Marriage: its meaning, then and now

[YPestis]

I was reading the other thread about the Iowa bill trying to restrict divorce. Off course, there was a pretty piss poor reason for it ("Oh no! The young girls will become more promiscuous!"). It got me thinking about marriage and what means to us, in the past and now.

For much of human history, marriage was a binding legal contract between families to allow for safe merging, division and inheritance of assets. Before the days of DNA testing, and when bloodlines were extremely important---political power was inherited----marriage was a huge affair because it was the foundation of our economic and political power. In other words, society without ability to split assets, merge property and designate a political heir would be thrown into chaos.

The insistence of staying married in loveless, even abusive marriages had nothing to do with the emotional welfare of the children. It was about inheritance and property. Power was transferred and it depended on the chastity of the maidens who enter marriage. Political, social and economic alliances were forged through marriage because it ensured the exchange of assets.

Fast forward to 2013. Our government still use marriage to make laws, but in a different way. Marriage today is still legally binding. It still determines the merging and division of assets. To a lesser extent, it also figure into child custody issues. However, modern DNA testing reduced the importance of marriage in determining heirs. Political power through inheritance is also negated through our democracy. We have no kings or lords who need to ensure proper heirs born in wedlock anymore. However, conservatives still insist marriage should be dictated by the government, not by the couple engaged in matrimony. They still think society will collapse if couples divorce, even when marriage no longer serves a legislative or economic purpose.

Restricting divorce provides no political or economic benefits and actually leads to poorer governance. If we assumed a couple is married, we may also assume they share assets, income, and child custody under one roof. If we start restricting divorces, couples may simply split up and deal with child custody issues themselves. This means the government is making policies based on "married" couples who are living as separate households. Furthermore, when people are forced to go outside the judicial system, it will only harm the family who have no way to legally settle debts, property or custody issues. All because the government says they are not allowed to divorce.

What does modern society gain from forcing people to stay legally married? Our economy is not dependent on marriages to merge or divide corporations. Our political leaders are no longer sons of kings and lords. Marriage is no longer the defining factor in determining genealogy as we have DNA testing. However, marriage is a way for the government to determine who is living together, sharing income, home, raising children together. It's still a beneficial and economical way to live. Society would still benefit if governments makes laws respecting that living arrangements. However, it serves no one if government makes laws helping married households when people are no longer married.

Rather than make society better, restricting divorce will force a generation of children to live in a nebulous legal grey zone. How can that end well for anyone? We can also lower cancer rates by declaring those with early stages of cancer to "not have cancer". Does that mean less people with cancer? How can we say that marriages will be stronger by declaring that this relationship is not really broken (legally) and then ignoring the issue? I feel marriage restriction is just a simple way for conservatives to brag how they "lowered divorced" without actually confronting the issues of broken families. Thoughts?

[sugarloaf]

Well said.

I think there are two main issues going on here. The more secular intention I can think of is that stable relationships are good for people and the children that they produce, and that society benefits from that, so it's encouraged. Society used to be a lot more paternalistic about such things (in some ways- discouraging divorce and single parents, but at the same time ignoring what went on behind closed doors), and I think as society becomes more diverse lawmakers face a difficult task trying to find the appropriate level of protection for society without overstepping and mandating a particular way of life or cultural norm. Such cultural and legal changes move quite slowly.

On the other hand, there's the obvious- the push of people who think that only their culture or religious views are the right way, and that they should be forced upon others. This isn't just a religious thing but I think the religious fundamentalists and the like are more outspoken about these issues and are ultimately more dangerous to diversity and the freedom to live as one chooses. I think such people (particularly the religious) are blind to the evidence- they only see their religious mandates and imagine some sort of Utopia from a bygone era, or else believe that the "corruption" of others who choose not to live by their religious mandates will send a curse from their god. In the case of corruption, they may care less about the health, wellbeing, and happiness of those around them, because people should be forced to do whatever it takes to prevent them from being cursed. It's primitive thinking, but it definitely still exists.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

For much of human history, marriage was a binding legal contract between families to allow for safe merging, division and inheritance of assets. Before the days of DNA testing, and when bloodlines were extremely important---political power was inherited----marriage was a huge affair because it was the foundation of our economic and political power. In other words, society without ability to split assets, merge property and designate a political heir would be thrown into chaos. (snip)

Sorry, it's late here and this is as far as I read, so I'll just reply to that. Yes to the legally binding contract. No to the huge affair- it was a civil-law affair. At least in Europe, marriage laws were a mess until the Council of Trent 1545- 1563 (for Catholics), and longer for Protestants. The devil is in the details, and the details are legally complicated. What the Council of Trent did for Catholics, was to establish one form of marriage that was legal and binding in Catholic countries. Protestant countries wildly differed, even when it came to transfer of property. Up until the 19th century, English wives had no rights whatsoever to their property. Scottish wives had a right to their "carriables", i.e.: money. What actually constituted a marriage also varied from country to country. Up until 1753, you could very easily get married in England by simply declaring yourselves married. In Scotland that became illegal in 2000.

Marriages were only ever important, when it came to inheritance. Scots law had provisions that you needed to be legally married for a year and a day, before you could inherit. As far as I'm aware that was done to protect property. But even without a formal wedding, it was possible to prove that your parents were in fact, married. Deities had very little to do with it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that "marriage" as we may think of it, hasn't always been the same. Fundies don't get that bit, where marriage used to be somewhat fluid, and a civil contract, rather than a divine covenant. And this may be me being cynical, but marriage doesn't seem to have been that big of a deal for most of history unless it came to property-disputes amongst heirs. Re-reading your words, I suspect that is what you might have said, but being less wordy. :oops:

(Sorry, can't help myself: Sources - L. Leneman (2003) Promises, Promises: Marriage Litigation in Scotland 1698-1830. Athenaeum Press Ltd: Tyne and Wear)

eta: Sorry, I'm a bit disjointed here. It's late and I've had my glass of wine. :oops:

[hearyoume08]

I view the marriage contract as a semi binding legal contract. My biggest problem is that there is this preferred treatment to married people. I see no reason why others can not get those benefits as well, not everyone can or wants to be married. I mean that is one of the main reasons people enter into a legal marriage is it not? For the benefits to take care of their significant others .

Granted if I was queen of the universe all reproductive abilities would be taken away and we as human would just die out, if we don't blow ourselves up first. I guess it is a good thing that I'm not.

Of course the divorces that I've witnessed have either been because of a straight forward abuse case or it was mutual and they remained friends afterwards. So it was a shock to the system when I was in a collage psychology class and found out that this is isn't common. I have decided to not recognize married status unless I have to by law. This is not going to be popular.

[samurai_sarah]

The system wouldn't let me allow to edit, so here is some useless info: about my sources, which I feel comepelled to add:

- A. Fraser (1984) The Weaker Vessel: Woman's Lot in Seventeenth Century England,( Phoenix Press: London)

- O. Hufton (1995) The Prospect Before Her: A History of Women in Western Europe (Volume One 1500- 1800) (HarperCollins: London)

- M. Fraser (2000) 1700: Scenes from London Life (Sceptre: London)

My apologies, I can't help myself when talking history. It comes with the job, and is in the interest of full disclosure. Feel free to ignore me, please. And by all means. This is a personal quirk, in case anyone wants to check up.

edited for parentheses and clarity

[Rosa]

Everyone (except maybe Samurai Sarah who has a pretty wide grasp of this already) should really read Stephanie Coontz' book, "Marriage: A History". It's an amazing look at how marriage laws and ideas have changed over time (in "the West" - mostly the English-speaking West) that just blows all of the "traditional marriage" bullshit out of the water.

She ties the evolution of the idea of romantic love as the main component of marriage into a whole ball of Enlgihtenment ideas (especially citizenship and equality) that we are still figuring out how to apply, and that fundies are decidedly against most of.

[Burris]

Sorry, it's late here and this is as far as I read, so I'll just reply to that. Yes to the legally binding contract. No to the huge affair- it was a civil-law affair. At least in Europe, marriage laws were a mess until the Council of Trent 1545- 1563 (for Catholics), and longer for Protestants. The devil is in the details, and the details are legally complicated. What the Council of Trent did for Catholics, was to establish one form of marriage that was legal and binding in Catholic countries. Protestant countries wildly differed, even when it came to transfer of property. Up until the 19th century, English wives had no rights whatsoever to their property. Scottish wives had a right to their "carriables", i.e.: money. What actually constituted a marriage also varied from country to country. Up until 1753, you could very easily get married in England by simply declaring yourselves married. In Scotland that became illegal in 2000.

Marriages were only ever important, when it came to inheritance. Scots law had provisions that you needed to be legally married for a year and a day, before you could inherit. As far as I'm aware that was done to protect property. But even without a formal wedding, it was possible to prove that your parents were in fact, married. Deities had very little to do with it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that "marriage" as we may think of it, hasn't always been the same. Fundies don't get that bit, where marriage used to be somewhat fluid, and a civil contract, rather than a divine covenant. And this may be me being cynical, but marriage doesn't seem to have been that big of a deal for most of history unless it came to property-disputes amongst heirs. Re-reading your words, I suspect that is what you might have said, but being less wordy. :oops:

(Sorry, can't help myself: Sources - L. Leneman (2003) Promises, Promises: Marriage Litigation in Scotland 1698-1830. Athenaeum Press Ltd: Tyne and Wear)

I find it fascinating: When my husband and I first met, we didn't really get along that well, but continued seeing each other anyway. We grew to care about one another. And then our marriage was a compact: We each had something the other needed, cared about one another, could communicate well, and so we entered a binding agreement - this one, for life.

My brother's marriage was similar, although he had known the woman far longer than I'd known my husband. They, too, entered a compact. It seems to be working out well for them.

My brother had only met his wife twice in the flesh before they married. They had been speaking online for about ten years before that, though - LOL - and everyone who knew about my brother and his relationship had to sign declarations to the Australian government demonstrating the two had a preexisting relationship and he wasn't just marrying for a chance at citizenship. (Note to the Aussie government: Our declarations were true. They'd known each other for a decade and actually love each other.)

I've only met her once, alas, and haven't seen either of them in years. (Thank goodness for the internet.)

We did think about the idea of romantic love, my husband and I, but that didn't really start growing for us until after we married. We loved each other, surely, but we were past the altar when we went "head-over-heels."

In an odd way, the compact better prepared us for trouble such as my husband's illness. For those tied together only by the gauzy idea of romantic love, this could have destabilized the marriage. In our case, that simply didn't happen. Not only do we love each other, but our mutual duties are in the compact. Even in the midst of turmoil, we simply kept to those ideals as best we could.

That kind of set-up isn't terribly unusual. It's by no means new. In fact, it's as Samurai Sarah says: The older model.

It actually kind of freaks me out when I see people who claim undying romantic love as their reason for getting married. I was taught that didn't matter very much - and based on the quick divorces I've seen, I think my teachers may have been at least partly correct.

And we divided the labor along more or less traditional lines. (My brother and his wife have a rather unusual arrangement in that the opposite will likely be true for them when they have children.) The key in a situation like that is for both people to be reasonable and capable of communication. If not, the compact fails even if the parties stay married. Which, alas, the often do - no matter how long the estrangement.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip) In an odd way, the compact better prepared us for trouble such as my husband's illness. For those tied together only by the gauzy idea of romantic love, this could have destabilized the marriage. In our case, that simply didn't happen. Not only do we love each other, but our mutual duties are in the compact. Even in the midst of turmoil, we simply kept to those ideals as best we could.

That kind of set-up isn't terribly unusual. It's by no means new. In fact, it's as Samurai Sarah says: The older model.

It actually kind of freaks me out when I see people who claim undying romantic love as their reason for getting married. I was taught that didn't matter very much - and based on the quick divorces I've seen, I think my teachers may have been at least partly correct.

And we divided the labor along more or less traditional lines. (My brother and his wife have a rather unusual arrangement in that the opposite will likely be true for them when they have children.) The key in a situation like that is for both people to be reasonable and capable of communication. If not, the compact fails even if the parties stay married. Which, alas, the often do - no matter how long the estrangement.

Good thoughts to your husband and you!

Personally, I do think, there is something to be said for "the compact". When reading social history, one thing that strikes me is something fundies seem to completely ignore: for much of history a marriage created an economical unit. Just like having children was a "pension scheme", marrying could improve one's circumstances. I'm not only talking about dowries here, but actually gaining an additional set of hands. Lower class and lower middle-class women never only worked inside a household, but held jobs (think seamstress, laundress etc) or helped in their husbands' businesses/on the farm. That doesn't require romantic love as such, but it does require a rapport. Anyone who's ever had to do teamwork in any sort of situation, or has been the boss of a team, knows that it's a pretty hopeless endeavour if you just can't get along with everyone else.

But that isn't to say that marriages were devoid of romantic love. There is plenty of evidence that attraction played a role. At least in Western Europe - I don't know about the rest of the world, hence the disclaimer. The way I see it, modern marriage isn't all that different. We still basically create economic units, pooling our resources and skills. But we talk about it differently, and other ideas and emotions take priority. We mostly, in the West, can also financially afford to prioritize differently. However, I have seen firsthand, how a university-educated friend dumped a guy who hadn't finished school and was working in a dead-end job, because even though she loved him that wasn't an economic unit she wanted to be part of. So, I do think, in spite of protestations, it's not all that different.

Or maybe I just don't have a romantic bone in my body, which is also quite possible. At least according to my SO, I'm a professional cynic, and not really qualified to talk about lasting romantic love. I blame my grandmother, who always told me that "love is a lot of hard work" and "it doesn't end with happily-ever-after".

To the bolded, I totally agree with you. Apart from grandma's wisdom, the best piece of advice about relationships I've ever received was "respect each other, and talk".