Marriage

Perhaps one of the most prevalent topics in philosophy and modern legality deals with marriage constructed as an 'institution'. Sir William Blackstone of the 18th century marked marriage as the 'civil death of women'. The status of a married woman was subsumed to the person hood of her husband's upon marriage. This was a system known as coverture. Eventually, the transition of person hood in marriage evolved from status to contract. We live in a century where marital literature has become consistent to legal vocabularies such as obligations, mutual agreement, offer and acceptance. Or maybe because I study law, I happen to encounter too much of this. But legal jargons often conjure in articles concerning divorce, such as benefits, prenuptial agreements, and access or custody. Anyhow, what was thought to bring equality and autonomy towards married women became a systematic form of discrimination to feminists everywhere.

The irony remains that marriage as a private practice is clandestinely oppressive. But when it is publicly acknowledged, not much has changed. In an article entitled Against Marriage and Motherhood by Claudia Card, the state as a third party in relationships poses a problematic condition.Card opposes marriage in its entirety claiming it to be an act of 'institutional slavery'. Now, clearly an abolitionist, pro-marriage, law student and 'undecided-unknown-unlabelled-feminist'  like me find this really fascinating. Of course Card blatantly puts out that she does not deny the rights of marriage.

Slavery requires an objectification of an individual, coercion and labor. I am curious about the objectification of individuals who engage in marriage. Do men and women become properties of...let's just say, the juristic entity, 'Marriage'? I mean, if corporations can be considered as legal persons, why not marriage? Legal ownership requires control, reaping of benefits, a right to sell and purchase, and a right to alienate others from enjoyment of property. Marriage controls a certain forms of behavior, and limits some social freedom. Marriages often result to a variety of health, pensions and dental coverage, consistent to the reaping of benefits. Can you sell and purchase individuals to marriage? Hmm. Maybe you'd require a next-friend in court to represent on behalf of Marriage, to buy and sell people to Marriage (think governments, maybe? I don't know). And finally, Marriage can alienate individuals from others to exclusively enjoy Marriage... Pardon my dirty thoughts but...uh, 'sexytime' as alienation??

Claudia Card claims we are all pressured to conform to the norms of society by engaging in marriage.  Thus, pressure is the coercion component, so I suppose 'slavery' in an invisible sense. Conformity is an interesting notion to ponder about. Morality requires conformity as a social cohesion. So if marriage constitutes as a form of conformity, does that make us who believe in marriage as also 'enslaved' to morality? Personally, morality defines social structures and behaviors. Deviation of the norm is acceptable, unless it infringes upon the rights of another (consistent to John Stuart Mill's Principle of Harm). Back to marriage as pressured, individuals make an autonomous and rational decision prior to being married. If a couple marries because of 'societal coercion', then why is marriage to blame and labelled as 'slavery' when the focal root of pressure is really 'society'?

Finally, labour in marriage is the notion of couples working hard to sustain marriage. The economic, emotional, physical, intellectual contributions to maintaining the structure of this relationship. The hope in this lies in the pursuit of happiness.

Marriage from Blackstonian analogy of civil death in status to contractual. I see a lot of materialism in marriage constructed as an institution. I honestly believe humanity has forgotten what love really means from the depictions of marriage as something economical and status-related. Maybe Claudia Card captured the empirical aspects, but I truly believe marriage goes beyond the physical realm. You need faith to know what love means. Faith is metaphysical, and so is love. Neither are material. So maybe we've loss touch with the spiritual essence in marriage? Maybe that's why divorce rates are so high! Even Slavoj Zizek said something along the lines of the media (as a source of the material) has distorted the perception of 'true love' as something unrealistic.

Contract law has taught me that humans are interconnected beings, always engaging in some form of relationship. Take a step further, and the interconnection we share with those around us in our daily activity contributes to a form of happiness. The connection we share with a significant other, provides us with a sense of altruism and partnership That when we feel the most solitary and lonesome in certain occasions, we have someone to find comfort in. I know for sure that spiritual fulfillment is not a social construct.

The saying goes: "Only a life lived for others is worth living"-Albert Einstein.
Take it from the man known to us as a genius. I'm sure such connotation does not mean slavery at the extreme end, but rather a balanced in understanding the self and understanding the other...and building mutuality in love.

I believe, humanity is not instinctively selfish. Probably just misguided.

We each have a purpose....
Whatever that may be for you, I hope find find eternal love and get there.

Yeah...I'm ranting.