On Shorebread, we’ve explored the beauty of the wedding ceremony, from the dress to the venue, to the flowers, and beyond. But beneath the pomp and circumstance of the ceremony and ensuing party, the binding tradition of two souls joined as one under the eyes of the law and the Almighty—one question still remains. Why do we really marry?
It had to start somewhere, right? Elizabeth Gilbert who beautifully chronicled her discovery of self after divorce—by way of sojourns in Italy, India, and Indonesia in her memoir, Eat, Pray, Love—later explored this very question in a second book, Committed. On a different journey of discovery, one seemingly wrought with ambivalence and even aversion toward the institution she was once a part of, Gilbert educated herself on the history of marriage. This, in order to come to terms with marrying the man she fell in love with while on her previous post-divorce journey.
The modern depiction of marriage didn’t really satisfy Gilbert. We view marriage as the joining of two individuals who love one another—that’s at least the emotional reasoning. Religion tells us that marriage is the joining of two souls in the eyes of God, which allows the consummation of a relationship, resulting in the ultimate goal of procreation. Yet another factor—a legal one—dictates property rights and benefits ranging from healthcare to who has final say on a loved one’s last wishes. Even in modern times, marriage is much more complicated than the simple emotions that drive the decision—there’s the business side of things too.
Back in the day, unions were much more businesslike—if not a little disturbing. In ancient times, members of the ruling class were often betrothed to each other in attempts to keep the land and the power within the same family. This was the case with the Macedonians—the familial line of Cleopatra. The famous Egyptian Queen was actually married to a younger brother. This wasn’t a marriage with a physical component, at least that’s how the story goes—and certainly not one of love, since her brother tried to have her off’d several times; that was the family way in the quest for power. This same pattern repeats in Medieval Europe when members of the aristocracy often married cousins—this practice certainly gives a rather twisted meaning to “keeping it in the family.”
Marriage also had a practical component. In the very early days, it was often simply for survival—the joining together to be part of a clan for protection. And it certainly didn’t always have the “sacred” component—a term often thrown around in modern times. In fact, in ancient Rome, men were permitted by law to marry one another. Aside from what the law stated, many religions also recognized the union of one woman to several men, or one man to several women.
Perhaps most surprising is the way marriage was viewed by early Christians. In the early centuries of the religion, even those deemed as Saints preached that marriage should be avoided. They were after the higher power. Expecting the world to potentially end at any moment, they weren’t concerned with procreating for the sake of building their religion; they were interested in getting into heaven, and the business associated with marriage…women, children, and the act that brought the two together wasn’t viewed as very holy. Nuns and priests are modern-day examples of the way early Christians lived—married essentially, to the church.
The church would eventually come to rule over marriages in the thirteenth century—with the Pope requiring the church to oversee all marriages, and outlawing divorce until the royals made it a regular practice, centuries later.
In more recent times, many countries operated under a sort of class system—people, especially the wealthy, had to marry someone equal to their status—we can thank this part of history for all those Victorian novels. A little later, the science of Eugenics, popular in Europe during the first World War, and later in the States in the 1930’s, this belief of supremacy eventually lead in part, to World War II. But in a lessened and more innocent form, it also represented the sign of the times amongst many people of a blended world—you married your own kind. This was evident in the United States amongst the immigrant population–Italians married Italians, Irish married Irish, and so on.
Even more so than a custom adopted as simply something society deemed appropriate, were marriages that were downright illegal. Interracial marriage in our very recent past, was not only frowned upon, it was also upheld as wrong, and not permissible by the laws of the land. It wasn’t until June 12, 1967, when a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Virginia statute barring whites from marrying non-whites, that interracial marriage was finally accepted by law.
This acceptance is much akin to the political stirrings of our current times. Delaware recently passed Civil Unions—not “marriage” of gay couples, per se—rather terminology separating the “sacred” name from the more progressive ruling. Perhaps the wording made the passing of the law easier, but whatever the reasoning, gay couples are now enjoying the same rights guaranteed to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the law, and on a larger scale, acceptance of society as a whole.
What history teaches us about marriage isn’t that it’s sanctified, rather that it’s subjective—everything from basic human survival to the whims of the ruling class and their quest for power, have put their spin on things. What will this part of history say about marriage? Will this be the generation defined by the right to love freely regardless of race, class, or sexual orientation, or the one that makes boundaries again defined? One thing is certain…marriage is really a sign of the times.
