Marriage: the agony and the ecstasy
I’d better confess that I am no expert, having only been actually married myself for three years. But what I do know from a life of observing and experiencing relationships is that it represents an idyll, even if complex to achieve and a struggle to sustain. The rewards of security, companionship, love, and more, accompany that complexity and struggle.
Many marriages end in divorce – currently some 34 per cent before the 20th wedding anniversary. This week’s debate, coming in the week of the final chapter of the very public and terrifying public spectacle of the smash up of Chris Huhne’s marriage to Vicky Pryce, describes the pitch to which matters can escalate. In some senses it informed aspects of the debate in Parliament.
MPs themselves live lives, like many of us in many professions, where the job takes a terrible toll on private lives. MPs can boast their own marital difficulties, and many who spoke have experienced them, even if they did not refer to them in their speeches.
But the serial abuse of marriage that divorce so frequently describes, speaks to the frailty of what so many have called “the sanctity of marriage”.
Hence the occasional whiff of hypocrisy that has drifted across the debate about affording equal marital rights to same sex couples. The claim by opponents has been that to allow such marital unions will detonate the “sanctity of marriage”. Given the record of heterosexuals in the matter, it is hard to imagine that same sex couples can do much to make things worse.
The final 400 to 175 vote in the Commons appears to have been a resounding victory for democracy. The opening of the opportunity for everyone – irrespective of sexuality to partake in the complexity, struggle, and rewards of marriage – would seem to represent one of the great milestones in our socio-economic development.
Unless one is an opponent, in which case damnation presumably awaits us all.
Follow @jonsnowC4 on Twitter
Related posts:
There are 15 comments on this post
I have been through both marriage and co-habiting and I must say I can’t see the difference myself. Part from the legal rights (which undoubtedly differ), a piece of paper in a drawer somewhere and a ring on your finger – it comes down to the same personal agreement between two people, I feel.
If the love you have for a person would be affected by the fact that you are legally bound together – or not, then it’s not much of a love, I feel.
As for gay people having the same rights… we shouldn’t even have to discuss it in the 21st century. Of course they should.
I must say Britt at the tender age of 22 prior to being married I thought the same. At the wedding ceromony when our hands were bound together before God ,something very disturbing happened :elevating , but not particularly pleasant . It was more of a deep spiritual bonding ,which was affecting us physically . An out of body experience is the nearest description I can give. I divorced, when he met someone else. I do not love this man, but the spiritual wrench is still there after nearly 30 years..
Indeed it would be interesting to know whether MP’s disproportionately represent those divorced or in unhappy marriages. This Bill was supposedly based on a desire for equality. Rather I would say a sense of misery loves company.
Jon,
I do not believe in “the sanctity of marriage.” That is a load of superstitious religious baloney.
In my opinion marriage is a straightforward agreement to try to live together for as long as possible. Some couples manage to keep it together all their lives, and good luck to them. Many others don’t for one reason or another, and good luck to them too.
Some couples stick together because one or the other is afraid of living solo, still others stay “for the sake of the children,” and still others because of financial impact. None of those reasons have anything to do with mutual love or “sanctity.” They are reasons of convenience.
Couples can break up for any number of reasons, all of them highly personal. It is no business of anybody outside those affected. Heart break is an internal matter not subject to law.
It would be altogether suitable if religion kept its grubby nose out of other peoples’ intimate affairs, but even now it refuses to leave people alone to live their day-to-day lives as they see fit. Sanctimonious busybodies in medieval outfits have done enough damage to human beings and social progress.
As for the tories (and others) who voted against this bill – what did you expect? The stuffy, miserable idiots know no better. They are stuck in a nineteenth century time warp that, with some luck, will see them off in the next general election. And good riddance.
When I discuss this with peoplewho describe themselves as “Christians”, I ask them what is the scriptural ban on marrriage between two people of the same sex. When, as they usually do, they quote some slightly obscure text from the Old Testament, I ask them where Jesus said anything about the matter. As he claimed to “fulfil” the Old Testament not to confirm it, I ask them why as “Christians” they don’t follow Jesus’s approach. They claim that the OT is as much part of the Christian religion as the NT. So, I ask, how do you square “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (OT) with “turn the other cheek” & “love thy neighbour” (Jesus’s words in the NT? We then get into nit-picking interpretation & counter-interpretation & why the “institution” of marriage isn’t mentioned in the NT at all. But the fundamental point remains – if you are a Christian, there is nothing which Jesus says which runs counter to the idea of marraige between people of the same sex and quite a lot of his words & deeds that suggest he favoured love over hatred, tolerance over bigotry. The “bad guys” for him were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the rich. He drew to himself tax-gatherers, the poor, prostitutes, etc. But let’s not let what Jesus said, did and appears to have been like get in the way of our personal prejudices!
Excellent response re ‘Christians’, Philip.
The vote last night in the Commons to equalise marital rights for same sex couples was fantastic & the sooner this becomes enshrined in law the better.
For me I view this not only as important for lesbian women & gay men but for society as a whole. It shows that finally the truth is being fully faced & acknowledeged that heterosexual love & relationships are NOT superior to that of lesbian women & gay men, but equal to them.
Of course there will still be many people who will continue to oppose this reality & will try to cling on to their sense of superiority however they can, dressing it up in whatever way they choose. This will not alter the truth. I see this as an essential step towards a more honest & mentally/emotionally healthy society. Full equality for one section of the population does not come at the expense of another. A healthy realisation that one person is no better than another because of their sexuality in a society that fully reflects this reality, can only be positive & healthy for every member of society.
What’s in a name ? A Rose by any other name would smell so sweet.
Old Bill Shakespeare was right then and it’s right now. This whole ridiculous farce is just about a name, the name ‘marriage’. It confers no additional rights over a Civil Partnership, so what’s it matter ?
In my view, everyone wishing to be formally ‘paired’ (and qualifying within the defined law at that time) should undergo a Civil Partnership ceremony. That way we’re all the same, gay or straight – it’s called equality.
If any pair then wishes to add a religious dimension to their own ‘pairing’, they should be free to negotiate that privately and separately with the religion of their choice, but it would carry no additional rights. Whether any religion chooses to do business with any type of pairing should be up to the religion to decide – being, of course, cognisant of all the relevant discrimination laws applicable
Thereafter, if any legally-partnered pair wished to call their own arrangement a ‘marriage’, that’s for them to decide.
It’s only a name, after all.
Marriage is not just a name. It’s a symbol, And symbols matter. A lot.
If you doubt that, look in your wallet, It contains pieces of paper that have no intrinsic worth. But they are a symbol of value. Not only does everyone accept that symbol, it is what governs our lives.
Never underestimate the power of symbols in human life.
I do not think Gays should be persecuted or discriminated against in any way. But I find myself unhappy with gay marriage.
That puts me in some rather uncomfortable company, so I started to analyse my motives.
I think the issue is, I do not like what marriage has become. I believe it evolved to protect children.
As we all know raising human children requires a LOT of time (say, 15 years at least) and a lot of effort. So much so, it requires two people to get an optimal result. And incidentally, nature clearly thinks those two people should be a man and a women because that’s the way their biology is arranged.
Our society has developed marriage into a disposable institution, where the needs of adults supersede those of their children. We have glamorised the ceremony into a feast of conspicuous consumption, where impressing the friends and relatives seems a lot more important than the commitment the couple are supposedly entering into.
My solution is to firmly discourage marriage until children are born or on their way. After that, you may wed. But if you do, you stay wedded until the child is (say) sixteen. No divorce. Because once you have bought a child into the world, it’s not about you any more. It’s about your child.
Anyone could enter a Civil Partnership (and leave it just as easily), but the marriage contract would be reserved for raising children, and would be virtually irrevocable. There would of course, be exceptional circumstance where divorce would be permitted, but they would be few and far between.
We are raising a generation who are learning that selfish, irresponsible, parenting is the norm. They will find it hard to unlearn those attitudes in their own relationships and so it proceeds from dysfunctional family to dysfunctional family. And society is the worse for it.
As an army vetron i,am finding this same sex marridge quite worrying, first of all i,am not homophobic but having spent all my life either in the army, and my father 32 years in the RAF does the pm realize the conseqences its going to bring to are armed forces, we will have soldiers getting married junior soldiers to senior soldiers they will be entitled to married quarters, officers marrying and shareing abodes.with junior ranks its going to cost the armed forces a fortune to change all the systems to accomadate same sex couples, but worse of all its going to throw discpline out the window, why at present senior officers and senior NCO,s can not associate personely with junior ranks in private but this new law throws that out WHY because commanding officers can not be descrimnate against this as it will be the LAW, the commanding officers can not stop this happening because the minute a co refuses a couple to marry they go to the court of human rights and its thrown out and given the right to marry as its the law, “Good bye to the best Army in the world and the laughing stock of all proffesinal armys”
The challenge of heterosexual marriage has always been fraught with obstacles . A union for a lifetime has been extended from about thirty years to fifty or sixty. That is a long time for a union to survive. Divorce in many cases is a release from a stale or restrictive existence, without mentioning those who are trapped in a cruel or unreasonable situation.The emancipation of women from traditional roles has added to the difficulties as men find that their existence now encompasses domestic duties etc. We witness the expectation of Chris Huhne to have his wife take responsibility for his problems.
Perhaps this evolution of same sex unions will ease many previously difficult situations .
Perhaps also it will ease the pressure on heterosexual singles as gay bars and clubs will be recognised as being legal and acceptable for those seeking relationships and thereby ease the pressure on those who are single and heterosexual .Historically homosexuality has had a rough ride, with the fall of the Roman civilization and others thought to be caused in part by homosexuality.
Hopefully the majority will choose the natural order and provide their children with the fullness of a union which can encompass the new challenges of this age.
Too much time was spent on a group which already have their own , clubs, streets, carnivals, cliques where all others are excluded. I personally don’t have much time for all the fuss, when groups are threatened , persecuted , pay for others mistakes , are not recognised , don’t even have the opportunity for love . I refer to 3 gay couples comments which state that they have all they want in a complete and happy relationship which they have had for for many years. well my reaction is good for you , but why not address the more important issues. Singles out there are paying for a non existent partner, we are threatened , called slags or prostitues if we try to connect, we are looked down upon by gay or straight couples , we are made to feel uncomfortable if we are alone in a pub,we are loudly called billy no mates,everyone moves away from singles as if you have a disease, we have to pay for a phantom partner if we go on holiday,and much more … quite honestly I would love the rights of gay people with their new marriage bill or not.
Romford has its fair share of unreported scandals as my own justice campaign blog will testify … Romford also has the highest divorce rate (based on recent figures) in the whole of London and fourth highest nationally .. Romford MP Andrew Rosindell prides himself on traditional institutions like the monarchy but not marriage ? Why doesn’t he enter the debate on gay marriage ?
I have been cohabitting for 21 years in a heterosexual relationship and would like to have the opportunity to have a civil partnership rather than a marriage. Is there anyone out there who wants this equality in the law?