A recent Time Magazine/Pew Research Center Poll revealed 39 percent of respondents indicated they felt marriage is becoming obsolete. In a similar poll in 1978, just 28 percent agreed with that sentiment.
When the current poll separated out opinions based on the respondent’s education, we discovered of the college educated only 27 percent believed marriage was no longer important.
For those with only a high school education or less, 45 percent believed marriage was obsolete, and the number was 44 percent among African-Americans and those people who are between the ages of 18 to 29.
Numerous opinions have been floated as to what the Time/Pew research means for our society. Some wonder what this social phenomenon might mean for children born in unmarried households. Others observe this development reveals a breakdown in society’s moral structure. Many reason it simply reveals a change in social mores and carries no significant meaning.
I'm left wondering what this change in attitude toward what was once called the institution of marriage says about other circumstances in our society. Is the change a symptom for a greater society malady, or is it just a variation on a theme with little or no importance?
A little history of marriage might help before we try to understand what the change in attitude about marriage signifies. Historically, marriage in the West - in spite of the romantic images that surround its place in our minds, hearts and world - was essentially a business, financial and moral arrangement that affected the transfer of property. There were religious factors which provided a moral framework for governing sexual relations in society.
Marriage provided an economic and a moral foundation for the culture. It also provided some assurance women and children would be cared for and protected. It should be noted in the traditional marriage ceremony in the West, the bride’s father delivered his daughter to the husband as a sign that one caretaker and owner of the property was being exchanged for another. The wife and her belongings now belonged to the husband.
According to Michael M. Sheehan and James K. Farge in 'Marriage, Family and Law in Medieval Europe: Collected Studies,' marriage for medieval peasants was a property issue arranged by the lords of the manor. Marriage was not an institution entered into by the serf on his or her own volition. This is not to say that there was not love, companionship, the joy of sex, and even children born to the poor of feudal Europe. What it means is marriage – and being married – was not an important issue for the people on the land. It was important essentially for those who had a stake in the land and its future.
Entering into marriage was what people did when they had a future. Envisioning a future for yourself – and for your family – implied a life of investment. Property needed to be acquired. Alliances with other families needed to be established. Responsibility for dependents needed to be assured. All of these tasks were, and are, required if a successful future was to be created. Marriage was a significant part of the plan. If you didn’t believe you had a future, marriage was not an important part of your life.
In the United States when the institution of slavery flourished in the South, William Goodell in 'The American Slave Code in Theory and Practice' notes a judicial decision from 1853 says, “the slave has no rights. Of course he, or she, cannot have the rights of a husband or a wife. The slave is a chattel, and chattels do not marry. ‘The slave is not ranked among sentient beings, but among things,’ and things are not married.”
Many slave owners did encourage loose sexual unions and even marriages among their slaves in order to increase their property value. Some even promised freedom to women who bore 15 children or more. Slaves in America, like peasants in medieval Europe, did fall in love, enjoy companionship, children and sexual relations, but in having little or no stake in the future, marriage, as we understand it, did not have a high priority in the slave’s life. The realization that families – men, women and children – could be separated at the slave owner’s discretion in order to enhance his finances provided little incentive for the appreciation of marriage among the slaves.
Marriage in medieval Europe and in the slave system of the United States, may shed some light on the meaning of the Time Magazine/Pew Research Center Poll. It may just be the well-educated, having a stake in the future, values marriage, while those without a higher education do not attach as much importance to it. It may also suggest that, even after 150 years since Emancipation, African-American culture in the U.S/ has a precarious relationship with the institutions of marriage. Those who have not attained a significant stake in the future do not have as great a respect for marriage as do those who have such a stake.
The poll also suggests significant numbers of younger people in general do not view marriage as very important. I wonder whether this fact is symptomatic of a growing sense fewer and fewer young people believe they have a future?
We live in a society in which the well-to-do are becoming more and more prosperous even as their numbers are growing smaller and smaller. At the same time, the poor are becoming poorer, and the vast middle class of the 20th century are slipping into their ranks. In a society where fewer people believe they have a future, it isn't surprising they also have less respect for the institution of marriage.
It also is interesting to note, in the midst of these changes in attitude about the importance of marriage, gays and lesbians are insisting on the right to marry. There is, of course, the civil rights issue. It is understandable a minority, who until recently felt the need to “hide in the closet,” would now demand equal treatment before the law and in society. It is not surprising they would do so with a sense of hope for the future as they have a stake in the future along with a stake in the institution of marriage.
As we ponder the meaning and significance of the changing attitudes about marriage, we ought to center our attention on creating a society in which all members have a stake in the future.
- Thomas Raphael-Nakos
++++++++++++++++++
Thomas Raphael-Nakos grew up in Connecticut, holds a bachelor of arts degree in history from Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, and a master of divinity degree from the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary. He has been a social worker in Louisiana and Iowa, and is a retired United Methodist minister.
