What’s the point of marriage?

After much deliberation the Church of England has now decreed that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and therefore single sex marriage services may not be held in the Church of England.  However, the blessing of civil marriages will be allowed. Needless to say, this will not please everyone.

But what is the point of marriage anyway?

To answer this question we need to lookback in time – a long way back, some thousands of years.

In the past, marriage endowed a number of things;

• The legitimisation of children – Children born within wedlock had certain privileges. They took the family name, they were automatically their parent’s heirs, they were entitled to the care and protection of their parents. Illegitimate children had none of these privileges. Worse than that, the informal description of bas***d became a synonym for someone who was untrustworthy.
•  Maintaining the blood line – In many societies maintaining the purity of the bloodline was important as families took great store in tracing their lineage back to patriarchal ancestors. This could only be done via legitimate children.
• Social interaction – in many societies, although men and women could freely associate with their own sex, while unmarried, interaction with the opposite sex was very controlled and limited.
• Intimacy – Intimate relations between a man and a woman were absolutely forbidden and for a woman in particular, breaking this norm would very likely ruin any chance of marriage in the future.
• Mutual care and companionship – In highly ordered societies, spontaneous shows of affection were discouraged outside marriage and in public. Care in the sense of looking after and providing for was an obligation of family. Thus parents had an obligation to care for their legitimate children until they became adults and children were expected to reciprocate when their parents became elderly.

This was the status quo for hundreds of generations and in Western society remained more or less unchanged until relatively recent times. But what about now?

Although not universally the case, predominantly in western society, children born out of wedlock have the same rights as those born after marriage. There may be some exceptions to this such as claims to inherited titles but on the whole illegitimate and legitimate children have equal status and rights and any stigma attached to illegitimacy has all but disappeared entirely. Similarly with bloodlines, most of us, even the most ardent followers of family trees, are generally indifferent to whether a branch is legitimate or illegitimate. In our society there is no limit whatsoever to social interaction between the sexes and indeed intimacy with multiple partners before marriage is now so common as to be considered the norm. Certainly a history of promiscuity is rarely a barrier to a future monogamous relationship whether by marriage or civil partnership. Although mutual care within a family environment remains widespread, there are state safeguards in place for when  these environments break down, so the imperative of using marriage as an assurance of support is less important than in the past.

So is marriage just a relic of the past and of no relevance to modern society?

Although some of the past imperatives for marriage no longer exist there is still a strong case for it.

The findings of extensive academic research does show that partnerships and families based on marriage are the most successful form of relationship in terms of the wellbeing of children and the longevity of the partnership. That is not to say that all marriages are successful or that they last ‘until death us do part’. In fact more than 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce at some stage but the odds are much better than unmarried partnerships. Our society also recognises the ‘sanctity of marriage’ and although marriage vows of exclusivity are broken, to do so is to break the norms that our society recognises are important.

For Christian’s a marriage involves a vow before witnesses and more importantly, before God that the couple intend to stay married until one of them dies. Not all Christian marriages survive but from the beginning the expectation is that they will. A civil ceremony will not invoke God or any deity but is as its name suggests simply a civil contract between two people. In UK law this contract may be between any two adults of whatever gender. The Christian Church does, however, not take its guidance let alone instruction from whatever norms society as a whole think are appropriate at any given time but from scripture (the Bible) from which it takes its authority.  An imperative from those scriptures is that we should treat one another as we would wish to be treated and we should certainly not be too hasty to condemn others or treat them with disdain. But that does not mean that we should subvert Bible teaching in doing so. There is no justification for or examples of same sex marriages throughout the 66 books of the Bible. A marriage by definition is a binding commitment between a man and a woman. The church and indeed all Christians should be compassionate towards a society that thinks differently but the Church of England is absolutely right in forbidding the holding of same sex marriages within its buildings and by its ministers.  Should civil marriages be blessed? Even this seems somewhat counterintuitive – if a marriage has been conducted in a manner that is unacceptable to the church then how can that same church offer a blessing for it? On the other hand, has the church the right to withhold a blessing for anyone who asks for it? –In the final analysis it is God who blesses or withholds a blessing not us. We are but His agents. On balance the Church of England seems to have got it right.