Concerning marriage (and why discussions with friends can be dangerous)

The other day, I found myself in a discussion with a friend about the nature of marriage and the proper role of the state in regulating it. A bit of light banter on New Year's Eve, ha! We came, of course, from quite different viewpoints, he holding something of a libertarian view. And if it had been a debate, I don't think I would have won it. But since we were capable of having the discussion without losing our tempers, he gave me some things to think about. Now, it seems right to put my thoughts in a blog post.

I'll start by setting forth what I think the ideal marriage is. I won't offer a word-for-word definition, but rather set forth what, based on Scripture, I consider to be its four defining features. These are: (1) A uniting of persons, expressed through sex and other ways; (2) taking place between a man and a woman; (3) exclusive; and (4) permanent.

The main point of contention was to what extent, if any, this view of marriage should be considered the most appropriate. And even if we decide it is the best – that is, the most suited to promoting healthy relationships between people, perhaps especially the spouses and any children – to what extent should it be enforced by Government action?

At one level, I have considerable sympathy for one of my friend's arguments. He said that people change, or reveal aspects of themselves after marriage that had previously been hidden; and that if the change or the new information could have been foreseen beforehand, the marriage would never have taken place. Should we require a wife to stay with an abusive monster of a husband because the magic words, “I do,” were uttered? And even at a less extreme level, it's hard to see it as anything but cruel to force spouses who dislike and distrust each other to stay together just to escape, say, a fine or jail term. It certainly doesn't promote human flourishing or healthy relationships.

And it is, presumably, because of these unfortunate but very real scenarios that the permanence of marriage has been its characteristic most open to redefinition. Even in the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments envisage the termination of marriage. The Old Testament permits a regulated form of divorce; in the New, Jesus permits divorce from an adulterous spouse, and Paul discusses the possibility of abandonment. Nevertheless, the implication is that these outcomes should be considered exceptional, and that the typical marriage should last until one or other spouse dies.

And it would be fair to say that, if the state is to promote any view of marriage, I would like it to promote such a view, since that's the view I agree with. I contend that, by allowing for no-fault divorce, the state is promoting as superior a form of “marriage” that has lost the defining feature of permanence.

So what do I think the solution is? I'm not really in favour of the state re-imposing Christian-style marriages as the expectation for everyone. Why? Because a lot of people reject the premises on which they should submit to such arrangements, really. And if I don't want to be forced to live according to another religion's values, I shouldn't try to force people in turn. Sauce for the goose, after all.

In which case, if I'm to be logically consistent, the only real option is for the Government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let churches and other religious bodies regulate marriage among their members and among those who approach them for marriage, and let the Government restrict itself to enforcement of wills, contracts and laws against deception and abuse. A workable solution?

(A side topic arose, whether I think adultery should be punishable by law. The short answer is that I don't know. But I do believe there is a general moral obligation to avoid tempting others to break their word, and I have no objection to that obligation being legal as well as moral. The law would seem to agree with me, as there is the civil wrong of tortious interference. If that's true of mundane contracts, how much more so when something as significant as marriage is involved?)