Before I begin my ill-prepared rambling on a subject matter which I, to be frank, have no authority over , I would like to give some insight on what inspired me to blow the dust off my laptop and write a new blog on such a heavy and depressing topic.
I’m sure you all have heard on the news, or read on the papers the extremely shocking statistics which surround marriage in the late 20th and 21st century. From my experience, the most common statistic which the average lay-man would be able to produce, off the top of his head, would be the 50% divorce rate in the USA. However, after less than 2 minutes of research, I came across a statistic which made my jaw drop; Around 32,000 Belgians sign for divorces every year which amounts to an eye watering 71% divorce rate… Thus, these sobering statistics, alongside my conversation with my English Teacher on the major impact of marriage on society/societal values and child development spurred me to do some more research and build up a case as to why I believe Marriage is a ghost of what it once meant and stood for.
Like any other word, the definition of marriage has changed over the course of human history. The Oxford dictionary defines marriage as “The legally or formally recognised union of two people as partners in a personal relationship”. It is extremely important to note that this ‘modern’ definition of marriage differs greatly from the original and it is the shift in societal values, which has altered the purpose and indeed the definition of marriage. In my opinion this has, alongside other factors, made the concept of marriage redundant.
The original definition, and purpose, of marriage was a formal contract between members of opposite sexes to ensure a life-long union for the express purpose of raising children within a family and an ordered society. This was the case for much of Western European history where marriage was a civil institution namely, an aggregate of civil society outside the sphere of the state. Before the 1969 Divorce Reform Act, marriage had been a civil (Civil in the sense that it was a part of private life not controlled by the state) contract between two people, an important element of the contract being that it was life long and there was no breach thus, the wedding vows uttered before the formal recognition such as “till death do us apart” or “in sickness and in health” had authenticity.
Unfortunately, The consequences of this divorce law were that, in a situation where only one partner who had made a solemn oath of life long partnership decided that they were no longer prepared to hold to that oath, the state would quite literally burst into their home if necessary and drag away the other party who were prepared to keep true to their promise; even if abuse or adultery did not occur.
Quite frankly I find this extraordinary because, although I admit I am no expert in this field, I believe that in any other area of law if two people were to decide on something and consequently sign a contract, and if one member were to break that contract, one would go to the court to enforce it. But since 1969 what the Act has allowed is the ability for the state to actively intervene and force that civil contract apart. This is an enormous interference of private life from the state; fundamentally this means the states interference on private life has grown immensely and the one institution which was separate from the state and provided a huge area of private life has been under attack.
After listening to a speech by Peter Hitchens I found out that Justice Hale, in her 1982 essay ‘the utility of marriage as a legal institution’ wrote, “whether it would have been possible to improve the inequality of sexes and improve the protection of the weak and at the same time promote lasting marriage, we will never know. Instead the efforts of English law to remove the defects of the marital package deal have succeeded in virtually destroying whatever value it had as a stabilising and restraining force.”
Thus, the distinction between married and non-married couples have been blurred to the point of, in my opinion a matter of formality; and without sounding pretentious I lament at this shift in society. For centuries marriage was the foundation of a society, it provided a place to raise a child in a safe loving environment and it allowed parents to pass on their ethics and values to the next generation. However, with the decline in marriage and the licentious obsession of my generation I honestly fear that morality, at least the traditional values, will be all-too-soon lost. It really would have been nice if that could have continued. It would have been nice if in the future, If i were to ever marry, that the weddings vows I utter would have meant something. It would be nice if the state had not intervened in our private life. It would have been nice if marriages meant more than a better mortgage rate.
It really is not surprising why so many people don’t get married at all, why so many marriages end in divorce, and why so many remarry; because why shouldn’t they? What advantage is there if the contract, the oath, the promise cannot actually be supported and will not be supported?
There is one last thing that I would like to touch on that, for me personally, hammers the last nail on the coffin that once was marriage, and this is the issue of gay marriage.
I understand why people in the LGBT community would want to be involved in a civil institution which has been a integral part of being human and quite honestly, if gay people want to make a life-long contract with each other, and adopt children, I see no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, they could call it a marriage if they like, I really have no issue with that, though I would question why they would want to be part of a tradition which has explicitly alienated them. I do not however see why it should be demanded of social institutions (like the church) to recognise it as a legitimate marriage even though it goes directly against their long history and tradition, as well as the principals involved. Marriage and Matrimony are used synonymously but what people don’t often know is that the etymology of ‘matrimony’ is mother and this links back to the tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Indeed, though marriage is a civil tradition, the state recognises it because matrimony (motherhood) occurs in nature irrespective of the state. Thus, though homosexual relationships occur in nature, with the original definition of ‘matrimony’ homosexual matrimony just cannot exist; it’s like calling an apple an orange.
Anyhow I’ve lost my train of thought and I am in such a state of despair that I will just lie in bed now.
Josh Kim
Fatherkim 