What We Talk About When We Talk About Marriage

Last updated on: September 6, 2012 at 12:53 am by Leah Libresco

What We Talk About When We Talk About Marriage 2012-09-06T00:53:33-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

My support for covenant marriage led me to mix it up recently on facebook with several friends, including Stephen of The Last Delta-T. He’s written a post laying out his opposition to covenant marriage and atheist or feminist-unfriendly aspects of marriage generally. Stephen and I both want to redefine modern marriages, but we want to do it in very different directions, so I’m going to start by laying out some of our basic points of disagreement, and then I’ll explain the reasoning underlying my positions in later posts. Here’s the first and simplest difference between our positions: **I would strongly consider/prefer seeking a covenant marriage if I get married, while Stephen disapproves of that institution.**Stephen writes:

Marriage sans God, as far as I see it, does make marriage look a lot like a long-term co-habitation with a lot of pretty legal things (which are important, yes, but not in the roughly metaphysical sense we’re talking about). The way we conceptualize marriage is what’s different, and I think that conception is unhealthy — it posits that there’s a fundamental change in essence in a relationship when a wedding vow is made, a bright-line distinction. I’ve never been married (shocker!) but it doesn’t seem to me that, in the minds of the people going through the vows, that the love signified by the wedding ceremony and to a broader extent the marriage is different in kind after the “I do”s than it was before. Different in degree certainly, but it doesn’t seem like the love looks different.

As a fellow atheist, I also don’t see any transcendental, metaphysical phase shift that happens when a couple says ‘I do.’ If a meaningful change occurs, it comes earlier, around the point of engagement, when a couple decides they want something more than a long-term cohabitation. This isn’t a shift in ‘love’ necessarily so much as a shift in the level of responsibility each partner wants to take on for the other. We love many people, all in different ways. Marriage isn’t a way of recognizing a love that has cleared some kind of benchmark for depth or profundity; it recognizes a commitment meant to be binding on both parties, and love may be one of the feelings driving couples to make that commitment. The centrality of love to the definition of marriage, along with the substantial legal benefits of marriage in America have helped blur the distinction between marriage and cohabitation. Many of the legal benefits (allowing a partner to visit you in the hospital, being able to take leave during a partner’s illness, etc) are based in love and affection, not any institutional bond or affection. A legal system that limits these benefits only to married couples creates pressure to marry and diminishes the cultural value placed non-marital relationships (especially friendship). I’d like to see more of these benefits available to unmarried couples. I’d be happy if more people sought civil unions, if there were more legal respect for personal contracts, or, perhaps, even if there were ‘temporary unions’ that could award a couple these benefits for a certain period of time, with an expiry date. But I only support these adaptations if they aren’t all lumped under the heading of marriage, diluting the definition. After all, that’s exactly what Stephen is up to:

To follow the reasoning, what we should be doing is playing with the word “marriage” and applying the term to a whole bunch of different things to make “marriage” the concept show itself for what it really is: not that much of a change at all (but still meaningful for the people involved!) This lets us change how the word works culturally, to strip away the problematic elements that come along with marriage as understood in a religious context and overthrow the religious framework that creates the way we conceptualize “atheist marriage” in the first place.

I’m sure Stephen will make progress in altering the definition of marriage, so I’m all for promoting an alternative that is centered on responsibility and commitment, rather than on rights and affection. Covenant marriage may not be the best model of an alternate system, but it seems to me to be the best available. More posts will follow this introduction to covenant marriage, all of which will be grouped at the covenant marriage index.

Atheism

Marriage

covenant marriage

Previous Post

December 3, 2010

7 Quick Takes (12/3/10)

Next Post

December 10, 2010 Covenant Marriage: What about Women?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who is the head of the Vatican City and the Roman Catholic Church?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Archbishop Cardinal Patriarch Pope