Friday, July 10, 2009

Marriage: Is it Bliss, Obsolete--or merely the Agony of Deceit

MSNBC had the most interesting discussion this morning about the 21st Century meaning and purpose of marriage. Is it bliss, obsolete, or just deceit? In science we talk about something called the null hypothesis-which defined is "neither..." So what is its meaning and/or purpose?

On my Facebook page, this morning I said the following: "You have to give it to MSNBC! Where else on cable news could you get coverage on Obama meeting with the Pope while a discussion is going on about 'Gay Lifestyle vs. Gay Life', the "uselessness" of marriage in the 21st Century--with a great picture of Obama checking out "de young boom boom" of one of the Italian beauty "queens"....FABULOUS imitation of life, love and the pursuit of happiness with a hint of "sacrament"..."

The 21st Century marriage statistics are these: 40% to 50% of marriages end in divorce and 6.4 million Americans as of 2007 prefer to, and do, live together as opposed to being bound and married. It is reported that most marriages these days do not last more than 20 years. Moreover, the incidence of those choosing "not" to be married is on the rise. Are we looking at a new definition of "marriage" in the 21st Century? Or is it just the same old thing.

The Ozzie and Harriet example of marriage that dictated the American road map to marital bliss is what many of us 35 to 55 somethings grew up observing. Two parents, who "stayed" together, because somehow the paper they signed in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s had invisible "glue," which could not, or more likely, should not, be broken because, well Ozzie and Harriet, along with the Pope and Jesus somehow said, "God Forbid." But, did God really forbid?

Let's look at this.

We all know Solomon was a great man in the Bible, and he had concubines. David was even greater, and he wanted Bathsheba so, he had Bathsheba's husband killed in battle. Let's look at Lot who slept with his two daughters and bore his next generation. BUT What about Abraham? THE Mac Daddy. Sarah, his wife, who got the "Word," from God told Abraham to sleep with her maid servant, Hagar, because--although she got the Word from God--she did not believe Him or that her 90 year old body could conceive. So, Abraham gladly obeyed, enjoyed some bliss with his wife's maid servant, Hagar, and produced Ishmael--the father of Islam. And, then, Sarah conceived and together they produced, Isiah--the father of Israel. But God really did forbid.....the dissolution of marriage. Or, did He? And, if we are supposed to be married with one partner, what do we say to Paul in the new testament who wrote all those lovely "tales" telling women to be their husbands, "servants"--even though he, himself had a "thorn in his own side and n e v e r married. Or, God forbid, Mary, who was pregnant before she got married to Joseph with a child from the "Divine baby Daddy,"--God.

Forget the Bible, the Torah, the Koran...lets look at reality.

One commentator said on MSNBC this morning, "maybe marriage should be like a work contract, after 5 years it can be terminated." Legally, marriage IS a contract. If we are to look at it strictly through the laws of contract then we would understand that with each contract there is something called mutual assent. In lay terms, " a mutual meeting of the minds." In fact, a "mirror" image of the minds. But how realistic is that? Today is a beautiful day, to me...and to someone else the clouds in the sky could signal quite the opposite. One thing we could mutually agree upon regarding this 80 degree, sun with cloud day would be that it isn't raining. However, while we may agree it is not raining, do we really agree that it is a nice day? Isn't marriage something like this too? And, if it is, is there truly mutuality of assent once that paper is signed? Have we really worked out all of the kinks?

Two people fall, "in love." They have that giddy feeling. They enjoy each other's company, and then say--hey let's do this for the rest of our lives. Do what? Have a giddy feeling? What happens when the rubber hits the road and you both walk outside on a sunny day with some clouds in the sky and you look at each other and the husband says, "honey, there are clouds in the sky," while the wife says, "what a beautiful day!" Is there still mutuality of assent, a meeting of the minds, a giddy feeling....albeit, love?

Oh, let me be more 21st century about this. Do you really think that waking up to the same person for 50 years doesn't get a little tedious? Today, the camera's caught President Obama "checking out" the butt of a beauty queen in Italy. We all know Michelle has got "back," but, President OB was taking a look. Is there anything wrong with that? Or, what about Governor Sanford, who said his paramour in Argentina was his 'soul" mate, but he would remain faithful to his wife and try to "work things out." Isn't this just par for the course? Or do we take exception and use the posit by Ozzie and Harriet and say "no, no no no..."

What many of us now realize is this--marriage is considered a contract because it is work. Its easy to be single. My single friends generally do not have gray hair and wrinkles. Many still have their physiques and figures and they come and go as they please. Waking up to the same face, other than your own, every day, is an option--kind of like getting leather seats or cloth in your new Volvo. Many of my single friends grew up in homes where their parents lived, hopelessly, under the fiction of the "marital bliss" rule theorized by the writers of Ozzie and Harriet --which somehow meant--"grin and bare it." Many of us who were born during the turbulent, free wielding times of the mid 20th century where women burned their bras, and marijuana flowed freely, looked at our parent's marriage example and said...."me too?"--with a very pained grimace.

The 21st Century presents us with the question: "whether marriage should somehow be reshaped and reinterpreted to "fit" within the prescripts of the new day and age." However, are we really doing anything any differently than we have ever done from ancient or Biblical times to the present. In the Bible you had adultery, single parents, single people--throughout history for those who do not look to the Bible for anything--we have had adultery, single parents, single people...What is there to define? It is what it is.

Marriage is whatever you want to or don't want to make it. Faithful, fine. Adulterous, fine. Single, fine. Straight, fine. Gay, with a "thorn" in your side, fine. Living together, fine. Marriage should be whatever you make it in your head and heart. The minute it is defined, is the minute you need to question your original motivation in order to determine whether there was any mutual assent at the time of the contract. If not, then it may not be a breach because the two of you were NEVER on the same page.

So, in answer to the question...I choose the null hypothesis...Marriage is neither.

No comments:

Post a Comment