Robin Wallin Instructor: Claudia Holt LA 202- English Composition: Creative Persuasion & Arguement Fall 2011

Sensibility: Marriage Moving Forward

Humans need each other in order to survive. We have bonded, formed communities, and established institutions that have helped us thrive. The strongest and most well known of these is marriage. We have found that we need this institution in order to not only survive as individuals, but as a society. Its impact is deep and constant. The definition of marriage in Western culture has gone through massive transformations, with its civic importance and religious importance constantly at odds as to how we will further understand its relevance. Now it finds itself looking to be redefined again in contemporary society by the United States of America through some of the most intense scrutiny it has ever gone under. Our current definition of marriage is failing, and we need to consider what choices we have that will allow the institution as a whole to survive: one that incorporates all individuals as a civic duty and right granted by the government, one that divides and excludes based on long taught principals that have, up until only recently, been quite successfulor a compromise of both. In order to move forward, we have to look at the relationship of these two ideas of civic and religious duty, and how we can sensibly apply them to ourselves so that we can continue to flourish into the future.

To begin, we must look at the ideals that were put in place when the United States of America was established. Starting as a collective agreement of governance made by immigrants from all walks of life, the U.S.A. symbolized the collective vision of those that

created it. It has stood as a beacon of freedom and liberty for all those that seek it. In its creation, differing perspectives from all over the world helped shape institutions like marriage that had been established by previous governments in the past across the world. Each culture respected its importance to our strength as a species. In our early days as a country, marriage and government were closely bound. Details of how these marriages were practiced varied widely, and the role of religion was quite strong, especially in its ceremonial process. Regardless of the religion, however, the institution of marriage was agreed upon to be a civic responsibilitya contract agreed upon by two free people within a free nation that they could freely enter into and exit (Cline). This contract legally bound the individuals not only to each other, but to the city, state, and country that those people chose residence in. Morally, religions played a key role in marriage in that they acted as spiritual bond, and helped solidify the foundation for the types of priorities and beliefs these people would have, helping to guide them as citizens and determine partners whom they could form the type of bond needed for an agreement such as marriage. Our devotion to marriage has changed as we've applied what we've thought these rights meant to American society (Cline). Religions have attempted to enforce its necessity throughout history by explaining its holy and sacred nature, seeing its relevance in the health of our society, but tending to obscure its civic purpose with unnecessarily exclusive dogma. Civic decisions influenced by these dogmatic beliefs have played a part in unreasonably narrowing the definition of marriage's structure through recent legislature like the DOMA Act (Renna), defining its inclusion to unions only between one man and one woman. Unlike current society, Revolutionary-era society did not see religion and law as opponents but as two sides of the same coin. James Wilson, one of our founding fathers who helped write the U.S. Constitution felt that religion and civic duty worked hand in hand to provide a successful society:

"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both. Though legislation like DOMA maintains religious integrity within marriage's civic context, and attempts to strengthen its contractual bond, we have at the same time moved steadily towards dismissing its application altogether. Massive shifts in policy and societal upheaval during the 1960's in America caused huge changes in divorce laws in the civic arena, causing massive spikes in divorce to occur up until very recently (Chandiragh). Those that currently have the right dismiss its civic importance, and through massive changes in divorce laws have relegated the contractual obligation of marriage to a transient state. ease in its legal dissolvability became a priority moving into the 1980's, extending into its current form. The importance of it as an institution is diminishing every day. Median ages for marriage in the 1960's floated around the first half of our 20's; today, it sits at the opposite. The total rate of marriage has dramatically decreased as well, considerably more within the last fifteen years (TheAtlantic.org).

Practical reasons, such as economic stability and wealth, reproduction, child-rearing, and communal interaction have long since underlined the importance of marriage as a system that promoted our ongoing survival in a civic context. Our early religious were inextricably influenced by these biological needs, and along with spiritual principles, helped ground marriage's religious legitimacy with corresponding scientific necessity Our survival also directed how our government may have become involved in its enforcing. The societal benefits include decreased poverty, lower sexual activity and pregnancy outside of marriage, lower crime rates, and higher education attained more frequently. Legal benefits within

structures like government have given people incentives to get married, such as securities, rights, and obligations that enable two people to properly care for each other and their family. (Cline) . Helping to maintain these benefits through dogmatic encouragement gave religion a very central and crucial roll in marriage's continued effectiveness. Members of various religion's clergy were given the position of officiant to legitimize the marital union. In becoming so involved with the process however, the civic necessity for marriage has become obfuscated and muddled, where people are discouraged from entering into a marriage agreement by religious based solely on not meeting certain dogmatic criteria, while completely dismissing their qualifications for entering into civic marriage. The current disinterest in maintaining marriage through a specifically religious approach has reflected itself quite significantly in how it is applied today. As more freedom is allowed to mirror our societal priorities, those that are legally allowed are becoming less and less concerned with the importance of their decision, viewing it as ethereal and temporary. In the end, religious intervention has been unable to maintain the strength needed by individuals. With marriage's application in a civic context becoming less relevant to our contemporary needs, the issues marriage was designed to dissuade are on the rise. Our current setup of a heavily religiously influenced man and woman marriage has failed, and like a machine, we must fix it. In order to see clearly, we must separate its parts, religion and civic duty, in much the same way America's founding fathers established they would. We must reconsider how we can maintain a balance between our civic and religious interpretation of marriage so that it continues strongly into the future.

The legal rights which benefit a man and a woman engaging in this institution should directly apply to any other man or woman as any other right we hold as Americans do. Upholding these rights through various requirements in the same way that the institution is upheld

civically today would maintain this incentive for anyone wanting to get married. This equality of rights has been a major focus point for any of those excluded from this institution. (Cline) As we've opened further rights for the individual in the history of the United States, we have seen massive societal steps in all aspects of who we aretaking serious the promise of our pursuit of happiness when given the chance to do so. Rights granted by a government are meant to benefit the individual and the public, so by extending marriage rights, we are benefiting each other. Through programs like marriage, and all the others we have established so far as a country that help those that live in it, we would stop further societal and economical decline, as everyone finds the support they need from themselves, others, and the government that governs them. Every individual effects those around them directly

or indirectly; these increased rights would immediately show positive changes, as they have continually done in the past.

A compromise could be met in the civic and religious application of the marriage, allowing for the continued religious aspects and also encouraging civic duty. Allowing for optional details like the choice between a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony gives each individual the freedom to choose how they personally apply this commitment to their lives. This newly defined idea of marriage could bring together new and old beliefs and traditions, and successfully bridge our previous understanding of how we used to apply the institution of marriage onto American society into a new, modern one that reflects our contemporary ideals. As of now, we allow other institutions like civil unions to exist to take the place of this official recognition of these alternative pairings. While very similar in many ways, those engaged in civic unions do not receive the same rights that a man and woman marrying receive. Economic advantages would immediately be evident in that whole massive new sections of people would be allowed to be consumers of markets they were previously banned from

(Fagan). In a time economically where we are unable to wait for solutions to make themselves known, we must pursue all options we have available. When it comes down to it, we need money to run a country. Excluding options based on religious principle may be able to be rationalized spiritually, but in a practical sense it is completely irrational. Without a country that allows the freedom for such diverse religious beliefs to exist, there isn't any difference as to what dogmatic beliefs may or may not allow.

By allowing for a level playing field in the civic realm, and for all those interested in pursuing this institution of marriage, we would only prosper. We must look back to the initial intent and context of how we initially applied our understanding so that we can in essence re-found the United States of America into a country that exists in the future, and is constantly pushing the world forward. This shift to move into a future with acceptance, inclusion, sustainability, will only help our species continue its survival, and at the same time will further our understanding of ourselves as humans.

Works Cited: Cline, Austin. Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right? About.com Agnosticism/ Atheism. Updated 25 October. 2011. http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm. ---. What is Marriage? Gay Marriage Can't Be a Real Marriage: The Definition of Marriage Can't be Changed for Gay Couples. About.com Agnosticism/ Atheism. Updated 25 October 2011. http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageDefinit.htm Fagan, Patrick, et al. The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts. Washington DC. The Heritage Foundation. April 2002. http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2002/pdf/positive_effects_of_marriage.pdf . Bolick, Kate. All the Single Ladies. The Atlantic Magazine. November Edition. November 2011. Page 1 of 5. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-singleladies/8654/ Yodashkin, Jackie, et al. "American Medical Association Makes Case for Ending Marriage Discrimination". Freedom to Marry Resources. Freedomtomarry.org. 27 June. 2011. (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/american-medical-association-makes-casefor-ending-marriage-discrimination Renna, Cathy. "Williams Institute Experts Comment on Department of Justice DOMA Decision". Freemarry3.cdn.net. 24 February 2011. (http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f373007d99b7cff5f1_41m6bnchp.pdf) Chandigarh, Raghav Ohri. Matrimonial Malaise: Till Divorce do Us Part. Newsline. DivorceReform.org. 4 November, 2005. http://www.divorcereform.org/why.html