What struck me afresh was the primitive and fundamental nature of marriage: people have been marrying and giving in marriage for millennia without count. Christians are wont to call it a "creation ordinance" thanks to Genesis 2:24:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
No doubt anthropologists would have something to say about the place of marriage in most or all human societies, from the most primitive times, too.
However we look at it, I want to argue, marriage primarily "belongs" to the community. It isn't tied to a church or a liturgy, and it certainly isn't the property or prerogative of the state. It's about getting your family - even the distant parts, whenever possible - together, and bringing your friends along, and some of those miscellaneous people who have played a part in your growing up, and indeed representatives of every sphere of your life. And having all those people witness that you want to be committed to another person. Marriage belongs to the community: to your community.
Now, faith overlays a set of norms on this. And the state has an interest - both because the stability of families is undoubtedly a social good, and, of course, because of the impact of marriage upon taxation. All of these come later, though: they are overlays upon something much more primitive, much more basic, much more important.
I suppose that the multiple layers of meaning and importance overlaid onto marriage are the reason why changes to it have caused so much angst - in the US in particular. As I blogged before, the British experience of civil partnerships has certainly proven that they do not cause the sky to fall - but are able to make a few people very happy indeed, and are regarded by most as marriage no matter what the legal name for them may be. Not that the churches have worked out what to do about them.
Some will say that the approach taken in many northern european countries is the right path to follow: if you want to be married in the sight of the state, you go to the town hall (or wherever) and contract a civil marriage. If you want to be married in the sight of your (faith) community, you go to the church/temple/synagogue/ash grove/stone circle/old chateau and make whatever vows you like, there. Most people doing the latter will do the former, in quick succession.
That has a certain elegant simplicity to it. But it would strike me as an unwanted retreat: churches have been marrying people for longer than the state has. Why should they want to give up that prerogative? After all, although we may have many spheres of life, they are not disconnected: we would regard things as disordered if you were married to one person in the eyes of the state, and another in the eyes of your church/community. [ok; I guess the understanding that catholics (and others) have of divorce can lead you into that situation, but I think they'd still view it as disordered].
So, insofar as it's possible without anarchy setting in, I'm wondering if we should say that we should allow many norms. Marriage should mean ... whatever your community wishes. Does that extend to polygamy? polyandry? I'm still wondering.
No comments:
Post a Comment