and perhaps it was never solid to begin with. Back then most people married out of fear and stayed together out of fear.
I hardly call that prosperity and familial bliss.
Marriage and family isn't what it used to be, people say.
I say it was just as messy back then as it is now, they just knew how to hide their misdemeanors.
Today, marriage and all its chaos is now openly accepted, and is often terminated with a legal process called divorce, which is celebrated amongst some, and is becoming more of solid tradition than marriage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce