A Marriage By Any Other Name
In a recent post I mentioned that perhaps the best feature of getting married is having somebody who is fully and completely committed to being on your team. The following question was posed by Acksiom in the comments:
And the marriage-neutral response (i.e., MGTOW indifference to it, not MRA opposition) remains, as always, that they can do it right and manage it with the right person without getting married at all, so why should they bother?
The answer is pretty simple, but I thought it worthy of its own post.
To put it bluntly, if you “..can do it and manage it with the right person” then you are in a de facto marriage, whether you call it that or not.
I’m sure by now that all of my readers are well aware of the great debate about gay “marriage” in the United States. My position for some time has been that I no longer care. I do believe that it weakens the institution of marriage – I just also believe that the legal institution of marriage is so far gone that it just doesn’t matter anymore. I also agree with the traditionalist position on this one: this is another attempt by leftists to redefine words so that they no longer have any real meaning.
Words have power when they mean something. Extremists of all sorts know this – it’s why they go to such great lengths to control how words are used and what they mean. When words stop meaning things, they lose their power. As the word marriage has come to convey less and less of its original meaning it has lost more and more of its power. Easy and common divorce was the biggest blow to the word. If marriage no longer means “’til death do us part” then it’s lost a big chunk of its power as a word.
But by the same token, The Bard had it right all the way back in 1582:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
If you enter into a relationship where you’re living with a woman, she’s “on your team” no matter what, you love each other, you’ve got a sexual relationship, and your financial lives are intertwined, that relationship is a marriage whether you call it that or not.
A little known fact: out of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, marriage is the only one that is not administered by a priest. When two baptized Christians are married, they are administering the sacrament on each other.
The husband and wife must validly execute the marriage contract. In the Roman Catholic tradition, it is the spouses who are understood to confer marriage on each other. The spouses, as ministers of grace, naturally confer upon each other the sacrament of matrimony, expressing their consent before the church. This does not eliminate the need for church involvement in the marriage; under normal circumstances, canon law requires the attendance of a priest or deacon and at least two witnesses for validity (see canons 1108–1116).
Neither is this kind of tradition only Catholic. For centuries English Common Law (which forms the basis for much law in all of the English speaking world, not just in England) recognized common law marriage for centuries. Many jurisdictions in the Anglosphere (including Washington, DC and ten states) still do recognize it. In short, if you act like you’re married, the law considers you married (in these jurisdictions).
Call it whatever you want. Hell, the term “marriage” is pretty battered and bruised as it is. It’ll probably appreciate getting ignored for a bit instead. But a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Recent Comments