Tom Flynn
Executive director, Council for Secular Humanism

Tom Flynn

executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism and editor of its magazine Free Inquiry.

 ALL POSTS

Marriage: Yes it's on the rocks, and good riddance

A new survey out this week from the National Marriage Project shows that marriage is an institution in decline in many parts of American society. This "retreat from marriage in Middle America" will have wide-ranging social and economic consequences, say the survey's authors.

Another recent study of marriage, administered by the Pew Research Center, showed that nearly 40% of Americans believe marriage is becoming 'obsolete.'


What is marriage? Is it a civil union or is it a religious institution? How do you define it? Is there a marriage crisis in America today?

The current flurry of survey data suggesting that mainstream Americans are giving up on marriage fills me with hope. There isn't a "marriage crisis" in America as much as there's a "relationship recognition" crisis: We need new, more flexible ways of recognizing and legally privileging committed relationships that are free from traditional matrimony's social and religious baggage. Fortunately, practical alternatives are on the horizon.

What's wrong with marriage? While I don't believe that many poll respondents would articulate their objections to it in precisely these terms, I see three principal problems.

1) Traditional marriage with its assumption of a lifetime bond between two individuals is too inflexible to serve modern Americans. Lifetime bonding made sense in medieval times (or for that matter, in frontier America), when most people lived in small communities and had few same-age marriage partners to choose from; when most people remained in the same social, educational, and vocational tracks throughout life; and (let's face it) when many, many people died young. Contemporary Americans live far longer, have vastly larger webs of acquaintance, and often move through multiple educational levels, career tracks, and worldviews in the course of their lives. If you find that perfect person and stay happy together forever, that's a beautiful thing -- but it's not a realistic prospect for most Americans today. Of course, the stopgap way society has adapted to date has been by adopting so-called "serial monogamy," but even that is still too encrusted with old notions that lifelong fidelity represents the norm and every other approach is something "lesser." We live in a new way today, and that calls for a new institution: one that significantly streamlines divorce based on the acceptance that most individuals will take part in multiple committed relationships over a lifetime.

2) Traditional marriage has awful social baggage. Historically its role was to transfer property (i.e., a dowry in exchange for a woman as chattel) from one male (the father of the bride) to another (the groom). Just think about the tradition of the father "giving away" the bride -- how can anyone with modern ideas about women as sovereign individuals rationalize holding on to that?

3) In a society where church and state are supposedly separate, marriage is one of the few institutions that has status as both a religious sacrament and a legal descriptor of identity. When religious activists fight against same-sex marriage, they aren't just being bigots -- they're responding to very real ambiguities in matrimony's dual identity as a legal and a religious entity. Up to a certain point they can't be blamed for demanding that marriage be limited in accord with the doctrines of their particular faith (though a secular society must resist accommodating these demands).

What do we need instead? The answer is even now taking shape in the form of gender-neutral domestic partnerships or civil unions: that is to say, new, wholly secular social institutions, open equally to same-sex or opposite-sex couples, that legally recognize committed relationships and endow the spouses with the legal privileges associated with matrimony (inheritance, insurance, medical visitation, immunity from testifying against one's spouse, and all of that). According to the Alternatives to Marriage Project, Nevada and the District of Columbia already have gender-neutral domestic partnership. The Illinois legislature just passed a bill to create explicitly gender-neutral civil unions there.

Call them civil unions, call them domestic partnerships; they are creatures wholly of the state, not of the church. So long as they combine the familiar privileges of legal wedlock with more flexible arrangements for the termination of failed relationships, I suspect they are the wave of the future. Three cheers!

By Tom Flynn  |  December 7, 2010; 11:25 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Marriage isn't obsolete - but it could use some help | Next: Religious leaders should promote marriage for all

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



According to the Alternatives to Reality Project you are not losing shareholder value, you are gaining an education. You are about to hit the rocks Post. Good dance and rid of all problems if it rings true. If not, that's the way it goes. Either way, we're counting on you. Buy diamonds I guess for hitting rocks. Buy lots, whatever you want. It's fine!

Posted by: jobandon | December 15, 2010 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hollywood yes it's on the rocks, and great riddance. We wrecked the place. Don't wreck your marriage and children. Depression increases reality, so going bust has lots of benefits. Propaganda has few and they are questionable. Have bourbon on the rocks and keep liquidation moving along. We'll script Madoff movie in NYC.

Posted by: jobandon | December 15, 2010 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh this relentless ugliness. Islam is not as great a threat to women as this.

Posted by: janet_baker76 | December 8, 2010 8:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Marriage will never be obsolete for people who seek a spiritual bond with their spouse for the purpose of sharing their lves and bringing up children. It is no surprise that partners who want to share raising a child have a different attitude toward each other than partners who simply want to share an orgasm.
Posted by: paulc2 |
**************************************************************************************

When my husband and I got married, I had already raised a child, for the most part as a single parent.
He and I can't make babies - he's sterile, I'm menopausal.
Furthermore, I wouldn't want to start over with 2 am feedings and washing diapers at my age, and he has never had any desire to be a parent.
While we certainly enjoy sharing orgasms, that's not why we married - we were doing that long before he proposed. We got married because felt a spiritual bond with each other and wanted to share our recognition of it with our friends, our family members, and our gods.

Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 8, 2010 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wonder why traditional marriage isn't a realistic prospect now? Is it because we encourage separation and divorce? Is it because family, friends and neighbors refuse to support couples in trouble? Is it because couples hold back in fear in their own relationships?

Despite changes in the world, little has changed in the market of relationships. The perspective you present: why settle is not at the basis of relationships. Such a pessimistic, narcissistic perspective is not present when one seeks a marriage partner. Such decisions are largely positive, optimistic and where the self-denying becomes self-fulfilling.

The narcissistic perspective you present suggests a view of the inequality of relationships. It becomes a relationship of mutual abuse accepted either consensually or by coercion. When one partner sees themselves on the negative side of this unequal relationship, or sees greater influence in an even more unequal relationship with another, then the partner leaves.

I think what you'll generally find in troubled relationships is not this type of power seeking, but less affirmation of their union. When a partner(s) have introduced mishandled stress or fantasies into their relationships they struggle to see and experience the unity of the relationship. They fail to affirm or reconcile their past feelings, or past fantasies, of the relationship. We as a society contribute by encouraging fear and doubt into their relationships. We also fail to affirm the relationship or chances for hope and reconciliation.

Lacking affirmation of their relationship the partners seek to end the union and find it elsewhere whether with a different spouse or with the bottle. Humankind is unlike most animals, we can not live with power, but we must seek peace.

Posted by: cprferry | December 7, 2010 8:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Marriage will never be obsolete for people who seek a spiritual bond with their spouse for the purpose of sharing their lves and bringing up children. It is no surprise that partners who want to share raising a child have a different attitude toward each other than partners who simply want to share an orgasm.

Posted by: paulc2 | December 7, 2010 8:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sounds good to me. The hard part is convincing my wife. But I think she's safe, older age becomes a factor in this.

Posted by: johng1 | December 7, 2010 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The only purpose of marriage besides giving priests some easy money and a chance to get their swindle going; was to have kids and licensed sex! Well, for sure marriage is no longer a filitation of sex; if anything it is an impediment! And that last thing the world needs is more kids; and I think the whole notice of priests is pretty dead! Evangelical yellers, fornicators, entertainers, and racketeers; yeah baby bring em on!

Posted by: CHAOTICIAN101 | December 7, 2010 5:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Wow!

Well, no romance here.

I do agree, though, that we need to get clear what belongs in the civil world of marriage and what belongs in the religious world of marriage. And, there is a difference.

The civil world has a lot of benefits - what is it, 1000 points in the law - that are for those who marry. And, civil law needs to look at civil harm and benefits in recognizing civil unions, not whether a faith calls the civil union a "sin."

Under the law, I would much prefer we get rid of the word "marriage" and save that word for the religious world's blessing or ceremony. Because, yes, I do see a value there.

Posted by: amelia45 | December 7, 2010 5:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Religious people are so concerned about the decline of marriage in America and yet they remain the chief obstacle in allowing more than 10% of the nation to marry.

Marriage is a commitment between consenting adults. As far as I am concerned, that is it. Some people choose to have a marriage ceremony in a religious manner while others do not. My wife and I had our wedding in an Irish Pub. For some reason, the government feels the need to endorse marriages and for some even stronger reason, many churches also have that same need. It seems that religion often mistakenly believes that they hold the monopoly on the marriage.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/eTSglm

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Posted by: dangeroustalk | December 7, 2010 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Traditional marriage with its assumption of a lifetime bond between two individuals is too inflexible to serve modern Americans."

How nice. Those who it does serve well are not "modern".

Posted by: GabrielRockman | December 7, 2010 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

When I announced my engagement I wondered why so many people expressed sorrow rather than joy for me.

It took me less than five years to find out. There's nothing like your spouse announcing they have found their "soulmate," and it's not you. Said soulmate also was married, but what did that matter to either of them?

Those who expressed their sorrow had likewise been burned and didn't want me to suffer the same fate. And likewise, I have since felt sad rather than happy whenever anyone I care about announces an engagement.

I came to believing the hard way that marriage is nothing more than legalized living together and has no value whatsover.

The sooner others lose their idealized view of it as I once did the better.

Posted by: West3 | December 7, 2010 2:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

1 grandmother: 2 marriages 1 divorce
1 grandmother: 1 marriage (ended when grandma killed grandpa)
mother: 2 marriages, 2 divorces
1 sister: 1 marriage ended in divorce
1 sister: 2 marriages 1 divorce
bother: 3 marriages 3 divorces
father: 2 marriages 1 divorce
stepfather: 2 marriages 1 divorce
me: after viewing all that, no marriages, no children

Posted by: museum3 | December 7, 2010 12:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

We need the Federal Government to end its discrimination against gays who are in committed relationships.

Posted by: david6 | December 7, 2010 12:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

.........."WE SALUTE ALL GOOD MEN & WOMAN"
.
May “ECL{AT” shine xtraPHOTONS on ALL our
Boys & Gals Who perished but Never Perished!
.
..........-..
======+o+===========================+o+==;()
...........|..o..........................................................o..|
........... #..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#....:..:..:..:..:...:..:..:.:
........... #..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#....:..:..:..:..:...:..:..:.:
........... #..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#....:..:..:..:..:...:..:..:.:
........... #..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#....:..:..:..:..:...:..:..:.:
........... #..#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.
........... #..#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.
........... #..#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.
........... #..#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.
........... #..#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.
........... #..#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.#..#..#..#..#..#..#..#.
..
.
. Also: A FLAG for the 3rd NEW U.N.:
.
.
VOTE For APOCALYPTIC GOVERNMENT! and

G R I D A R I A N -- D E M O C R A C Y!
.
"Something to LIVE for, NOt to Die For"!
.
Credit to "JJ"
.
http://onwapo.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/w-e-l-c-o-m-e/

Posted by: momasan1 | December 7, 2010 12:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment




characters remaining

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company