There is an oft repeated phrase in common religious or secular wedding ceremonies where the two individuals getting married make the commitment to be with each other "for better or for worse". What does that really mean? This phrase is not found in Mormon Temple weddings or sealings in favor of what I would consider to be stronger language of eternal commitment. But has the phrase, "For better or for worse" become so common in our modern vernacular that the original meaning of the commitment has been lost or undervalued?
Understanding that much of what people intend this phrase to imply, namely that a couple is willing to stay together through good times and bad, is a good idea in theory. In another sense, the two commit to staying together regardless the circumstances they find themselves in. But is that true? Is that wise? How much "worse" and what kind of "worse" are not detailed, but in my opinion, is very relevant to the marriage contract.
Of course, one would assume that couples would like to stay together through the good times, the "better". Experience has shown that the "worse" is unavoidable and therefore there is a need to make sure that one another is committed to not only sticking around through these tough times, but is also committed to minimizing these moments of "worse". Current divorce rates show that this promise seems to hold little water to people today as divorce rates have risen above 50%. Either people don't know how to be married, or they are unwilling to maintain this promise made at the marriage alter.
In order for people to get married today they must go and get a marriage license, a marriage permit of sorts where they pay their fee and then the government says "Okay, get married." Due to the social and public implications that marriage and family has on society today, would it be in line to make it so that, like obtaining a gun handlers permit, or a food handlers permit, or a license to practice medicine or real estate, that a certain amount of education should be required to obtain a marriage license? Would this help to explain the vows, the commitments, the legal ramifications of becoming married? Would this reduce the Las Vegas wedding "mistakes" and give greater emphasis on the importance of the marriage commitment thus improving the overall status of marriage in society today?
Perhaps the more understanding and education given to marriage the less likely marriage will be entered into under false ideals thus increasing the value of marriage in the minds and hearts of the people. In this way, this might reduce the number of individuals who seem to lack a necessary understanding of what it means to be together for better or worse.
"that a certain amount of education..."
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good thought but I fear it just won't work. People will have strong differing opinions on what "proper" education for marriage is. For instance you mentioned marriage vows. Given the extent religion plays a part in vows, I would guess the government would have a hard time knowing which vows to educate on and which to not.
People will think the government educating on proper marriage would be like the government educating on proper religious views.
But again, I think the thought is interesting.
yeah, the jury is out for me too and I wrote the article. Perhaps I was just thinking out loud. I guess I feel that there seems to be a lowering standard in society with regards to the noble institution of marriage. In one way I was thinking that perhaps this would slow down hasty marriages a little is all.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, but the last thing I would want is the government "educating" on marriage. Homosexual marriage would undoubtedly be touted and pushed, as well as probably sexual promiscuity and lack of consequences for infidelity..... unfortunately the higher rates of divorce are simply indicative of the erosion of society and the failure of parents to teach their children values.
ReplyDeleteI think I would have problems with the government making decisions about who should and should not get married, other than the restrictions placed on contracts generally - that the parties be adults of sound mind and free of coercion. Beyond that, marriage is more a personal or perhaps religious decision than a civic one and the marriage contract itself doesn't really pose any problems to society.
ReplyDeleteParenthood, on the other hand, is a different matter. Considering the ramifications to the society as a whole, it makes little sense to require training and licensing of hair dressers who might make someone look funny for a few weeks, but require no training or licensing of individuals who decide to become parents. Particularly in a country that provides no supports to families (no free pre-natal or obstetric care, no child care, no child health care, and 3rd rate educational opportunities, it makes no sense to let people produce children simply because they are biologically capable of doing so. Of course, I don't delude myself into thinking that the government we currently have would be able or willing to take on such a responsibility, but wouldn't it make sense in the abstract?
Sorry for taking so long to respond - it has been an interesting week.
ReplyDeleteYour response, Charles, stuck an interesting chord with me. You state that the government should not be involved in who should or should not get married. I do not disagree, nor do I think that what I presented in this article to be a way that the government can filter who should and should not marry. Simply to generally educate on the implications of marriage law, responsibility, and anything else that specific to the state in which the marriage is performed. This is not to be a class on "how to treat your spouse" or other marriage and family relations type classes. In fact the government doesn't have to even offer the class, but to simply certify what marriage and family courses need to consider in order to qualify. SImple oversight, not information control.
I fear the second half of your comment, that the government get involved in controlling the creation of life. This would also open the door to the government controlling the ending of life - not just protecting life. This is what is happening in China to the discontent of the people. Again, the difference here being, I am not saying people should or shouldn't get married, it is simply to enforce a standard by which an individual is more educated as to the legal and social ramifications of what they are about to enter into. A voice of warning/clarification/education, not counsel or direction.
What was also interesting to me is that you, Charles, feel that marriage is not a civic or societal issue as it posses no problems to society. I would have to disagree, in part, on this issue and families are the basic unit of societies. As the family stands together and firm so does society. Broken homes often foster crimes, social discord, and place burdens on society through law enforcement, possibly foster care, and so forth. How are you able to reconcile the idea that marriage is a private issue, but personal health care is not (as expressed through your previous stance on national health care?) How is how a private individual paying for a private service more a societal issue than a marriage?
James, I don't see marriage as a problem - however, creating a family and then being unable or unwilling to care for children is a problem. If a couple marry, have no children, and then divorce - who suffers other than they themselves? As we all know, the conception of children does not require a marriage license, and having a marriage license does not mean children will be conceived.
ReplyDeleteThe crime, social discord and societal burdens stem from the decision by individuals, married or not, to have children without having the commitment or competence to care for them appropriately until they reach the age of majority. You believe government should intervene to prevent individuals from not having children they are unwilling or unable to care for. I am proposing the government should intervene to discourage them from having those children unless they understand the commitment required and have the ability and will to carry it out.
I do believe personal health care is a private issue, but I don't believe that there is a privacy concern with paying for it. It is society's responsibility to see that its citizens have access to good health care. Without affordable health care for all, we will have crimes, social discord and burdens placed on society.
Why is health care private but everyone else has to pay for it? It seems like you have made logic jump without giving any reasoning. Also, why is crime and social discord the result of unaffordable healthcare? One could make the argument just as easily that it is because of crime that health care costs are on the rise. Illegal immigration, and drug use,
ReplyDeleteBack to the marriage issue, your argument is that the problem is when some parenting goes wrong. Well, the same is true for marriage. Marriage in and of itself is fine. When marriage goes wrong, it does have social implications. Why? Because it clogs family courts that are paid for through public funds, credit issues arise almost assuredly out of divorce.
I am not saying that marriage is a public issue, but it has more of an impact than health care does.