In a new textbook, Exploring Marriages and Families, Portland State professor Karen Seccombe comes to the conclusion that marriage provides a robust set of economic, health and psychological benefits for gay and straight couples alike.
THE EMPHATIC OBSERVERIn a new textbook, Exploring Marriages and Families, Portland State professor Karen Seccombe comes to the conclusion that marriage provides a robust set of economic, health and psychological benefits for gay and straight couples alike.
Kayla Nguyen/VANGUARD STAFf
Based on a meta-analysis of academic research pertaining to marriage, Seccombe points to a well-established correlation between matrimony and financial security, low rates of depression and improved overall well-being.
So, basically, run outside and grab onto the nearest unsuspecting bystander because otherwise you’ll live a life of misery and loneliness, filled with money problems and general malaise.
Oh, and you’ll get sick a lot.
OK, that’s a bit dramatic, but I tire of our cultural obsession with matrimony. We place way too much weight on the vague, idealized concept of marriage—especially when it comes to the notion of “true love,” which is what most of us are socialized to expect from a life partner.
Let’s not forget that 50 percent of these supposedly blissful unions end in divorce: a process that ranks only second (right behind death of a spouse) on the Holmes and Rahe stress scale, which measures the negative health impact of various major life events, like the birth of a child or a job change.
All Americans enter the institution of marriage with this statistical shadow looming over them. A one-in-two shot at happiness. A virtual coin toss of matrimonial felicity.
With numbers like these, should we really play up the positive ramifications of matrimony? We should emphasize the heavy weight of such a promise—that the act of legally binding yourself to a fellow human forever and ever is kind of a big deal. And it doesn’t always work out.
Seccombe herself notes that only the ambiguously termed “good” marriages improve couples’ overall welfare. Even for those of us who have managed to jump on the culturally endorsed matrimonial bandwagon, happiness isn’t guaranteed.
This smacks of bitterness, but I neither wish to undermine the legitimacy of marriage as a social institution nor invalidate the undeniable happiness experienced by many couples as a result of their vows.
We ask too much of marriage. And books like Seccombe’s simply contribute to the societal pressure we all face—women in particular—to externalize our ultimate happiness. To find a soul mate, a so-called better half (the troubling implication being that we’re not whole to begin with).
How is anyone supposed to live up to that kind of pressure?
We need to lower our expectations. We need to accept marriage for what it is…and isn’t. Because by expecting perfection, we’re virtually ensuring disappointment.
Most of us manage to conveniently ignore the historical origins of matrimony as a means to clarify matters of paternity, legitimacy and property. Instead, we place this inherently practical social institution on a pedestal of utopian romance.
We shouldn’t put it on any pedestal. After all, marriage is (in the secular sense) simply a business arrangement. All the associated notions of true love and eternal bliss are entirely culturally constructed, as Seccombe herself points out:
“The idea we have of romantic love, that’s a relatively new concept, and it’s one that isn’t practiced a lot in the world.”
In fact, for many societies, marriage is and has always been a clear-cut matter of economic and social affiliation. A pragmatic union, though decidedly less exciting, may also be decidedly less messy.
Countries that view the institution of marriage in this utilitarian sense also tend to boast substantially lower divorce rates. India, though often deemed archaic according to a Western paradigm of matrimony, claims the lowest rate worldwide, while the U.S. holds a far less flattering position on the list.
We shouldn’t start arranging marriages, and I’m not talking about the culturally condoned sexism often present in such practices.
Western society’s matrimonial ideal might not be quite so ideal.
Love is love. And marriage is marriage. But by fundamentally tethering the two together, we’re asking for too much.
We should collectively stop saddling ourselves with the pressure of perfect matrimonial bliss. We should stop defaulting marriage to the status of universal life goal. For some of us, health, happiness and economic security aren’t necessarily found inside a wedding chapel.
