Is marriage really that romantic?

Image Source, Adika Suhari (Unsplash)

As a child, I never had a scrapbook like Monica and Rachel of what my future wedding would be like. It’s always been strange to me (both marriage and the concept that children would make wedding scrapbooks). Some aspects of marriage seem to be the antithesis of romance. These are primarily marriage’s sexist history and the implications of asking someone you love to sign a legal contract.

Marriage is a complicated topic. I want to clarify from the beginning that I don’t have all the answers. Obviously, everyone has the right to choose to get married, and this should not change. I don’t judge people who get married. This is just lil ol’ me’s opinion. I’m also open to being wrong, and while I’m sceptical about marriage, I still think there are redeeming aspects to it.

Lastly, I don’t want to come across as Team ‘love is a neurochemical con job’. I am pro-love and romance, I swear! I definitely think it is possible to be in love with one person for your whole life. It’s the institution of marriage that I’m questioning (stick around to the end to hear my tentative suggestion of an alternative to traditional marriage).

The sexist history of marriage

I know no one wants to hear it. We’d rather forget about it, but there’s no denying marriage’s roots. We’re all aware that the concept comes from centuries of this sexist idea that women are property. This is reflected all over the place in the traditional marriage ceremony. The father ‘giving away’ his daughter to the groom. The white dress symbolising purity and virginity (you wouldn’t want to buy second hand). The woman taking her groom’s surname. Creepy stuff.

This history is important. You can say yes, marriage is indeed rooted in sexism and women were once considered property, but they’re (thankfully) not now. So the practice is different. Besides, it’s tradition! The white dress doesn’t symbolise purity and virginity, it’s simply traditional. The same with the father giving away his daughter. Meanings have changed. Or these things don’t even have metaphorical meanings anymore. Hm.

I think tradition is never a good reason to do anything. Some traditions are harmless. Some are harmful. You have to think about them and work out which are which before you blindly follow them.

Though most people don’t care or know about the metaphors in the ceremony, the metaphors are still there whether you acknowledge them and believe in them or not. Surely there will always be a little bit of discomfort in knowing the original meaning of being ‘given away’ by your father? I’m not sure it’s incredibly romantic to perpetuate and be a part of an institution with a sexist history.

Image Source, (Unsplash)

It’s a little over-controlling

If you think about it, no one would get married if it weren’t a weird old tradition. Imagine a parallel universe where marriage was never invented.

Your partner turns to you one day and says, ‘Hey, I’ve got an idea. How about we have a legal contract drawn up by a professional that says we will not leave each other until we die?’

‘Um…’

‘And if you try to leave me before you die, it could cost you a lot of money. You’d have to get lawyers and the state involved.’

‘Sorry, what?’

‘Yeah, and the contract also states that all your property is legally mine and all of mine is legally yours. It would make banking easier, but if you did try to leave, it could add an extra layer of difficulty for you as a court would have to decide who gets what if we disagree.’

‘Have you drunk enough water today?’

‘Yes, and maybe we could start a fun tradition where you abandon your surname and change it to mine instead? You’ll be known as Mrs. my name.’

‘… You’re scaring me.’

I’m exaggerating a little. It is easier today to divorce your partner than it used to be, and women no longer have to change their name. My point is you’d never agree to this. It’s something a controlling and overbearing partner would suggest. An immediate red flag. But because it’s tradition, not so many people question it. And because it’s tradition, people think of it as romantic rather than strange and unnecessary.

Image Source (Unsplash)

But you might say

Sure, marriage involves a legal contract, and if your partner doesn’t agree to a divorce, it will take five years to get a divorce, but provided you marry someone you love and trust, giving them this power doesn’t matter because they’ll never use it against you. You trust them so much that you give them legal powers over your relationship, and they trust you so much they also agree. And that’s the romantic thing about it. You’re going to stay together forever, no matter what. So the legal technicalities of the contract don’t matter because they’re never going to come up.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea of staying with one person for the rest of your life is really sweet, and definitely possible. However, I don’t understand why a contract is necessary if you both agree to stay together forever. Why get the state and law involved in your relationship? What do those things have to do with love?

The idea seems like the opposite of romantic to me. To ask your partner to sign a legal contract not to leave you suggests to me that you don’t trust them to stay with you without legal repercussions being lauded over their head. Wouldn’t it be more romantic to promise your partner to stay with them forever, no matter what, and just mean it? Will you only believe their promise if they put it in a legal contract? If you don’t trust your partner, then you can’t love them. To me trust is one of the baseline requirements of romantic love. At least the healthy kind.

But you might then say

Words are wind! Actions speak louder than words. If you promise your partner you want to stay together for the rest of your lives, then that’s one thing. It’s lovely. But if you back it up with the action of signing a marriage contract, it demonstrates how serious you really are.

I understand this point and think it’s a good one. I would respond with my final argument on the subject. ‘I promise to love you forever’. Is that really something you can promise? Like I said earlier, I believe it’s possible to love one person for the rest of your life. However, unfortunately, another possibility that no one seems to have control over is that you may also fall out of love. It happens. I sound pessimistic but isn’t it true? How do you know that you won’t be one of the many people throughout history who sadly, for some reason, stops loving the person they’ve been in love with for years? Making that promise is a bit of a gamble. You may keep it. You may not. Therefore it doesn’t seem right to make such a promise.

Image Source (Unsplash)

Of course, and vice versa, your partner may fall out of love with you. Considering that, and if you respect your partner, wouldn’t you want to make it as easy and painless for them to leave you if that’s what they wanted? As opposed to having them face legal barriers? I think it's more romantic to say to your person, ‘I love you, and I want to stay with you forever, but if you ever want to leave me, I won’t force you to stay. I’ll ask if we can fix things, but I’ll never force you to do anything you don’t want because I love and respect you too much. In other words, I won’t ask you to marry me. If we’re staying together for the rest of our lives, it’s because we choose to, not because of a legal contract we signed.’

Moreover, I wonder if the legalities of marriage ever help couples who are going through a rough patch to stay together. Or if they feel like shackles, fanning the flames of any problems a couple faces - a question for the psychologists.

What you can promise is to stay with someone for the rest of your life, even if you fall out of love with them. Because you signed a contract, and you meant what you signed. Again I ask, is that romantic? That’s what people did for hundreds of years. Divorce was so taboo that even if you no longer loved your partner, you couldn’t possibly leave them. You signed a contract and promised God you’d stay together. So people did. It was not a good thing. Read Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy if you want a more eloquent and tragic story than I could ever write to get that point across. Once again, marriage isn’t sounding super romantic right now.

Maybe it’s nice in that even if you fall out of love, you respect them so much you won’t leave them. You agreed to be a team for better or worse (in or out of love). If you fall out of love, you’ll remain married but as friends who share a home and maybe children. Maybe that’s possible. Is that still marriage, though?

You may argue you have control over whether you stay in love with someone or not. So you can promise someone you’ll love them and be with them forever. That would be nice. I don’t know if it’s true - another question for the psychologists.

In marriage’s defence…

Strangely, marriage can also be seen as a feminist institution. Something used to protect women. For example, if a woman gives up her career to create and raise children with her partner, then he divorces her a decade or two later, she’s rightly entitled to financial compensation. She gave up her job and career progression on the understanding that her partner would meet her financial needs (while she devoted her time to raising the children). So when they are suddenly not met, and she is less employable, she still gets financial support legally (alimony). Also, vice versa, if the man gives up his job. This is interesting, but I have not researched it thoroughly enough to explore it further. It’s still not a romantic reason to get married, which is what this article is exploring.

Image Source (Unsplash)

There are reasons to get married which I understand.

Maybe you get married because your partner really wants to, and you love them and don’t want to break up. If you don’t care much either way, it’s no big deal. It’s a little sad if you were completely anti-marriage, but give in to marriage to stay with them. However, I’d understand it.

Or - that sweet, sweet tax break (but let’s be honest, it’s not fair for married people to get a tax break and not unmarried couples.) There are other practical legal reasons to get married too.

My alternative version of marriage

I admit there’s something sweet and romantic about performing a ceremony that people have been doing for thousands of years. It’s like you’re entering into some ancient rite of passage.

However, do you need the legal part of marriage to have a ceremony? As I’ve said, I find the contractual side of marriage very unromantic. In fact, I find contracts unromantic in general.

Here’s my suggestion. Have a wedding! With all the good but none of the problematic parts. No legal contracts or priests. Just you and your partner promising each other whatever it is you want to promise each other. Walk yourself down the aisle. Invite all the friends and family you want. Do the whole vows thing. Alter them to whatever you like. Wear the dress! Any colour! The rings don’t seem problematic to me either. You’d still be joining the ancient married people club of your ancestors by having a ceremony and marking the day you made official promises to each other.

You can have your fun and celebration without the weird antiquated stuff. In other words you can have a wedding day without signing a controlling and outdated contract. Old people won’t get it. But all due respect, old people don’t get a lot of stuff (especially decisions I make), so I say — take no notice. If we all lived to please our elders, none of us would be fun at parties.

Conclusion

Sometimes I feel lonely in my scepticism of marriage. It seems to be a big life goal for most people. I feel like I’m crazy for questioning it, when no one else seems to. It’s like noticing a giant crack in the ground, and no one else sees or mentions it. Maybe there is no problem? Maybe I’m seeing things.

My ultimate point I’ve been trying to make is staying with someone forever doesn’t necessarily involve marrying them. I think the way we are socialised means this thought might never occur to us.

Disclaimer

All my comments about the sexism rooted in marriage only really apply to heterosexual marriages. However my comments on the romantic-ness of the concept of marriage apply to all marriages. It is also focused on marriage in the UK/the West, as this is the form I am most familiar with. Therefore, some of what I say may not apply to other countries and cultures.

by Izi Wilkowski

Follow Izi’s Instagram

✿