Marriage - 'tis a splendid thing when it works and an absolute nightmare when it ends in a divorce. No wonder the answer to the question, “Why is divorce so expensive?” is, “Because it’s worth it!”
Now I personally don’t have such a dark and dismal view of marriage. My own is wonderful, thankyouverymuch. Mrs.QS tells me she feels the same way and I have no reason to doubt her. I have every intention of staying with her all our days and she feels the same. We’re fortunate I guess.
But let’s get back to the “Until death do us part” part. Why so? Who decided that this should be so and more importantly why?
Should marriage be a liftime partnership? I mean, people grow and change. Some friendships last while other whither and die. People are as likely to grow apart as they are to grow old together. The divorce rate, often quoted at around the 50% mark, seems to bear that out. Well, alright, some of the divorce figures are a reflection of the same people getting divorced more than once but still, they do so because they could not make it work.
So why until death? Why not just before the moment one of us is forced to kill the another?
If the rate of success in marriage is 1 in 2, why put such frightfully high expectations on a union that is so risky. Imagine if insurance companies would be asked to provide a policy on marriages. The premiums would be prohibitive.
I guess what I’m awkwardly stuggling towards is; will marriage one day become an obsolete abstract to be replaced by a union with some more realistic expectations?
Yeah, not a pretty picture to be sure. But I don’t see how the original text has had any positive effect in helping marriages stay together.
The sentiment is nice but the results are roughly equal to the odds at a Vegas black jack table (note: I don’t gamble but I hear they are about equally split between proficient gambler and the house.)
If the average student gets C’s, shouldn’t we just abolish A’s and B’s and thus eliminate higher expectations?
The vow would be worthless without “till death do us part.” It is a goal to strive for, not just words thrown in to be ignored at whim. The point of divorce is that the marriage vows – including “till death do us part” – have failed. What’s the point of making a solemn promise if it can be revoked at any time with no repercussions?
But marriage is not a test… though it can be trying at times. Marriage is not an exam which, if you pass, gets you a free pass into heaven or a set of steak knives.
The vow to love and honour (nix the obey stuff) is no more trivial if you junk the 'til death part. Is it?
Isn’t in sickness and in health a good enough requirement? I have a little trouble with or for worse as well. I mean, what if it gets really bad, like abusive, neglectful or adulterous? Isn’t until death kind of an insult to injury at that point?
But in that case the other person has already broken the vows to love, honor, and cherish. The marriage vow is a two-way proposition – each person promises to keep the relationship healthy. And we haven’t even touched on the importance of choosing the right person in the first place. If he was an abuser or she was an adulterer before the marriage, it’s a good bet that the vows aren’t going to change that. The idea is that both people go into the marriage intending it to last their whole lives. Unfortunately, too few couples really understand what that means, IMHO.
Like most have said earlier, vows are something you both agree too. Most people have an idea of what they are marrying into before the marraige even begins. Some people say they can change their mate with time, but if you think you can change someone from an abusive and violent state, or simple think you can look past their faults keeping the good in mind? If so, you’ve already set yourself up for a fall. If anything is upsetting, why, “Until death do us part”? If I loved you enough to marry you, I don’t want to just have it end when I’m dead. For those that believe in a Heaven or Plain of enlightenment, if I die and get there, I wanna know that this union will hold till we are together again. That’s the selfish person in me, but that’s what bothers me.
I mean, if the unfortunate should happen to one of us, God forbid, do you really want the person you love with all your heart finding love with someone else? And when their time comes up, do they see us with open arms, or with a look of,“Oh…You. Hmm, I used to love you, but I want to be with Bob” Ouch, right? Anywho, marraige is a wonderful thing, especially since I’ve recently married. But I knew what I was getting into when I married her, as she did me.
But thats enough of my ramble. Thanks
Seems to me far too many people don’t take those vows seriously as it is, we hardly need to codify it.
I am a “free-thinker”, if you will, in virtually any area you can name. But one thing I feel strongly about is marriage. Far too many people enter into it with the idea that divorce is an easy way out if things get icky. Which disgusts me. Marriage should be, can be, a really beautiful thing: a ** commitment ** to make your relationship with another person your priority in life, be willing to fight for it, work on it, and do what it takes to be and stay good friends and partners throughout life. What a great thing!
Of course there are marriages that should end, starting with abusive ones. But too many people get married too casually, and divorce just as casually, and they sully marriage in the process. Christie Brinkley is one that comes to mind. Elizabeth Taylor is another.
I am engaged for the second time. The first one I broke off when I realize I loved the idea of a wedding, but didn’t care much for the marriage that would follow. I have been engaged to Pump Action Gerbil for three years now, and we were together 3 years before that. By the time we actually walk down the aisle, we’ll probably have been together for 10. We both mean it. We have many times discussed, in various ways, the fact that the end for us will be one of our deaths. And unless you really feel that is true in your gut, you shouldn’t marry.
One thing I have noticed at recent weddings I have attended is a tendency for people to write thier own vows or to at least select their own vows fomr a book or web site with a variety of choices (this is usually the better route, IMHO. Your need plumbing done, get a plumber. You need writing done, get a writer. But I digress). Overall, I approve of this approach because it means that people can actualy vow to do what is important to them. Furthermore, the act of sitting down and figuring out wedding vows together probably forces many couples to articulate thier expectations of what marrige means–something that is pretty important in a society where people from very different backgrounds often get hitched. If you don’t want to put a “til death do us part” thing on the end, then don’t.
For example, my husband and I got married at the courthouse, so we got the standard vows. However, had we writen the vows I suspect he would have edited all refrences to “love” out of his, because he thinks the word is over used and has become terribly cliched. To do so would have appaled many people, I am sure, but it is he and I’s marrige and we define it on our own terms. Marrige shouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all proposition, and we shouldn’t have any line that is required–even socially–to be in the vows.
And hell, if there are people out there that want to go the sci-fi route and have limited contract marriges that have to be renewed every five years, more power to you. Just not my cup of tea.
I suppose the crux of my argument is - Though a majority of people getting married have every intention to stay together until the end of their days (at least I hope this is the case), statistics on divorce do not bear that out. Whatever else they had to do to convice themselves that they are marrying the “right” person, at that moment in time, the vow of “Until death do us part” is their highest and most ideal aspiration for the future.
But after the honeymoon period, challenges of real life set in. Given that about half the married couples can’t make a go of it for any number of reasons, these traditional vows are cheapened for those that do make a go of it. “So what?”, you’d say, “Plenty of people divirce and re-marry for the second or third time and have the last be their ‘til death’ marriage.” And you’d be right! I personally know people like that. Still, the expectation for their first mariage(s) was far too unrealistic and perhaps through no fault of their own. They simply grew apart. Their needs/wants/priorities changed. It happens. It’s a result of the human condition.
Since nobody can predict with any high degree of certainty who is or is not going to stay together until death, why set up this expectation in the first place? Sure it’s romantic and ideal, but is it practical? Is it even realistic? I’d venture a guess that those couples for whom a happy life together until death is really in the cards are going to stay together whether their vows included the “Until death do us part” clause or not. It seems to have absolutely no beneficial bearing on couples who just aren’t meant to be together in a lifelong marriage.
I realize I may be picking nits here, but I do think that the traditional vows - however sentimental they may be - are hopelessly inadequate for todays reality of marriage (in general) in our society. They were very likely quite contrary to the reality of marriages in days of yor as well, except back then church and society played a much more integral part in pressuring a couple to stay together despite of how unhappy they made one another.
When Ms.QS and I were married we wrote our own vows. Well, we didn’t exactly write them ourselves. We gathered them from various sources. Edited them to suit our sentiments and expectations of what a marriage and a life long partnership meant to us. It seemed like the right thing to do before making a life long commitment.
Now I’m not suggesting that this is what everyone has to do but at the same time, if more people actually put some thought into what the words in their vows really mean, perhaps there would be a general rise in awareness of what a marriage rally means to the two individuals. If nothing else, perhaps it would be a strengthening exercise for life long partners to be.
How exactly? I’ve never understood this attitude about “sullying marriage” or “ruining marriage.” Next month, Leigh-Anne and I will celebrate 10 years of marriage, and it is not in any way sullied or enhanced by how many times or for how long Elizabeth Taylor or anyone else has been married. The value in our marriage comes from how much we love each other, not from how total strangers conduct their relationships. The only marriages they’re sullying are their own.
QuickSilver, I wish I could come up with a link, but a few years ago I read an article by a social scientist speculating that, because of increased lifespans and cultural changes, at some point in the future our culture may find itself eliminating the concept of lifelong marriage. The gist was that as people get older, their needs and lifestyles change, and they may find themselves getting married for long periods of their lives to different partners. It was really an interesting idea, similar to what you’re talking about here.
QuickSilver, I would suppose that the “till death do us part” comes from the Book of Common Prayer. Most religions want you in it for the long haul, to take care of the children and each other - but you are correct in noting that life spans and society are changing.
I personally don’t like the standard vows - too many conditions. I was married in a Quaker meeting, and their vows are, to me, pure and distilled.
“In the presence of (God/Spirit) and these our friends, I take thee (state spouse’s name) to be my (wife/husband) promising with Divine assistance to be unto you a loving and faithful (husband/wife) so long as we both shall live.”
That’s it. Loving and faithful. Covers everything.
I also dislike cutsey vows that include so many conditions and statements (like “promising to do the crossword with you”) and I especially distrust any vow that includes the phrase “so long as we both shall love”. That’s such an easy out.
So where is the line drawn between death and incompatibility? Can we draw it or is it too subjective? I know many people who have divorced because they couldn’t make a go of it. I also know many more people who are definitely going the distance. Maybe what we need is something between singlehood and marriage that would convey the legal benefits to people who cohabitat but doesn’t require the same effort to dissolve it. Call it a learner’s permit. That would save ‘marriage’ for those who really want to do it.
I think that stoid’s statement that marriage (should be)
is well put. People and expecially celebrities who treat mariage cavelairly are ruining marriage to the extent that they influence others to take a (similar) view of marriage as being disposable. This makes people less committed to trying to make the relationship work, as opposed to just chucking it and finding something better. If you or your spouse is influenced in this manner, it has a detrimental effect on your marriage.
I see where you are going with this and the only thing I can offer as a retort is that some people are more easily influenced than others. Of course the high rate of divorce today has made divorce itself less taboo then say 50 years ago (let alone 100, 200 etc…). But does that mean that people were happier in marriage 50 years ago? Probably not. They just stayed together for the kids, etc…
I personally (like many others) remain unaffected by what Hollywood stars do or do not do in their marriage. To suggest that the average couple’s marriage outlook is so heavily influenced by Hollywood paints a very bleak picture indeed. I hope it is not so. Besides, there are plenty of Hollywood mariages that seem to be withstanding the test of time… now if I could just think of one or two… Hanks…ummmm… Spielbergs… give me a minute…(Mel)Gibsons…
Is that enough? My brain hurts…
Also, epeepunk wrote:
Do you mean something akin to common-law marriages?
Well sure, if you think there’s a need for some completely pointless formalisation of a commitment that doesn’t actually include any commitment, then go ahead, invent it, I won’t try to stop you, but don’t call it marriage, because that’s not what it would be.
I’m reminded of what the minister said at my own wedding; he pointed out that the marriage vows (here in the UK at least) require the partners to say ‘I WILL’, not 'I do’
I intended that last comment as a reflection of my views toward the OP question of whether we should dilute the idea of marriage, not as a personal attack on your own decision to formulate your own vows.
I still maintain however, that marriage represents an ideal, if we feel we can’t possibly live up to that ideal, then we shouldn’t try; it’s my feeling that some people aren’t suited to marriage and so shouldn’t attempt it.