Marriage Proposal

This is the latest paper I have written for Women's Studies.  In a nutshell, I believe that a separation of church and state on the issue of marriage would be the best bet for the church in general.  This would allow for respectful discourse to be made between the religious and secular, and it would also protect the church from being tainted by secular thought.  Give it a look, I would greatly appreciate it.  I wanted to write a lot more, and word limits are lame.  

The Marriage State: Governance for the Individual, Not the Religion

The trouble with many definitions for any given object or idea is the subjective nature of every individual who performs the defining; each human has a different experience.  Marriage is a suitable example.  An arranged marriage forced by parents can seem like a nightmare to a young girl who has no desire to become attached to a partner for a lifetime.  In many modern Western societies, marriage can be viewed by some individuals as an ultimate goal in the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment.  To turn a blind eye away from the truth that marriage has undergone numerous definitional shifts would hinder the possibility for a progression of marriage and a more egalitarian society.   Constant work has to be done in order to respect contradicting viewpoints.  This essay proposes that religious implications on the institution of marriage should be clearly and definitely detached from secular individuals and politics in order to promote an equal governmental system and respectful discourse.

            First, a brief history of marriage will be given.  The author of Marriage, a History, Stephanie Coontz, is the director of Research and Public Education at the Council on Contemporary Families.  She spends several hundred pages revealing a basic history on marriage while exposing some misleading ideologies.  Prehistorically, Coontz states, “hunting and gathering societies throughout history have emphasized sharing and reciprocity” (39).  Before marriage became a specialized partnership that benefited personal interests, individuals who coupled had a necessary commitment to the group as a whole.  Marriage then shifted to a political tool where governmental ties and international relationships could be established.  However, Christianity brought a new perspective.  Marriage became secondary to preparing oneself for the coming of God.  During the Medieval Ages in Europe, Coontz states, “The importance of marriage in creating a viable household economic unit meant that free peasants…were very anxious to get properly married” (111).  Marriages during this time were primarily for economic purposes, not for love and fulfillment.  The Catholic Church infused marital norms onto the general public, and public scolding happened to anyone who rejected them.  Until the seventeenth century, families were seen as a small-scale monarchy with the husband acting as king.  Next, men were ultimately seen as the breadwinner of the family, and the women were seen as the housekeepers.  Coontz states, “Women who were unable to be full-time wives and mothers were often labeled moral degenerates” (169).  Victorian marriage brought a new radical perspective towards marriage, one that focused on personal satisfaction, romantic love, and obligations.  There was then a shift “from sentimental to sexual marriage,” but too much sex was seen as immoral by society during the early twentieth century (196).  The 1950’s brought a unique perspective where men and women had the opportunity to court their own mates more than ever before.  Coontz declares, “The cultural consensus that everyone should marry and form a male breadwinner was like a steamroller that crushed every alternative view” (229).  This period is from where the term “traditional marriage” modernly originates.  A backlash from women due to suppressive and demeaning ideologies led to the demise of this era.  This current era has been continually trying to collectively find what marriage is and who can enter into a marital relationship.  A high divorce rate has been an issue in modern marriages with a national divorce rate of “9.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 9.7 divorces per 1,000 women” (Samuel 3).

            Moving along, the first feminist perspective will be from Margaret Denike in an article entitled “Religion, Rights and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality.”  Denike states, “Conservative rhetoric over the marriage question has given rise to debates that construe a mythic conflict between competing rights…as if individuals’ freedom of conscience collided with others’ entitlement to marry” (73).

The “mythic conflict” Denike mentions is the idea of many conservatives that their right to marry, or the marriage definition, will be compromised if the state extends legality to non-religious groups, especially to homosexuals.  However, equality rights backed by the Constitution will be widely accepted by members of society because it legally outlaws prejudices.

            The second feminist perspective is from an article entitled, “The Unhappy Marriage of Religion and Politics,” written by Shahra Razavi and Anne Jenichen.  The authors state,

“The relationship [between religion and politics] needs to be viewed through the lens of individual rights and needs, rather than assuming that individuals’ interests are simply represented by…religious as well as political leaders and spokespersons” (835).

This quote is tremendously important for the argument of freedom of choice in marriage because it displays the necessary relationship between church and state.  By letting religious individuals be religious and letting the non-religious be secular, respectful discourse can be made without coercing one side to behave in a certain manner. 

            The third and final feminist perspective derives from an article written by Ms. Magazine blogger David Dismore.  Dismore declares,

“The once-radical idea of ‘equal marriage’ between husbands and wives in considered ‘traditional’ because that’s what many assume was always the case.  But it was a feminist idea about equality…that forced this substantial redefinition of marriage” (13).

Dismore stresses the fact that past conflicts for equality usually evolve into the modern societal norms.  “Traditionalists” are holding onto an ideology that builds walls between fellow citizens and prohibits understanding and progression for a civil society.

            Marriage history and accounts given from reputable sources agree with a proposal for a separation between religion and state in regards to marriage laws.  The United States government is not a theocracy, so the laws that are put in place should not reflect one religion exclusively.  A complete separation between the church and state will benefit the society as a whole.  Allowing civil unions between non-religious individuals will not take away freedoms from religious institutions.  Marriage doesn’t have to be completely redefined because a new definition can be added for a different group of citizens. 

            When specific values are forced from one side to the other, disagreements arise and deep harm can be done.  The way to reach respectful dialogue about certain beliefs can be found through an acceptance of a person’s own free will.  Biblical scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright states in an article,

“Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse…Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic ridiculous and incredible” (5).

Wright realizes that certain requirements held by religious institutions have always been seen as illogical to the rest of the world.  Living a religious lifestyle is difficult enough for individuals who claim the faith, so it is unreasonable to force those requisites to outsiders.  From a religious perspective, a separation from church and state would protect religious institutions from becoming tainted with secular thought.  Holy elements can become quickly perverted when religious requirements and interpretations are implemented into politics, and vice versa. 

            Sexual sin is a blatant sin, one that is obvious to religious individuals.  However, those same individuals can sit behind a curtain of greed and pride while seeking to punish any person that does not abide by their own people-pleasing tactics.  The present “traditional” marriage ideology is not rooted deep in history.  Feminists, scholars, and average citizens view a separation between religion and state as a genuine opportunity for individuals to make personal choices on marriage, which will ultimately lead to greater equality for all.