The Moral Tradition: Marriage

Marriage

What are the facts of reality that give rise to the concept of "marriage"? And why, when people enter a marriage, do they vow to love each other?

If one looks across the millennia, and across world cultures, it seems obvious that marriage is an institution in which one man and one or more women form a discrete social unit for the purpose of bearing and rearing children. Polyandry and group marriage exist, but they are so rare as to constitute borderline cases of the concept "marriage." As for the role of romantic love, there has long been a minor tradition according to which it is the ideal foundation of marriage. (How different are Pyramis and Thisbe from Romeo and Juliet?) But that viewpoint did not become the majority one before 1800, and then only in England and America. For further details of this history, see Nathaniel Branden's The Psychology of Romantic Love.

In any case, there was a sense in which it hardly mattered whether a couple joined for love or procreation. Either way, they were nearly certain to be involved in the bearing and rearing of children. Only at the beginning of this century, with the availability of reliable contraception (and later abortion) could a man and woman be reasonably certain of remaining childless if they wished. And only under those conditions could substantial numbers of people commit themselves to forming a discrete social unit based on nothing but a long-term romantic relationship. At that point, a new concept—"liaison," to pick a term—was required to denominate this new social unit.

A new concept was needed because of the enormous differences that exist between a marriage and a liaison, chief among them being the differences that children make in a couple's life. For two people to embark upon a lifetime relationship without resolving which path they are on—a liaison or marriage—is treacherous to say the least.

Liaisons and marriages also differ legally. In the former, all parties are present voluntarily and can look out for their interests. Thus, there is little if any need for the state to get involved. A marriage, by contrast, involves a third party (the child) who is brought in without his consent and is unable care for his interests. The parents are principally responsible for the child's interests, but if they abandon that responsibility the state must intervene.

Lovers' Vows

The differences between a marriage and a liaison also affect the pledges that the parties need to make at the start of the relationship. As Susanna Fessler recently wrote to "The Moral Tradition," "In order to provide a secure upbringing for the children, parents traditionally vowed to support each other. . . . and indeed it is not hard to imagine that such vows could contribute to a solid family unit."

As more people undertake liaisons rather than marriages, however, elaborate wedding vows have tended to give way to a single vow: to love one another. But, says Fessler, "A momentary reflection is all that is necessary to conclude that—children or no children—the statement 'I promise to love you 'til death do us part' is epistemologically invalid. Love is an emotion, and one cannot promise to experience an emotion."

Secular humanists, it is worth noting, have also pondered this question of vowing love. In To Love and Cherish: A Guide to Non-Religious Wedding Ceremonies, author Jane Wynne Willson wrote:

Humanists do not normally express 'vows' but 'aspirations.' We state our firm hope and intention of achieving our aims and honouring our commitments. At the same time, we think we are realistic and honest enough to recognise that these aspirations may not in fact be realised in the long term, as people and circumstances change.

So, does it make sense to vow love in a wedding ceremony? People forming a marriage or liaison may wish to express their current feelings for each other as part of the proceedings. But Fessler is certainly correct that one cannot pledge to feel an emotion into the indefinite future.

Still, I think more can be said. A wedding marks one's commitment to a new social relationship not unlike the relationships that exist between parent and child, friend and friend, mentor and disciple, leader and follower. Likewise, I suggest, the love one vows to bring to a marriage or liaison is not unlike the love that exists in those relationships. It is not a romantic feeling one pledges, but a high sense of fealty and consideration—based on the other person's place within the relationship. That is a pledge that can be acted on regardless of how one is feeling.

In sum, romantic love may exist before, during, and even (in principle) after a marriage or liaison. Spousal love, by contrast, can never be more than coextensive with a relationship, though it should never be less.

—Roger Donway