Marriage in the modern world

                Listening to the commentary, reading the opinion pages and watching the televised proceedings of the 2016 presidential election race, it occurred to me that the process of choosing the country’s leader is analogous to the process of choosing a life partner.  Both possess a set of qualities or a certain personality which appeal to an individual or the voting public, enough to single them out from the field for consideration for a more long term involved relationship.  

The more successful the individual is at highlighting their best attributes during the selection or “courting” process, the more likely they are to be selected. Sometimes that means that fundamentally better prospects are overlooked because they lack superficially desirable attributes or the ability to make the most of their strengths to attract a partner. “Love” occurs when both parties’ expectations of what they consider a suitable partner have been met, whether or not those qualities strengthen or benefit the relationship over the long term and the resulting romantic love is used as a justification for marriage. A choice based purely on an emotional response rather than a pragmatic one, however, can lead to a lack of real synergy between leader and nation or between spouses  and  a poor outcome for the country or the family unit.

                Until recent times, romantic love was never a tenable foundation for marriage. In the Hindu tradition, it was simply a vehicle for a couple to pursue the goals of dharma (duty), artha (possessions), kama (physical love) leading to the creation of children and moksha (spiritual liberation).Historically, among royalty and the aristocracy in Europe and other parts of the Western world, marriage was not so much an agreement between two individuals as a highly legalized and complex social and economic contract between two families.  Its purpose was to pass on wealth, titles and property to legitimate heirs, usually male. The poorer classes, by contrast, had nothing to give their children so the legality of their union was not an issue. 

The spouses in these contractual matches often had little or nothing in common except for a similar economic, religious or social background. Fidelity was not generally expected of men because it was the women who bore the children.  Islam allowed a man to have up to 4 wives as long as he could treat all of them equally. Brigham Young, 1^st governor of Utah and 19^th century Mormon Church leader, was the most notable polygamist, having up to 19 wives at once. Other than procreation, couples spent little or no time together and had differing interests and priorities so an intimate personal bond between them based on mutual sexual attraction, shared interests or a common outlook on life was irrelevant. Marriage provided different benefits to both parties. Women, lacking economic independence, gained financial security and a position in society in exchange for their childbearing abilities. Men cemented political alliances and increased their power with advantageous matches and also assured that their line would continue with children that were recognized by both church and state. 

Because marriage was both a religious and a secular covenant, setting aside a religiously sanctioned union that also joined two of the major imperial powers in Renaissance Europe, as Henry VIII did when he divorced Catherine of Aragon and established the Church of England, created a rupture within both the church and state.  Henry VIII’s objective in seeking a divorce was twofold. Genesis 1:28 commands the faithful to “be fruitful and multiply.” Without a lawful heir to the throne, the kingdom or “state” would fall into disarray. A barren wife or one who had no male children was therefore a liability in both worlds. The repudiation of Catherine of Aragon by Henry VIII meant that their only child, a daughter, would be considered illegitimate and would no longer be in the line of succession. Her status was restored only when her younger brother, Henry’s only legitimate son by his third wife Jane Seymour, died without producing an heir and there were no other more closely related males to inherit the throne.  

One of the most important reasons for marriage among the wealthy was to ensure the legitimacy of children. The bride’s virginity was the only way of validating paternity. Only those children who were publicly acknowledged by their fathers, and by the religion as the products of a legalized union, had the right to the title and property of their parents. In medieval Wales, a child had a right to a share of the father’s estate, as long as the father publicly acknowledged the relationship, even if the parents were not married to one another.  Illegitimate children who were not recognized by their father had no rights, either legal or religious. Bastard children were not eligible for baptism in the Catholic Church and would not be able to go to Heaven after they died.  They were outcasts in both worlds. Deprived of financial and societal support, these children had to fend for themselves in order to survive. Even though Hinduism is more tolerant of the stigma of illegitimacy, according rights of inheritance to illegitimate children in the absence of legal heirs, one of the principal duties of marriage was to have sons who would ensure the continuity of the family line and perform the funeral rites for their parents.

In America, church and state have always been separate, but in Europe they were one and the same.  This was why King Henry VIII’s break with the Catholic Church in the 16^th century had such a profound impact on the historical landscape. The question of the necessity of state regulation of marriage was raised in a January 14, 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/14/why-do-we-need-to-ask-the-state-for-permission-to-get-married-anyway/ According to the article, which summarized an interview with a professor of history at Evergreen College in Olympia, WA, the state never really interfered in marriage until the 19^th century in America with the growth of Mormonism in the United States, and after the Civil War, when the government became involved in pension distribution. Prior to these developments, common law provided the basis for what constituted a valid marriage.

Another article in Western Journalism http://www.westernjournalism.com/should-marriage-even-be-regulated-by-government-at-all/ pointed to the Protestant reformation during the 16^th century in Europe as the beginning of the existence of marriage as a separate “civil contract” rather than a religious covenant. State regulation of marriage protected the legal and financial interests of dependents in a marriage.  This led to laws governing registration of a marriage with the state, the distribution of medical and pension benefits and payment of spousal and child support. Wills and trusts, prepared under state laws, provide codified instructions for the transfer of wealth to individuals who are recognized as legal beneficiaries. Advances in scientific technology led to DNA testing to help establish paternity.

Even now, legitimacy places a crucial role in national identity. Having American citizenship provides protection under US law from foreign persecution. Children born outside the US to married citizen parents gain American citizenship if at least 1 parent had lived in the US or an American territory prior to the child’s birth. If only one married parent is a US citizen, that parent had to have lived in the US for a total of 5 years prior to the birth after the parent’s 14^th birthday or had worked outside the US in an official capacity for the American government. Nguyen vs INS, a 2001 case heard by the United States Supreme Court, was an immigration case brought to determine whether it was “constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause to enforce different requirements for citizenship on an out-of-wedlock child who is born abroad to a U.S. citizen, depending upon whether the U.S. citizen is the child's mother or father.” http://www.legalmomentum.org/legal-cases/nguyen-v-ins.

Under the law, if the mother of an out of wedlock minor child was an American citizen, her child automatically became a US citizen provided the mother lived in the US for at least a year at any time during her life. An out of wedlock minor child of a father who was an American citizen had to have paternity acknowledged by the father or established by the court and also had to establish legal permanent residency before their 18^th birthday. The father additionally had to have lived in the US for 5 years continuously, 2 of those years occurring after the citizen father’s 14^th birthday, and had to assume financial responsibility for the child until the child’s 18^th birthday in order for the child to be granted American citizenship.  

The question of religious identification was critical in earlier times, so a common religious background was a prerequisite for marriage. In Judaism, for example, children derive their spiritual identity from their mother because of the physical connection between them, while the father is responsible for their tribal affiliation, the way the religion is practiced, which allows the child to become an accepted member of the Jewish community through the observance of the prescribed rituals and practices. A child born to a Jewish mother would automatically be considered a Jew, regardless of the father’s religious affiliation.

Marriage today is no longer seen as the sole societally acceptable mechanism for the propagation of the species.  Couples can and do often live together and have children without being married. The increasing number of women pursuing advanced degrees and participating in the workforce means that  they have professional status  and financial independence, and  do not need a husband’s social standing to give them status and recognition. Marriage is also no longer defined only as a relationship between a man and a woman. This change from a religious to a secular view of marriage contributed to the legalization of same sex marriage.  Advances in reproductive technology have decoupled sex from procreation, allowing same sex couples or single men or women to have children like their heterosexual counterparts. 

In the modern world, for all these reasons, we have come to consider the institution of marriage as superfluous and burdensome with its legal restrictions on individual freedom, including the expectation of monogamy and its assumption that only 1 partner can and should satisfy all of the various roles, responsibilities and desires in a relationship. What is the purpose of marriage in modern society and why does the state still retain the power to regulate what defines a marital relationship?

                The strongest argument for state sanctioned marriage in modern society comes from a quote in an article by Ryan T. Anderson (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it), who says, “Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.” Anderson asserts that “marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs.” He further qualifies his statement by referring to a study by Child Trends, a nonprofit research institution focused on improving the lives of children and youth. He writes that it is the institution of marriage that connects fathers to mothers and children, and that children do best when reared in “a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.” The purpose of marriage, then, appears to be not to satisfy an individual need for emotional connection and intimacy, but to serve a greater societal good by favoring the stability of the community over the desires of the individual. Perhaps Tina Turner got it right after all when she sang, “What’s Love Got To Do With It?”