ON MARRIAGE
15th March 2004
This has always been a tricky aspect of human life. Marriage beliefs, laws, rules, conventions, superstitions, motives - and the departure from each and every one of these things - are the very stuff of much feeling both in fact and in fiction, both in prose, in poetry and on the stage and screen.
This article is not an expert work of reference or an attempt at what is fashionably termed 'marriage counselling.'
I make only two claims and one dogmatic statement.
The claims are 1) that an atheist view of marriage can be a wise one and 2) that I might be thought of as 'Mr National Average' on the grounds that one of my three marriages has ended in divorce ...... some forty-two years ago. A second (happy) marriage of mine ended in death in 1981 and the third (also a happy one) is likely to end only in death (probably mine considering that I am now in my eightieth year).
The traditional view of marriage - that it is a binding permanent monogamous relationship based on heterosexual love with the clear object of producing children - has now ceased to have much prominence - let alone dominance - in the here and now of the UK in 2004. One thing remains always true of marriage. Whatever people may do in the marital or quasi-marital arena it is simply not enough to be on speaking terms with one's partner. You need to be on listening terms : the distinction is important and learning it sums up my experiences and observations over the decades.
We are all prisoners of our culture and we are all, in some way or other, trying to escape from it. I have been brought up in a country of vestigial Christianity and I admit to owing much to that culture and I claim that we secularists have contributed to its long overdue liberalisation. My 'better world' is one in which candid friendship is the norm. The world we actually inhabit, here and now, is one in which the 'culture of victimhood and blame' is too prominent. Marriage is, as I see it, candid friendship in the sexual arena of life especially but not exclusively.
The one thing I assert dogmatically is that sex ought never to be separated from respect and affection : in connections other than these, sex is trivial, destructive, exploitative or just plain sordid.
The subject of marriage is now especially prominent in what is termed 'gay marriage'.
I have to say that the use of 'gay' as a short word for homosexual or 'same-sex' is a pity from the language usage point of view (rather as I find 'elderly' a silly way of saying 'old'). This is not a matter of homophobia on my part. I do not regard homosexuality as "an abomination" : I regard it as a natural, but minority, part of the human condition. I have a lesbian daughter - with whom I have the best of father/daughter relations and I have homosexual friends of both sorts. They are authentically people - so am I.
But I find that the term 'gay marriage' is unacceptable not only for the loss of the accustomed meaning of 'gay' but also because 'marriage' has historically strong heterosexual connotations which confuse an issue that ought to be kept as simple a possible
Homosexual respect and affection can be just as real, just as worthily human, as the hetero variety and those who wish to enter into a respectful and affectionate homo partnership should enjoy the same legal status as hetero couples - for such purposes as inheritance, insurance and all the other legal things that are the outward and visible aspects of inner commitment. Homo unions should be, and be seen to be, worthy of support and respect but to refer to this as 'gay marriage' simply gives handles for homophobes to cling to in the hope of retrieving an ideal world that never existed in the first place.
With regard to 'the moral law', that traditionalists wish us all to subscribe to, I think that where there is a law there is a loophole and where there is conviction there is cop-out. Where do we see this more clearly than in the case of wealthy Catholics who, wishing to terminate their marriages, can afford the costs of 'annulment' - the pretence that the marriage never was?
I am something of a traditionalist in that I think that the former system of 'matrimonial offences (in the UK these were cruelty, insanity desertion and adultery) was a good one because it made divorce by mutual consent quite easy. One party would sue the other and the one sued could choose not to defend the suit then, hey presto, the divorce was made absolute after six weeks of the provisional decree being made . It happens that my first marriage ended in this way. My then wife did not accuse me of cruelty or insanity but she would not go ahead on desertion. I think she felt that desertion implied that I would rather be unmarried than married to her. So she said "Adultery or nothing". Bearing in mind the sex ought never to be separated from respect and affection I did not see fit to embark upon an adulterous relationship just to satisfy my then wife's insistence. It was some years before I met, and formed a stable adulterous relationship with, the lady who became my second wife. Legally, that second marriage lasted for about twenty years and produced a son and a daughter, both now established adults - of whom I am very proud not least because of the way they coped with the death of their mother when they were young children - and who are devoted to their excellent stepmother, my third wife.
The modern way of instituting divorce in the UK now rests upon proof of incompatibility and this, in turn, entails much more than formal acknowledgement of an openly adulterous household but much delving into what is properly the personal business of those involved and of nobody else whatever.
On the question of 'sex is solely for procreation' I think that the traditionalists are wrong. Sex is a medium whereby affection can be offered and accepted and bearing children is properly a matter of informed and considered choice. One rather horrible aspect of the 'sex is solely for procreation' scenario is the predicament of a hetero couple who find that one or other of them is untreatably sterile. Is it not reasonable for the continuation of sexual lovemaking to be one of the many ways whereby such a couple can sustain each other at a time of, perhaps intense, disappointment.
Another aspect of the 'sex is solely for procreation' scenario is the simple fact that people's sexuality is quite likely to outlive their reproductive lives. Many old people are sexually attractive and they should not be ashamed of this and not deny each other the chance to act, respectfully and affectionately upon it.
Finally, I think that all marriages should be civil and if the couple wish to associate this civil legal step with some sort of ceremony or religious service - then so be it and good luck to them.
E.S..