22 August 2001
A Prose Formulation
Marriage is an archaic institution, one which has a great deal of inertia and history. It also belongs to that class of ideas that have outlived their usefulness. Marriage, while generally considered to be a blessing, is in fact a trap. Allow me to explain before becoming violent.
The fundamental right of any being is to free thought and will. Marriage is a restraint on this freedom, without any benefit. To show this, it is only necessary to consider what marriage actually implies, and what possible benefits are to be had. Marriage is, in essence, a social contract between two people. It is a contract that states that each person chooses the other to be mate and companion above all other choices, past, present, and future, regardless of events.
The important point here is that the contract has no expiration date, no limitation of time. Marriage is an everlasting contract, with no loopholes or termination clauses. The vows taken by the people involved have no caveats or limitations. They are iron-clad, and absolutely binding. The only escape is to break the vow, which is a breach of the most solemn word of honor. After that breach, how can that person's word be worthy of any trust? The basic underpinning of all relationships has been destroyed, and may never be rebuilt.
Given that the contract is binding, and eternal, it is clear how this institution and contract can become a trap. Assume that for some reason, the marriage is not succeeding as hoped. Given the unknown nature of the future, this is not implausible in the least (the high rate of divorce indicates the reality of this). As the marriage "fails", either one or both patrtners will want to leave; dissolve the contract. There is no way to do this. The free will of the partners has been destroyed with no harmless escape.
Given no way to dissolve the contract, a partner is left with an evil choice: break the contract, and hence their word of honor; or stay in the relationship that offers no joy or happiness. Either choice destroys happiness, the sole purpose of life. This is the trap of marriage.
The immediate counter-argument is that two peope who get married should not have their marriage "fail", as they entered the contract in full knowledge. The problem here is that it is assumed that two people who are in love for some period will stay that way forever. Circumstances, people, and environments change. It is unresonable to suppose that all marriages are between people who will love each other fully for all time. Being retroactively married after death would work, since the partners know that they did indeed stay together. This is so far from the standard concept of marriage as to merit another term.
The obvious solution is to alter the contract of marriage to allow for dissolution. This is the reason behind divorce - legally dissolve the contract when the parties agree. However, the vows exchanged at a marriage ceremony have not changed. The legal aspect does not form the trap; the moral aspect does. Marriage vows still claim an everlasting union. To take this vow of free will is to pledge yourself to that contract, with no option to escape.
Some state that this element of commitment is what makes the marriage such a blessing. This argument runs against the practical consideration that the future is unknown; it is impossible to tell if the partners in a marriage will be happy together for all time, when they are first married. This can be determined only after the fact, when they are both dead, and history has recorded their lives together. This eternal commitment, while noble, is highly likely to become a destructive force of sorrow and despair, rather than the source of joy and happiness it is supposed to be.
So, given that partners cannot know if they will truly be happy together for all time when they are wed, and the evil nature of the trap that marriage forms when it fails, there seems little reason to maintain this concept of marriage. Particularly when the legal advantages of marriage can be gained by co-habitation, and other relatively modern legal changes. The moral stigma of co-habitation without marriage has all but disappeared, removing another incentive to marry. The final nail in marriage's coffin is a simple question: how much more do you cherish a spouse, when you know they are free to leave? While you are happy together, you stay together; when/if that changes, you are both free to seek happiness elsewhere.
Instead of the morally binding eternal contract that currently defines marriage, I propose something slightly different: live with your loved one, as if they were a spouse, but never forget that if the love fails, you can part on terms that are still friendly and peaceful. This is not a new idea; society has been evolving this way since at least the 1980s. This bodes well for the future, where possibly people can live with those they love for as long as they love them, and no more.
A Terse Formulation [potentially much more clear]
Start with the following points: [further points are asserted throughout the argument, but are extensions of those here]
Recall that all known forms of marriage ceremony contain one essential element: the exchange of vows between the partners. These vows are all variants on the statement: "I [one partner] choose you [the other partner] as mate over all other choices [including the choice of no mate] past, present, and future." This statement has no release or termination. There is no time limit or method of escape. This vow is the basis of the social contract embodied in the marriage ceremony.
Assume love for a partner wanes, then the contract forms a trap: there is no method to escape without breaking the marriage vow (and thus undermining all future inter-personal relations) and staying in the marriage degrades happiness. Hence, either staying or leaving causes harm. Death of the partner escapes the trap, but murder cannot be justified by this reason. Note that divorce, while legally dissolving the marriage contract, does nothing to the vows exchanged at the formation of the contract. Hence, divorce does not remove the trap.
Assume the case where love between partners is at least maintained: the marriage vow still restricts free will [a partner still cannot leave for any reason] and hence forms a trap, albeit one that has not yet sprung.
This trap is a restraint on free will, with no benefit. Historical benefits of special legal or economic status can now be had without the social contract of marriage. The claimed benefit of stability (knowledge that the partner cannot freely leave) is illusion. If the partners are happy, there is no reason to dissolve the contract; if the partners are unhappy, forcing them to stay only prolongs and deepens the sorrow.
Given no benefit from the marriage contract, the restraint on free will cannot be justified. Hence, the institution of marriage, despite the historical precedent, is no longer a viable concept. A better scheme would be to form a social contract that has a termination option if happiness cannot be achieved or maintained. This removes the trap, and hence removes the restraint on free will. So long as both partners are happy, the contract holds; if/when the partners cannot maintain that happiness, the contract can be dissolved without harm.