Is this what the future holds for marriage?
The San Francisco Chronicle tossed out an interesting idea Sunday: privatize marriage. I think it's ludicrous, but maybe not for the reasons you'd expect.
Marriage is a lot of things: A social contract, a religious bonding (for some), a legal contract, and so on. While its meaning and significance are frequently debated, the vast majority of adults in the US and around the world will marry at some point in their lives, and marriage is--more or less--a common experience we share as people, a bonding of two people as romantic partners for life. That serves a valuable purpose for communities and cultures, linking their members together in a way that few other rituals or contexts of life do.
The Chronicle's proposal would fracture marriage into, essentially, different kinds of commodities. ("What's that? You got the Lexus Wedding presented by TD Waterhouse? Wow, that's great! My wife and I went for the McMarriage instead. Yeah, it was all we could afford. What your life must be like!") Privatization as proposed in the article would surely create rich and poor classes of marriage, which would only increase the kind of polarization we're experiencing too much of already. And if you're expecting an anti-gay, "protect marriage for the children!" rant here, hardly; I wholly support efforts toward marriage for all. No one should be shut out of that valuable cultural and human experience because of their sexuality.
All that said, I will give credit to the Chronicle for attempting to inject some creativity into the discussion of the future of marriage. That absolutely is welcome, and it enlivens a discussion that more of us should be having.
Marriage is a lot of things: A social contract, a religious bonding (for some), a legal contract, and so on. While its meaning and significance are frequently debated, the vast majority of adults in the US and around the world will marry at some point in their lives, and marriage is--more or less--a common experience we share as people, a bonding of two people as romantic partners for life. That serves a valuable purpose for communities and cultures, linking their members together in a way that few other rituals or contexts of life do.
The Chronicle's proposal would fracture marriage into, essentially, different kinds of commodities. ("What's that? You got the Lexus Wedding presented by TD Waterhouse? Wow, that's great! My wife and I went for the McMarriage instead. Yeah, it was all we could afford. What your life must be like!") Privatization as proposed in the article would surely create rich and poor classes of marriage, which would only increase the kind of polarization we're experiencing too much of already. And if you're expecting an anti-gay, "protect marriage for the children!" rant here, hardly; I wholly support efforts toward marriage for all. No one should be shut out of that valuable cultural and human experience because of their sexuality.
All that said, I will give credit to the Chronicle for attempting to inject some creativity into the discussion of the future of marriage. That absolutely is welcome, and it enlivens a discussion that more of us should be having.
