There was an opinion piece in the NY Times
earlier this week about a recently published report from Pew Research on
marriage statistics in the United States.[i] In 2018, the year being reported, the number
of marriages reached a record low. That was pre-pandemic and likely something
more than the result of interrupted plans. It raises the question whether
Justice Anthony Kennedy's characterization of marriage, as "a keystone of
the Nation’s social order"[ii]
is becoming less accurate. Social expectations that center adult life around
marriage have been waning for decades.
As an institution and support for the
social order, marriage has evolved over the years. For most of human history it
was very much an economic matter, a means of both producing laborers and sharing
labor to boost the productivity of a household and extended family. Marriage
was often a vehicle for cementing power and amalgamating wealth. Positive emotional connections were not
excluded from the institution, but they were fortuitous rather than
foundational. The idea of companionate marriage, where complicity,
communication and support between spouses are considered central to the relationship,
rather than purely material matters, is an early 20th century
phenomenon.
Marriage liturgies in earlier Prayerbooks
mention "mutual society, help and comfort"[iii]
among the reasons for marriage, but this strait-laced characterization of
marital bliss is third in the list behind the economic and socially regulatory
aspects of marriage as it has existed for most of human history. The words of
these older ceremonies are a far cry from the "mutual joy" or the
"seal upon hearts, mantle about shoulders and crown upon foreheads"
that entered the language of the Episcopal Church's marriage liturgy in the
1970s.
But in an era and in a segment of
society in which marriage is not a requirement for social acceptability or the
ordinary interactions of friendship and employment, and at a point in history when it may be
turning toward obsolescence, why marry? Marriage continues to confer legal and
economic benefits, but it imposes corresponding constraints. The latter are a
good part of the reason why the marriage ceremony begins with the advice that
marriage is not to be entered into lightly or unadvisedly. If recent legal
opinions and the policy changes of foresighted employers are any indication,
the legal advantages may not be a factor for much longer.
But people are still getting married. Greg
and Erick's marriage is not an historic landmark, but it is part of an historic
extension of the right and freedom to marry that has only been fully in force
for a little more than five years. In the majority opinion that opened the way
to full marriage equality in the United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy refers
to the transcendent purpose and importance of marriage its "promised
nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life."
He goes on to say that "its dynamic allows two people to find a life that
could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two
persons." He goes on to say, "rising from the most basic human needs,
marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations."[iv]
Can
these ideals be realized or even pursued in a lifelong relationship that is not
bound by the covenant or sacramental nature of marriage? I am certain such
examples exist, so again, why marry?
Marriage is different in its
requirement for public declaration of the promises. There must be witnesses to
the vows and they are documented both in religious and secular records.
Religious marriages typically call on the assembled community to pledge their
support to the couple. The prayers for the couple which you will hear shortly,
point toward the power of witnessing marriage vows to serve as a reminder to those
present of the promises they have made. The prayers express the hope that our
presence today as Erick and Greg make their vows will strengthen all of our
commitments to such promises. The marriage blessing is one of the handful of
overt descriptions in our church's liturgical expression of the bonds that
unite the living to the dead. In solemnizing the union of two persons,
religious marriage reminds us of an ideal common life of humanity that
transcends social order and good governance.
Marriage in a religious setting is an
event in which two people set out publicly, together, to challenge the odds.
They vow to persevere together in the face of human nature and the harsh
realities of life on earth with God's help and the support of those who love
them. The effort of meeting that challenge requires what Justice William O.
Douglas described as sacred intimacy, "an association that promotes a way
of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral
loyalty, not commercial or social."[v] Perhaps
we could say that marriage is a way of mutual self-definition that, with God's
help, allows for and pledges endurance beyond rightful and reasonable
differences of opinion, ingrained habit and temperament, and profound if
divergent commitments, vocations and passions, all the things that enrich the
individual lives of marriage partners while holding them in in an ever-growing
relationship that is greater than either of them.
Greg and Erick, as you embark upon
that challenge and adventure, we wish you joy in your life together.
