North Star Writers Group

It is easy to get so wrapped up in a custom that the actual meaning of it becomes so ambiguous and clouded it is nearly lost. But the origin of a thing often makes more sense than what has evolved. Even more, the original never fails to shed light on the novel, no matter how disfigured or refined the novel may be. When considering a custom as ancient and fundamental to human existence as marriage, the stakes are high – the stakes, meaning the success of a society – success meaning the peace (both internal and external) experienced by its people.

The most successful families are the ones involving loving, lasting marriages. While the statistics appear to be there, the inductive reasons for why happy children tend to come from strong, lasting marriages are hard to explain mathematically or scientifically, because, I think, they are spiritual. When I say happy, I refer to statistics that suggest emotional stability and an ability to successfully interact with others. The reasons are spiritual because they have to do with love, and to the first person that can explain love to me with a calculator or a test tube and a Bunsen burner, I offer my complete and total devotion (for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, etc.).

I doubt our culture understands marriage well at all. The modern definition of marriage is: the legal, social union of two people, with accompanying festivities. Some definitions include the phrase “religious ceremony,” and others include the words “commitment,” and “special.”

Although the insight of the modern authors of dictionaries seems to me somewhat limited, public opinion about marriage is considerably more specific. Today, marriage is a very serious, publicly stated commitment between two humans who deeply love each other and will attempt to make it last for as long as possible, ideally forever (or at least until someone dies). I think this definition is close, at least, to the mean of our society’s opinion. There are discrepancies concerning whether or not it ought to be reserved for opposite sexes, and, as HBO’s Big Love has reminded us, there is a small, yet resilient sect of Americans which believes marriage may be between man and wives.

There is not a wealth of historical text explaining the origin of marriage. In ancient Jewish culture, sex catalyzed the union between a man and a woman. If two people had sex before a public ceremony, there would be a public ceremony right away and nothing was considered lost. The Bible states that sex is a gift reserved for married couples. Several of the earliest texts concerning marriage, notably ancient Egyptian texts, suggest that marriage was meant for procreation and child-rearing. This idea is also echoed in the Bible. Jesus, in the book of Matthew, explains that, “Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery.” According to these, sex is reserved for married couples, it is ideal for raising children and ought to last forever. Though our culture champions some of these ideas above others, there are practical reasons for all of them.

But still, how can we explain the origin of marriage as an institution without merely explaining what seem to be apt characteristics? In Ephesians, the apostle Paul explains marriage to be a metaphor for the relationship between Jesus Christ and the church, i.e. Jesus’ followers. “This mystery is great,” he says, “but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the Church.” Finally, we have not just a description, but an explanation.

Sex, permanence and family are all important characteristics, but they only seem to hold logical weight when considered spiritually. It is no wonder our country is split over who has “the right,” to marry, when we don’t even know where marriage comes from, or what it means. It has evolved into something of rights and convenience. To many of us, marriage is simply a step up from a serious boyfriend/girlfriend. Some cling to the idea of “soul mates” and “true love,” as something one stumbles upon, as opposed to something achieved by effort over time.

As far as I’m concerned, as long as we are clinging to the idea of marriage while disregarding any hint of an original definition (which is inevitable, because they are all religious and a successful country is not a theocracy), I see no logical reason we ought not be allowed to marry siblings, parents, pets, favorite living room appliances or even bodies of water. Who makes these silly laws anyway?

It’s OK to not know all the answers, but it is not OK to forge ahead without a clue, have kids and scar them for life by splitting up. If you can’t logically explain something as serious as marriage, how serious is it? And if marriage doesn’t retain its seriousness, perhaps people ought to consider avoiding it altogether.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # NS27. Request permission to publish here.