The institute of marriage has long been viewed as a very specific form of union, which, perhaps incorrectly, has also been viewed as a rigid and unchanging phenomenon, both in terms of definition and practically.
So we thought we’d share this piece by Cristina Odone, who mourns the evolution of laws relating to marriage in this morning’s article, and tells us that marriage has come under siege, co-habitation is a misguided option made alluring by the seemingly elitist and bureaucratic marriage process and that both men and women stand to lose out financially if they don’t stick to the conventional notion of marriage.
Our question to you this week, then, is do you agree with Cristina’s views?
Possible answer: No, we don’t. Marriage, like all customs, must evolve, as it once did, to allow the positive evolution of civilisation to go forwards. We don’t buy into the argument that the legal implications of either choice should be a barrier – we need to evolve our laws too, so that it reflects completely, all unions of this nature.
Kids like the idea of their mother and father getting married.One of my daughters married mainly for this reason and her 6 year old daughter who was the instigator, was their bridesmaid.”Now” she said ” My mother has the same name as I have !”
Yes, I think that’s true.
marriage is the formalisation and control of individuals by an external authority.There are all sorts of cultural expectations and pressures,The married areperceived to be”safe”,not sexually “wild” or available, although this is not born out by evidence,either by questionnaire(the Channel4 surveywhere 1 in 5 married women would commit adultery if they could) or genetic, 1 in 4 children not being fathered by the man named on the birth cert.Marriage reflects a set of historically middle class value judgements and expecttions, mainly unrealistic and unsubstantiated which may be aspirational for lower classes but in the main had to do with inheritance and male surety that it was his genes that would inherit(of course limitations did not apply to his behaviour as long as it was discrete)Marriage amongst the aristocracy was always about alliances and inheritance, women being free to make other relationships oce “an heir and a spare” had been provided, for which there are examples in the recent past.The divorce rate also demonstrates that all the arguments about marriage or for marriage are in the main irrelevant.As for the understanding and emotional response of children, they reflect a partial and exaggerated version of those they are exposed to and of course without the responsibility for their actions;anyone who has seen a 4 year old”mommy” abandon her baby doll in the mud at the mention of cake would be cautious of any use of a childs reaction as justification for any life changing or defining decision.That is why they are children and we dont allow them to drive,or choose to eat nothing but sweets