See my previous post on a proposal to do away with civil marriages. This post touches on more personal matters.
I have found that, when mentioning this idea to friends, it has oft met with visceral opposition. In general (and this is anecdotal based on my own experience with 10-12 people - please don't read this as prejudicial of either group), Christians and women have violently opposed the idea.
Christians have tended to see it as a dissolution of American values. So the argument goes - marriage is the core of a nuclear family, and that is the foundation of our society, and so the state must support and define it. I just don't get this. Marriage was originally an issue of property - the man owning the woman. That's why fathers still "give away" brides. I think clinging to tradition for tradition's sake is overrated.
If providing children with a stable home is really are the reason for civil marriages, then it should only be allowed to couples who are capable of and plan to have children,. And divorces should be a LOT harder when kids are involved.
But few would argue that a person stuck in an unhappy or abusive relationship should be further punished by the legal divorce process. And few would argue that a loving marriage between a man and a woman for 50 years should have any less weight because the union never produced offspring. That would be insulting. And the current system is just as insulting to anyone else not allowed to marry.
As far as the response I've seen from women to this idea - to be fair, a few of them I was dating at the time. This is one of those examples where I favor honesty over sensitivity, and it bites me in the ass.
One of them I even wound up marrying, and the suggestion that we postpone the civil union until we have children (you see, this would have saved us money on the license, decreased our income tax, and in retrospect a load of divorce bills) - no practical argument mattered - it just meant to her that I didn't love her enough. My commitment to her wasn't sufficient, I had to commit to the Commonwealth of Jamaica, too.
But I just don't get it. I don't get how one can value love, value marriage, be willing to proclaim love and devotion and commitment to a partner and in front of families and friends - how is any of that augmented by the seal of the state? Why is that necessary? And why can I not even speak of it without being viewed as anti-family, anti-commitment, selfish, or unloving?
Shit, the whole thing wears me out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
If it makes you feel any better, I agree with everything you said, in both posts. But then, you probably already knew that.
I think the problem is a similar issue that comes up with things like putting god's name on money and having prayer in school. Despite the wisdom of religious plurality and the separation of church and state, most religious citizens desperately want to view their government and their leaders as holding and endorsing their religious views. I haven't seen poll numbers on this specifically, but my guess is that most Christians view this country foremost as a Christian nation, and not as a pluralistic society where freedom of religion is paramount. This kind of makes sense due to the inherent top-down authoritarian nature of religion. Religion reinforces hierarchy, and religious followers want that hierarchy realized in their societal structure as well, not just at a local level with their pastor.
So for many religious people, the idea of the government no longer rubber stamping their concept of marriage is anathema. It's dumb, but like you say, it's not going to change any time soon.
Post a Comment