On Marriage
June 2020
Note: The metaphysical terminology used is purposefully inaccurate as to not confuse those not accustomed to them.
What is marriage? There are two major schools of thought on this question: the secular and the theistic. Genuinely ask yourself this question. The institution of marriage cannot be boiled down to a sentence.
Defining which school of thought one sits in is down to a separate question: Is divorce valid? Currently, roughly one-third of all marriages in the US end in divorce. It roughly follows, then, that one-third of the American populace finds divorce valid. Then, we must include more for the sake of those enterring their first marriage with whom that have already divorced – being a tacit endorsement of divorce. Then, also, include more for the sake of those yet unwed, yet condone the concept of divorce. Then, further still, include more for those happily wed but condone it. Divorce is very much a part of Modernist culture. It would be difficult to find someone yet untouched by divorce.
To find which school of thought you are in, while I am sure you have decided, I pose to you a scenario from my personal life: my father’s death.
My mother and father had separated, and ultimately divorced, somewhere between the years 2013 and 2014. He died of cancer not too many years later. In that time, he had married another woman, who warmly welcomed my brother and me into their home on many occasions. We learned that he was much wealthier than thought upon this death. Per the law, money in accounts with explicit clauses to be given to whomever upon death is carried out prior to what is totalled into someone’s estate. It so happened that a majority of this wealth was in such accounts, given to his second wife and not the estate. My father had written a will fully intending on dividing his wealth not as the law had done, fully intending on leaving more to his children than the law had done. It was then up to the discretion of his second wife to honor his will and divide the large sum given to her between her late husband’s children and herself, or to keep it. So, I ask you, was there any obligation to honor her late husband’s will?
The secular view of marriage would have it that there is no obligation. Why would she, a woman who had no part in my raising, not known me for the majority of the two decades I had lived up until that point, feel any obligation toward me? Why would she have any obligation toward my brother or me whatsoever? The logic of the secular school holds soundly. Marriage is a relationship recognized by the law. It is not bound by anything metaphysical. If we recognize marriage as something per the law of the land, it was that very law which provided her the majority of what was otherwise her late husband’s estate. If we assert that it is Earthly laws which govern marriage, and assert the rights of individuals in the guise of Modernism, there is no obligation. She is an individual with agency and can act accordingly, whether that be to honor the will or not, with what was granted to her via the same laws which govern the institution of marriage itself.
Many, I imagine, would still assert there is a moral obligation to honor the will. However, unwittingly, this position is mutually exclusive with endorsing the concept of divorce. Any final position on any issue is informed by a vast amount of necessary assertions to get to that point, no matter how simple one’s position is. Asserting the obligation exists also asserts many other necessary affirmations which are irreconcilable with the secular school. Conceding that there is a moral obligation implies that something greater happens in the moment of marriage than a license being fulfilled. If we assume that marriage is simply a ceremony asserting that a couple will simply continue their relationship indefinitely, then the relationship itself is unchanged. We have reasserted marriage in the secular sense. If seeing marriage in a purely Earthly sense, then what difference is an unwed and wed couple? What difference was the position of my father’s second wife relative to me before and after their marriage? Clearly, if asserting the obligation, her position relative to me has transcended some boundary in marrying my father. How, then, can divorce – the Earthly unbinding of marriage – unbind the metaphysical connection made? A connection already conceded to exist in simply stating that there is a moral obligation. Now, conceding that a connection beyond law is formed, what can undo it? A connection has been formed which transformed his second wife’s essence from a foreign to a familial bond. Familial bonds obligate the caring for subsequent generations. They cannot be severed. Much like what has been said, familial bonds can only be terminated inasmuch as their Earthly form. A brother, daughter, father, etc. can be ousted from the family – all communication and support lost – but will still exist as a brother, daughter, or father. This necessitates that familial ties are not merely a strong feeling of love, but that there exists a metaphysical connection.
However, perhaps unexpectedly, if we take this to its logical end, asserting the obligation inevitably asserts there is none. Asserting the obligation says that the act of marrying my father created a familial bond, being a sort of bond that cannot be broken, which then obligates her to fulfill the general burdens of coprosperity among family. That action welcomed her into the family. However, in establishing that marriage is the transformation in essence from a foreign to a familial bond, an impervious bond, then it is impossible that my father’s first marriage could have ever ended; thus, voiding the second marriage outright. The Earthly bond of my mother and father may have been severed, and a new one made in its place, but the metaphysical has not and still stands. This means that the second marriage only existed in the flesh, meaning that the essence of my father’s second wife could never have been transformed, meaning that her position in life relative to me had never changed.
Alternatively, one could say the obligation is derived from honoring the will of the dead. This, too, does not fit into the secular school. It invokes something spiritual. What bearing should those passed have on worldly matters? It asserts that something is obtained in birth that cannot be destroyed in death. This, however, is not the object of this essay. The point is made.
In establishing divorce as invalid, we have begun to answer the original question: What is marriage? Marriage is many things, but it primarily is the act of transforming one’s essence. From this act flows all its many qualities. It is the metaphysical binding of two individuals. As said, marriage transforms foreign bonds to familial, and from this familial bond are new ones created. A family member cast out is still what they were in relation to you. A son is still a son, even if disowned. The mother of your child still maintains that connection in divorce, which still links her to you. Marriage is the foundation for the creation of a family, and from the metaphysical bond flows others. If people were bricks, marriage is the mortar needed to lay the next layer.
It follows, then, that sex is inextricably linked to marriage, being the mode by which further metaphysical bonds are created. It is the mode by which the next layer of brick is laid. If marriage is the foundation of the family, sex is the fulfillment of the foundation’s purpose. From the inextricable link of marriage and sex flows why the act of consummation is as important as it is and the immorality of extramarital sex: both within and without marriage.
If the act of marriage and the act of sex are inextricably linked, then a marriage unconsummated is a marriage unfulfilled. This is why, even in religious tradition, unconsummated marriage is more easily dissolved than one consummated, for through consummation are two individuals wholly married. This link also comes to reassert that marriage is more than the act of marrying.
If the act of marriage and the act of sex are inextricably linked, then extramarital sex of any kind is immoral, both before and after marriage. This is because the act of sex is inextricably linked to procreation, being its primary function and the root of its link to marriage. Even in the use of contraceptives, sex can create life. The only way to circumvent this is by physically severing the use of sexual organs. Thus, just as logically unsound as it is to separate sex from its procreative faculties, it is morally unsound to do so. Given this, it is simultaneously just as logically and morally unsound to separate sex from marriage granted all that has been said.
If the act of marriage and the act of sex are inextricably linked, then homosexual marriage is also immoral and invalid. Granted procreative faculties cannot be separated from sex, and sex cannot be separated from marriage, then a marriage incapable of procreative faculties cannot be valid. That is not to say, however, that the infertile cannot be wholly married. While an individual may be rendered infertile, their sexual organs still retain their purpose. Carrying the inextricable links evermore specific, the sexual organs themselves cannot be rendered to use any other way than designed unless physically altered. Thus, while an infertile individual may not create life, they still fulfill the purpose of their procreative faculties rendered in their designed use.
So, if admitting that the object of sex is procreation, which it undoubtedly is, then the rest falls into place. Procreation is physically inseparable from the act of sex, which is the fulfillment of the purpose of marriage – being the foundation of a family. Thus, the three are inseparable from one another, and so follows the inseparability of consummation, as well as the immorality of extramarital sex and invalidity of homosexual marriage. If marriage, therefore, is inextricably linked to acts outside of its initial ceremony and creation in law, acts which create the family and inseparable bonds, then a similar bond is created between two wedded individuals that transcends any Earthly presence. Even in Earthly separation, two “formerly” bound individuals retain residual bonds.
Marriage is thus an institution that unites two individuals in an unbreakable fashion – a unity which transcends our worldly perception. This, by the nature of sex itself, sanctions the act of sex. By way of the ceremony of marriage, two individuals can now fulfill the marriage’s inseparable purpose. The next layer of brick is laid and awaits its mortar.
We are closer but have not entirely answered the question at hand.
A “whole” is something uniquely its own. It may have component parts, but those parts amassed form something recognized as an individual being. A car has many thousands of pieces. We simultaneously recognize each screw and pipe as wholly a screw or pipe, as well as the car as an individual, whole car. However, a car with its engine removed is still recognized as a car. It is inoperable and unable to fulfill the potential of a car, but it is a car nonetheless. Note that the engine is just the same. It is a composition of many components, each discernibly its own whole, yet referred to in total as “an engine”. But even removing the component which allows the car to realize its potential, it is still discernibly a car. Further, we can strip the doors and wheels. Yet, even a child could still point to it and name it a car. At what point does the car lose its “car-ness”? At what point was it gained? The same engine removed could be placed into a plastic model of a car. We would still recognize that this is not a car, even with a real engine. A toy car, appearing as one and able to move, is still qualified with the word “toy”. While the loss of wheels renders a car unable to act as a car, the car retains the potentiality of acting as a car, due to its many other components, were wheels reattached. The loss of the engine would do the same, but, due to its many other components, the car retains its potentiality to act as a car would. The loss of wheels, the engine, doors, and seats would not strip the car of its essence, but the loss of enough components would. A car, therefore, contains some essence of being a car. We can remove every ability of the car to act as a car, yet it still retains its being a car. So, a car must be the specific amalgamation of specific components. While the car possesses a purpose and potential, it is only realizable through its individual components. Its being a car is only derived through its components as well, while these components themselves are wholes.
In the marriage of two individuals is a new whole made. It is clear to see that each individual retains their bodily autonomy, but, if we have established their indivisible unity, then simultaneously are the wedded individuals whole and components of a whole. A marriage necessitates two individuals, and only then can it be worded as a singular abstract. However, we have established marriage as being inextricably linked to other components, such as sex. If the purpose of marriage is as the mortar, then this can only be realized in the specific amalgamation of all the specific components of marriage – all the things said thus far. Marriage is simultaneously many things yet one. It is whole. These components oriented any other way would render the “marriage” incapable of fulfilling itself. Therefore marriage cannot be anything but these components coexisting and rightly ordered to their own nature.