Marriage –
2003
Rev.
Paul Beckel
First
Universalist Unitarian Church ~ www.uuwausau.org
November
2, 2003
This
week for the first time, someone returned from space married who had gone up single.
Clearly marriage is not what it used to be. But I wonder – has it ever been?
Today
we look at marriage in 2003, in what may seem a transitional period for a
institution which many consider the bedrock of social stability.
On
average, we spend more than half of our lives not married. And this portion
of our lives is increasing as we tend to marry later, live longer, and have
transitional periods between marriages.
So, at any given moment, fewer than half of you are likely to be married. Still, you probably know and love someone who
is married, or is thinking about
it. So I hope the topic proves relevant
to all.
I
love the snake bridge. I love the way it
takes me down low ...and curves side to side ... makes me feel connected to the water. Connected to the
past ... connected to all those who crossed this way, ages ago... each in their
own way.
I
like to say it too. “The snake
bridge.” It feels right. Intuitively I know, that’s what it ought to
be called. When I learned that its
official name is The McCleary Bridge, I was a little ruffled, but I didn’t
really care. I still called it the snake
bridge.
But
then something significant occurred. A
new plan -- for a new bridge. Not snaky
at all. Just a straight shot, and I
don’t know but I fear...it will go up, off the water. This worries me. It’s going to look, and feel, different. And I will be sad at the change, at the
loss. There are probably good reasons
for the change. But good reasons don’t
always make me feel satisfied.
I
wonder what people will call it. That
will be interesting. It doesn’t matter
what the officials call it. I wonder
what my neighbors – people who give me directions to or from Rib Mountain, I
wonder what the people are going to
call it. People will call it whatever
they want. And eventually, even if there
are both official and colloquial names plus the old names that people continue
to use...eventually we’ll all know what we’re each talking about.
So
it is with marriage. It’s easy to get attached to a certain form... it’s easy
to imagine that the form is
indispensable. It’s easy to imagine that
the form is the bridge. That in order
to safely cross a river one must have this and that... and that if the
form changes the bridge is no more.
But
I’m going to have to get over it, somehow.
My ancestors did. They got over
the Wisconsin River by barge, by canoe, by log floes that jammed bank to bank
for miles upstream and down. They got to the other side by train, by ferry, by
swimming, and by going the long way around.
Thus it is with marriage. There
are many ways to cross the rivers of life.
It’s
not important, to me, how people choose to name
that crossing, its especially not important what the officials decide to call
it.
They
can also put up a toll bridge, and make restrictions about who can cross, and
at what price, but it won’t deter those determined to make their way.
Don’t
get me wrong, I’m all for bridges. Some
people will get drunk, fall in the water, and by dumb luck make it across the
river. I’m not suggesting that this is as good a way as any ... and that
therefore we don’t need bridges to facilitate the crossing. But I would advocate for bridges that are
close to the water, not looking down on any other mode of crossing. And safe to
jump from, in case of emergency.
***
If
the purpose of a bridge is to get people across a chasm of some sort, across a
gap in space, or time, or across cultural or interpersonal barriers... if such
is the purpose of a bridge, then what is the purpose of marriage?
Historically,
marriage has served a number of purposes.
It has been a stepping stone on the path of maturity. Marriage has been the official sanction for
sexual expression, and reproduction, and child rearing. It has served to help “normal” people know
who the other “normal” people are by looking at the configuration of each
other’s household. Marriage has been a
way for people to express their love for one another – to one another, and publicly - to their community. Marriage is a way to ground a couple’s love
in commitment so that it can ride through the better and the worse. And marriage has served to clarify property
rights.
In
the decades to come, some of these purposes will continue, others will be
changed, or left behind. And new purposes will arise.
In
marriage today, many of the tollbooths have been taken down. Other people do not decide who we will marry,
or when... or force us to stay together at our peril.
Prior
to no-fault divorce laws, enacted by more than half of the states in the 1970s,
couples often had to fabricate stories about infidelity or abuse in order to
legally terminate a relationship – even if they mutually agreed it was
over. Couples today have more freedom to
get in, and to get out, of marriage – an appropriate level of freedom, to go
with such a responsibility.
For
better or worse, the institution of marriage tends to keep people together
through rough times.
Judith
Viorst writes: “One advantage of marriage, it seems to me, is that when you
fall out of love with him, or he falls out of love with you, it keeps you
together until you maybe fall in again.”
Others
have said similar things: “A successful marriage requires falling in love many
times, always with the same person.”
(Mignon McLaughlin)
Or:
“Any marriage worth the name is no better than a series of beginnings – many of
them abortive.” (Storm Jameson)
Or:
“It takes a long time to really be married. One marries many times at many
levels within that marriage. If you have
more marriages than you have divorces within the marriage, you’re lucky and you
stick it out.” (Ruby Dee)
***
So
of all the complex elements of married relationships, why would we want to
focus on the form, the shell?
Compatibility, intimacy, sexuality, procreation, mutual economic
support, mutual emotional support, mutual householding support, continuity,
fidelity, companionship, communication, soul mating, parenting, caring for
elders, friendship, closeness, flexibility, and did I mention – Love? Of all
the qualities that might identify people as married, why the need to seize onto
one particular aspect – gender – and say that those who are of opposite gender
qualify, but no other criteria matter?
Am
I suggesting that there are no limits? No.
There is a compelling public interest in restricting contracts of any
sort to be between consenting adults.
Specious arguments are made about what will come next after same-sex
marriage. People will get married to
animals, plants, children... to space aliens, or to their hunting rifles. I think we needn’t worry -- as both the legal
limits and the spiritual limits, in my opinion, of contract, covenant, promise,
whatever, is an agreement made between parties who are mutually competent. Is age a factor in competence, yes. Is species a factor in competence, yes. Is gender a factor in competence, no.
Suggesting
that marriage is only for procreation is fine for churches and private
institutions. But public institutions
cannot, constitutionally, deny rights to some that are granted to others,
unless there is a compelling public interest.
I’m still waiting for marriage licenses to be denied to the infertile,
the elderly, and to those who never intend to have children.
Family
stability is not a fundamental value. It
is not something to be upheld at any cost. Stability in a relationship can be
achieved many ways. A family can be
stable if one partner is in complete control.
Or, stability can be achieved by having a clear articulation of roles,
either divided by traditional gender roles or otherwise. Stability can be achieved in a relationship
via equality. And/or via flexibility, or
some combination of the above. Family
stability is a good thing if it’s achieved through decent means. But it’s not so important that we should
celebrate stability achieved through
coercion or domination.
Over
time, some things remain surprisingly stable: In 1900, there were about the
same number of single parent households as today. Then, primarily because of
the early death of parents... now both because of divorce and also because of
increased teen pregnancy, which may be the result not of increased teen sex,
but advancing teen fertility.
Some
things remain remarkably stable. In
Puritan New England, for the 20 years preceding the American Revolution,
one-third of all children were conceived out of wedlock. For the following 20 years, one-third of the
brides in rural New England were pregnant at marriage. “A study of illegitimacy in North Carolina
found that out-of-wedlock birth rates for white women were approximately the
same in 1850 as in 1970.”[1]
And
of course, some things change. Or we
hope that they have changed.
In
New York City in 1900, there was 1 prostitute for every 64 men. This ratio changed dramatically in the next
few decades as dating became more popular, and the number of boys who lost
their virginity to prostitutes declined.
Attitudes
change. In a 1957 poll, 80% stated that
they believed people who chose not to marry were sick, neurotic, or immoral.
And
medical and demographic realities change.
In 1900, the average woman was 56 when her last child left home. She
then lived for another 15 years. Today, couples may face 40 years alone
together in an empty nest.
Certainly
the new realities call for a new set of expectations... or perhaps, for no
expectations. Older couples who have
crossed 50 and 60 years together have told me that part of their success
involved just taking one day at a time, with gratitude, and without any
expectation that their loved one will be there the next day.
Widows
and widowers who have lost a beloved
partner after that many years use the same coping mechanism: no expectations,
just gratitude for what they have enjoyed, and still enjoy.
***
Marriage
has been in transition for a long time. Unitarian minister John Dietrich preached “In Defense of Marriage” in
1928, stating his opinion that marriage is a means of social control. In Dietrich’s view marriage was a way to
channel sexual energy – not to repress it, but to express it as a commitment to
the betterment of society through the flowering of a bond of marriage &
family. In short, he believed people in
stable relationships are better able to serve the common good. Dietrich also
spoke of the necessity of divorce, because even social improvement is not worth
the price of degrading the individual. In short, he said, marriage must be a voluntary
covenant between equals.
Fast
forward to the 1950s. Leave it to
Beaver (which was not a documentary by the way) represented a statistical
blip in the centuries of families in transition. And it has played a role in
extolling the myth of the nuclear family norm and has been used as a cudgel
against other kinds of families ever since.
Today’s
reality is different. As the number of
children per household decreases, and the age of our living parents increases,
couples find proportionately more of their lives spent taking care of elders,
and proportionately less on children.
These
are simple realities. We have sex with
or without reproduction. We have
reproduction with or without sex. We can
have children at an advanced age, and with or without a partner of the opposite
gender.
Standards
change with reality. But creativity
always has its place. In a trial heard
in colonial times, a Puritan woman admitted that she had taken a lover because
her husband was always hunting and fishing and failing to perform his conjugal
duties. So the judge put all three of
them in the stocks.
***
I
feel a little guilty marrying people every year when I don’t know exactly what
they are getting into. I ask people why
they are getting married, but I certainly cannot say whether marriage will
indeed hold for them all that they imagine.
And yet, they come with such positive energy. I’m convinced that that positive energy can
be channeled into something good. Some
of that energy is infatuation and will not last. And about half the time, as the infatuation
dies, so does the marriage. But I’m
going to continue to marry consenting adults because I have real hope that in
the decades ahead marriage will transform them... and they will transform marriage.
And for that, I think it is worth the risk.
We
are now in transition -- from a period of mythical norms, across uncharted
waters. The mythical norms have in part
been rejected as hypocritical, and in part they have simply faded because they
don’t correspond with today’s economic, social, cultural, and technological
realities.
But
the transformation of marriage need not be feared if we can hold on to the
essential spirit of healthy, productive relationships... while letting transient
forms pass. The transformation of
marriage need not be feared if we can let go of our search for someone to
blame...if we can focus instead on helping people to make good choices... if we
can provide comprehensive, egalitarian education regarding communication,
financial management, conflict management, decision-making, love-making, and
home-making. The transformation of
marriage need not be feared if we can help couples to cope with the changes,
losses, and disappointments that test every relationship.
For
the institution of marriage to thrive, today’s marriages will need to overcome
the challenges of poverty, violence, lack of education and economic
opportunity... lack of access to health care, to birth control, and to
comprehensive sex education. May our
politicians find a way to focus on solutions to these perennial problems,
rather than focusing on defining marriage.
I
don’t mean to suggest that marriage should be made to accommodate the whims of
everyone. Some aren’t meant for
marriage. One wit compared marriage to
“living in a thimble with a hippopotamus!” (Phyllis Bottome – 1925)
But
another commentator (we’re all qualified commentators on marriage) another
commentator, initially thinking that she was not the marrying type, wrote: “I
used to believe that marriage would diminish me, reduce my options. That you had to be someone less to live with
someone else ...when, of course, you have to be someone more.” (Candice Bergen)
Yes,
the implication is not just that marriage changes as society changes, but that people who are married (well) change as
well. Not that we can ever change the person to whom we are married in the way
we want. But still, it is said:
After
marriage, all things change. And one of
them had better be you. (Elizabeth Hawes – 1948)
BENEDICTION – please
join hands
There
are gaps between us, let us not pretend.
There are chasms which
separate our various understandings of marriage. Chasms in our opinions about
how to address the social and economic challenges faced by families today. Chasms over gender roles, and gay
rights. These gaps between us are
immeasurably deep, but not necessarily so wide.
We can still hold hands across
these great divides.
Go
with peace in your heart and hope for tomorrow.