Marriage

Atheism was the norm with the people I grew up with (friends, family, schoolmates), and because of that indulgence in feelings of superiority over the 'unenlightened' was pretty common. It was both easy and popular to place the majority of blame for any misdirection in our society on the devoutly religious. In fact, many of the people I knew who gleefully denounced religious practice were the same kind of people who, in a different time, would probably embrace religion the most wholeheartedly. I myself am an atheist, but that's beside the point, and this is an article about marriage anyways, not religion.

But the questioning of religion brings with it the questioning of all religious institutions, marriage being one of them. Combine that with the woefully high divorce rates in North America, and it's pretty easy to form an anti-marriage argument: What is the meaning of commitment through marriage when you don't think the commitment will likely be honoured? And why get married at all if there's a good chance it will end poorly?

I believe that the answer to both of these questions has to do with the need to reevaluate the meaning of marriage in our society. Marriage in its current state is an artifact of an older generation and a different set of values, and it was with those values that it made sense; it was only when we moved away from them that the incidence of divorce rose to the level that it is now. Now, by many marks our society is much improved over our grandparents and great-grandparents, especially in terms of gender equality and the relationship between men and women, and yet the state of marriage has only gone downhill. The obvious objection to this is that there was probably as many unhappy marriages back then, but only less divorce, because of the stigma against it, and the difficulty attaining one. But this is precisely why I believe that these marriages were happier. The key to a happy marriage is that both spouses have the will to be happy with each other, something which would be more likely when the partners are, in a sense, stuck together.

Take, as another example, arranged marriages; here the spouses have little to no say in who they marry. They are usually marriages borne out of the pragmatism of joining two families and yet (I read this in my psych 101 textbook) their marriages have been shown to increase in happiness over time. In contrast, in the same graph, modern marriages of love were shown to peak in happiness early (around the three year mark) and plummet drastically afterwards.

I'm not here suggesting that we should abolish divorce or bring back arranged marriages. I believe in the importance of freedom of choice. And yet, there is something implicit in both these situations that modern day marriages are missing: loving your spouse isn't an option.

Society today is so suffused with the idea of the one true love, love as an immortal, eternal feeling, that even fully grown adults enter into marriage with the idea that they'll feel that way about their spouse forever. This is the folly of modern marriage, and this is why so many marriages are doomed to fail. There is a specific type of love, passionate love, which most people in relationships are still gushily wrapped up in when they decide to get married. Unfortunately, passion dries up pretty quickly, and by the three year mark the spouses are left wondering if they made some terrible mistake.

Compare this with an arranged marriage, where the passionate love wasn't there in the first place, and the problem ceases to exist. Instead both spouses, knowing their commitment to be together, regardless of their compatibility, make a conscious effort to see one another in the best possible light, and make the best of their marriage. So, instead of evaluating their spouse based on some ephemeral feeling, they slowly grow in fondness of one another by gathering positive assessments together in the idea of their partner. I can only imagine that in a marriage without divorce as an option the same positive assessment would take place, as a necessity.

How can we bring these ideas into a society where arranged marriages are seen as barbaric, and divorces are a very real option? My answer is with knowledge of what a marriage is, and what exactly to expect. Passionate love is great and fun, but should never be mistaken for the true reason for marriage: it's an institution meant to build a lasting bond over time so that you will always have someone to depend on. Parents grow old and pass away, families become distant, and marriage becomes a new way in which you can care and be cared for. (And of course, it's the foundation for a family of your own)

The idea that you made the wrong choice is irrelevant, so is whether or not you are still 'in love'. There is no correct choice in marriage, and you must work for your love. Granted, sometimes one partner will fail in their commitments through lack of emotional availability, adultery, whatever, and in such a case, the commitment to marriage effectively becomes severed.This is why divorce needs to exist as an option. But, so long as both spouses are firm in their commitments, which can only be attained by first knowing what those commitments are, I believe that marriage can be a good thing, even in our modern times.