{"id":1112,"date":"2013-07-09T01:00:14","date_gmt":"2013-07-08T17:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nargalzius.com\/blog\/?p=1112"},"modified":"2013-07-09T01:00:14","modified_gmt":"2013-07-08T17:00:14","slug":"state-of-the-unions-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/nargalzius.com\/blog\/archives\/2013\/07\/09\/state-of-the-unions-part-2","title":{"rendered":"State of the Unions (part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

So, in continuation of the first part<\/a> I’ll now attempt to narrow things down and focus more on marriage and relationships.<\/p>\n

Here are excerpts from the first few paragraphs of an online article called the History of Marriage in Western Civilization<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together.<\/strong> Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential.<\/strong> Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, it may surprise many modern couples to learn that in earlier times divorce was often easily granted.<\/strong> Here again, men usually had the advantage when they could simply dismiss their wives, but in many instances women could also sue for divorce. In ancient Rome couples could even divorce each other by mutual agreement,<\/strong> a possibility that has not yet returned to all European countries. Another notable historical fact is the nearly universal stress on the necessity of marriage and the resulting pressure on single persons to get married.<\/strong> This pressure was partially lifted only under the influence of Christianity which, at least for some time, found a special virtue in celibacy. Christian doctrines have, of course, also had their effects on marriage itself, and some of these will be discussed below.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So take all the boldface sentences and in a nutshell you get two important points.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Civil\/legal unions pre-date religious sacraments<\/li>\n
  2. Marriages, and their terminations – were mere [civil\/legal] practicalities.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Apparently, I got it all wrong. All the while<\/a> I kept on pushing that there should be a clearer delineation between civil unions<\/em> and church marriages<\/em> – when technically, it should’ve been the other way around: civil marriages and church unions. The “true” (for lack of a better term) context of marriage was<\/strong> practical, not romantic. <\/p>\n

    It also largely explains why there are<\/em> arranged marriages. I remember how people would balk at the concept of arranged marriages – that how could anyone possibly condone a union that can completely disregard romantic connotations. Well, apparently it’s simply because the original concept of marriage wasn’t to be interpreted as anywhere near<\/em> romantic. It’s basically a legal agreement of parties and estates based on practicality and economy – much like corporate mergers in the modern world.<\/p>\n

    The whole re-definition of the context of marriage falls solely on the shoulders of religion. They put more meaning to it – for better or worse. And perhaps thats why we’re having all these semantically related problems – because the whole issue of divorce in context of what the union(s) should stand for, are indeed, based on semantics.<\/p>\n

    If you get to the various articles\/entries that were (and will be) linked to in this post – you get a good idea of how needlessly complex society, religion, and time has made this. Yet having said that, the solution isn’t any easier because of it.<\/p>\n

    Church Vows<\/h1>\n

    We all know how these things go, so no need to repeat it. Simply put, as one blog entry from someone who had done their due diligence<\/a> puts it:<\/p>\n

    \n

    A Church wedding on the other hand is also equally legal and is recognized by the law. But more than that, it is also viewed as “a permanent covenant<\/strong> and sacrament where Christ is at center,”. It carries the implication that the marriage is forever<\/strong> and is celebrated according to the teachings of the church, with God in the center of the ceremony.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    So you can see from here why in the context of the sacrament, an annulment is acceptable, yet divorce is not. A properly executed marriage cannot<\/strong> be dissolved, nor can anyone get married twice in church.<\/p>\n

    The first issue is solved by annulment wherein the couple tries to prove the marriage wasn’t “properly executed” at some point – therefore void and never have taken place. This also renders the second concern a non-issue. Since if you’re annulled, you’ve never been married – hence your “next” marriage would still be your first.<\/p>\n

    Civil Vows<\/h1>\n

    The basic structure of civil vows<\/a> contain the legal declaration(s),<\/strong> contracting words,<\/strong> and promises.<\/strong> <\/p>\n

    And as another article<\/a> says:<\/p>\n

    \n

    If a couple has certain beliefs that are not held by any local churches, the couple may prefer a civil wedding ceremony. Civil weddings normally do not incorporate any religious aspects into the marriage, but couples can choose to do so buy including vows, readings or themes.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    IMHO, it’s that last part that complicates things. For example:<\/p>\n

    \n

    I promise to love and respect you. Helping our love grow, always being there to listen, comfort and support you, whatever our lives may bring.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    or <\/p>\n

    \n

    I give you this ring as a symbol of my love and affection, wear it with happiness and pride – now and always.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    To me, as far as being honor-bound by promises go, once you utter any sentence that implies something eternal, then you’ve just disqualified yourself from a divorce. Because at this point, you’ve now just incorporated a sacramental context to your civil proceeding – which implies being together for the rest of your natural lives.<\/strong> <\/p>\n

    “But how can you NOT make that kind of promise? Isn’t it insulting to not<\/strong> be able to make that promise?”<\/em><\/p>\n

    Glad you asked. Observe the promises listed below – all of which are perfectly acceptable despite the differences in embellishment.<\/p>\n

    \n

    I give you this ring as a token of my love and friendship.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    or this:<\/p>\n

    \n

    I give you this ring as a token of our love and marriage, as a symbol of all that we share and in recognition of our life together.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Hell, even this:<\/p>\n

    \n

    I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage, and as a symbol of our love. I promise to care for you, to respect and cherish you, throughout our lives together.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    …is not necessarily implying something eternal. It simply states this is what the other will live up to his\/her end for as long as they’re together. Notice it doesn’t hold anymore if they’re separated (i.e. their lives are no longer “together”).<\/p>\n

    Like I said, it’s all about semantics. <\/p>\n

    My Stance<\/h1>\n

    This is why I said in my past post that divorce would be fine for as long as it clearly applies solely<\/strong> to civil weddings – and I’d take it up a notch to say that they should keep a record of the vows done on such legal ceremonies to see what kind of vows, if any, were used.<\/p>\n

    But if I had my way, I’d sooner prefer that both church and state, re-discuss the implications of the two types of union, and come up with an even clearer delineation between them. I believe that when in a legal context, people should have the right to separate by simple amicable agreement of separation. In short, all it should take to get a proper legal<\/strong> separation, divorce or otherwise, is to simply want<\/em> one.<\/p>\n

    But it should not be the same for the sacrament. Religion, and anyone who chooses to “wed” under the preconceptions of such, should accept whatever the context entails.<\/p>\n

    And this is why I feel there should be a need to clearly delineate the two. As a friend correctly observed, the problem is that civil marriages are masquerading as sacramental ones. It’s not uncommon that for most people, the only differentiator is the cost of admission.<\/p>\n

    So we have couples who, for all intents and purposes, are after the sacramental<\/em> type of union – but cannot afford one. And so they do the next best thing – when in fact, they should recognise that the two types of unions ultimately [should] serve different purposes.<\/p>\n

    Honestly, the fact that people have the option to incorporate religious vows into an otherwise civil wedding is what’s causing these issues when it comes to separation. There should be a clear delineation and there shouldn’t be any allowance to mix one into the other.<\/p>\n

    Isn’t it already understood that when talking about divorce, we’re talking solely about the civil aspect of things?<\/em> <\/p>\n

    It would be nice if it was, but I don’t recall it being made crystal clear about the jurisdictions of the two types of unions. One article<\/a> states:<\/p>\n

    \n

    Please remember that a divorce alone would not affect, or hinder in any way, your participation in the Catholic Church.  A divorced Catholic is free to receive the sacraments.  However, if you are divorced and remarried without an Decree of Invalidity (and your former spouse is still living) a problem does arise.  Similarly, if your spouse was previously married and has not received an Decree of Invalidity from a Tribunal, there is a problem.  In such circumstances, you may not partake of the sacraments, including the reception of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Culture and Context<\/h1>\n

    The question now is, which “context” does our society prefer to apply to the concept of “marriage?” The more practical – or the more meaningful? It’s not a simple thing to answer. Because if you claim to value the “meaningful” connotation more than the practical, then the vows stand: that marriages should endure for better or worse, and that for the most part, especially if explicitly stated in the vows, they’re lifelong commitments. <\/p>\n

    But if they choose to value the practical path, then there should be a clear separation from the sacramental and the legal. It should be made crystal clear that civil weddings, while still a declaration of love, still ultimately function as practical legal\/social contracts; subject to termination just like any other legal contract. Whereas church weddings are only to be taken by those who would literally want to be bound eternally.<\/p>\n

    The semantics would be simple, they’ll have two choices. Either you chose the meaningful church wedding – but will also take the risk of getting into something you will never have a chance to get out of. Or you choose the practical civil wedding; have the benefit of choosing to terminate the contract at any point (provided it’s a mutual agreement), but at the expense of the union being perceived as “less meaningful.”<\/p>\n

    Speaking of “meaningful”<\/h1>\n

    Here’s another problem I see with regards to all this marriage stuff; the fact that it’s so hyped up that people seem to feel their lives are incomplete without it – or that a legitimately loving relationship isn’t truly one unless you “finalise” it with marriage.<\/p>\n

    While I’m not saying that one should disregard the significance of the sacrament, but I find it very disturbing how a lot of relationships can be destroyed just by how marriage fits into the equation. Even the delay<\/em> of marriage can become an issue worth breaking up for.<\/p>\n

    The favourite counter-argument women like to use is this: <\/p>\n

    \n

    Well, if you truly love a person, wouldn’t you want to spend the rest of your life with them? So why not get married?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Again, an unfortunate, but perfectly understandable argument. So let me try to explain why it’s not necessarily fair to use that as a basis of measuring the capacity to love. But to explain this, I’d have to deviate a bit and put some proper perspective to better drive my point home.<\/p>\n

    Let’s assume wikipedia’s statistics<\/a> are somewhat accurate. Especially this part:<\/p>\n

    \n

    between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within… the first five years is 20%, and the probability of its ending within the first 10 years is 33%… Perhaps 25% of children ages 16 and under live with a step-parent.<\/p>\n

    As of 2009, first marriages which ended in divorce lasted a median of 8 years for both men and women. The median time to separation from first marriages was about 7 years.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    So that means it’s not at all ridiculous to assume that HALF<\/strong> of marriages from here on out – and if you are able to look at any graphic projection of these statistics<\/a>, there’s no reason to doubt that this in fact is,<\/em> and will be<\/em> the case (or unfortunately, may be even worse) as the years go by.<\/p>\n

    That is not<\/strong> a good statistic to have for something that was conceived to be a permanent thing. But I don’t even want to get into that – the reason I raised the issue is in context of a claim I had made earlier this week in Facebook – which I will paraphrase.<\/p>\n

    \n

    The problem isn’t<\/strong> being aware<\/em> of the implications of marriages, or of the work it takes to make a marriage last. All these things have already been ingrained in us by the articles we read, the sermons we hear, the experiences we have from our married friends\/relatives, and to a lesser degree – with our significant others. Unfortunately this knowledge and awareness is still ultimately useless<\/em> in preparing one in facing such trials. <\/p>\n

    The real problem<\/strong> is the inescapable fact that one can never<\/em> really determine if they’re the sort of person who can actually handle such “trials” until they’re already in it. And once they are,<\/em> it’s 50\/50: either they luck out and discover that they can<\/em> handle it, or that they can’t. And that’s usually the time where the proverbial shit hits the fan for 50% of these people.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Obviously, everybody<\/strong> who gets married believes<\/em> they can make it work. Everybody<\/strong> who gets married believes they’ve found the one.<\/em> Everybody<\/strong> who gets married believes that can and will<\/em> love that person next to them for the rest of their natural lives.<\/p>\n

    So what’s my point? My point is that 50% of these people who were pretty damn sure they could,<\/em> in reality, couldn’t<\/strong> – how do you explain that!?<\/p>\n

    The reality is that you can never<\/em> be sure – or at least you can never be sure unless you’ve confirmed<\/em> it down the road. Anybody who has gotten married without living together before the marriage is essentially just as sure as the 50% that ended in separation… only difference is that they lucked out; they confirmed over time<\/strong> that they truly<\/em> have found their “one.”<\/p>\n

    So going back, the reason this “fact” is important to mention is because there are some of us (myself included) who are sticklers for what is actually true,<\/strong> and what is speculation.<\/strong> So much so that it has worked to our disadvantage.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    To give an example: I have never<\/strong> made a promise to any of the women I have ever been with that I would never cheat on them. I couldn’t promise it not because I intend to cheat, but simply because to me, it was like promising someone you’d never get sick. Nobody want’s to get sick, but can you really control that?<\/p>\n

    And before you start with your “of course you can control it! It’s a conscious decision!”<\/em> – well, then tell that<\/em> to the 50% who made a similar “conscious decision” of not leaving their partner until death!<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Irony<\/h1>\n

    In my previous relationship, for all the things that you can assume I “never could promise” – the stuff I did<\/em> promise, I actually held up to my end of the bargain. Did it help me “keep” the woman I loved? Nope. Moreso, some of the major promises that I had<\/em> made (and fully intended to keep) that really mattered, were predicated precisely<\/em> on the things she eventually reneged<\/em> on. So how’s that for irony!<\/p>\n

    One question did stick with me though: she asked if we were married, would things be different? I assume she was wondering if being married would have made us fight harder to keep the relationship (marriage?) going – or perhaps avoid the issue altogether. We weren’t broken up [yet] when she asked me this. <\/p>\n

    It was a very good question. Unfortunately I didn’t have an answer… all I could remember thinking was marriage shouldn’t be the thing that keeps people together – LOVE should.<\/em> And that’s when I realized it was over; it was obvious that the love was gone from her end – that she should even contemplate such a question.<\/p>\n

    That may have been one of the rare times I was idealistic about something, but that’s how I always was with relationships. I always believed that if you truly loved someone, no matter how serious the issue may be, it should never<\/strong> be serious enough to make one question the relationship itself.<\/em> Granted that women tend to be more volatile in this department, that even the little things can be major issues worth breaking up for. Unfortunately, I have this character flaw in which I believe it takes two to tango; and that I only fight for something if the other is willing to fight for it as well. And to her credit, she did try to fight for “us” with other issues, and we did end in amicable terms so as they say in the 3 Idiots: all is well.<\/em><\/p>\n

    That’s where I also realized what was wrong with the modern perception of marriage: that marriage’s “purpose” today seems to serve more as a “guarantee” than anything else. I mean I can understand the insecurities and concerns of people who do wish for marriage, but the fact that its presence or absence is enough to change something that should have been so fundamental<\/strong> and unquestioned<\/strong> to people who were<\/em> in love – I honestly find that disturbing.<\/p>\n

    Anyways, I was disappointed\/devastated for sure, but today, the I find solace in the consolation that if we were to imagine our 7 years together (7 year itch, it’s true, I tell ya! hehehe) as a simulation of being “married.” I definitely would’ve been the person who found out he could<\/em> stick it out with someone for better or worse. 1 <\/sup><\/a>Take note, even if I was the person who would be first to admit that I couldn’t “promise” it<\/span><\/span>