The Growing Movement Against Marriage

Lately it seems that the movement against marriage--Oprah, Susan Sarandon, Maria Bello, and Angelina Jolie are proud members-- is gaining momentum. Here a writer for The Guardian explains why she remains obstinately opposed to the institution:

Forced to unpack my antipathy, I would cite four po-faced motives: atheism; feminism; a loathing of state and/or public intervention in matters I deem private; and something more oddball regarding the close-down of narrative possibility. One reason would be enough to quash any Doris Day ambition; the four together topple into each other like spinsterish dominos.

My stance may be at the more neurotic, proposing-as-a-dumping-offence extreme, but I am by no means alone in my disinclination towards getting hitched. Rates of marriage in Britain - 283,730 in 2005 - are at their lowest since 1896. Given the ebb and flow of population, this is the most paltry scoring since records began almost 150 years ago. Divorce statistics may have fallen (there being fewer candidates), yet, still, 40 per cent of first marriages and 70 per cent of second shots end in divorce.

Keep reading.

-or-

Read blogger Bella DePaulo's post on famous women who are happily unmarried.

What do you think? In your personal experience, is marriage falling out of fashion?

Comments

[LordMoon]

02:43 AM on 03/10/2008

Marriage is only dead for some of us.

But for others, Christian Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholic's Marriage is thriving.
And in a generation or two, they will be the dominate political force in our country.

They're political will, will refrom our laws and undo the mistakes that we made, the ones we made because they we're inconvienient to our will.

The rest of us we're simply too busy having a good time, to reproduce. And in biology, it's either reproduce or die.

[johnnyjust]

03:34 PM on 03/08/2008

Marriage was at the beginning and will be long after we're long gone.

The main obstacle to marriage is the same obstacle to any relationships: selfishness. If we see marriage as two people giving 100% it will work great. But there's an obstacle in that sentence as well; the word "people." Self is a hard thing to put down.

[SILVANUS]

11:53 AM on 03/08/2008

None of it ever happened. Consciousness is a fraud. You're all dreaming up more concepts and getting mired in them. Stop it!

[newshawk14]

07:46 AM on 03/08/2008

I think the major problem with marriage today, is that people think the mere blessing by civil or
religious authorities, will make everything OK. The truth is, it requires a continual act of creativity
and dedication, to make it work. One really has to know ones potential partner, their commitment,
and their understanding of what is required, or your shared goals. Neither limerance or ignorance
will get you there

[rixhex56]

12:24 PM on 03/07/2008

I've never understood the idea that a legal contract has anything to do with commitment between two people in love with each other. Even when kids are involved, where perhaps some sort of legal responsibility might exist towards the kids, I still don't see that any document is required to legitimize an agreement between two adults to live together.

It seems especially odd to me that a government would also deem it necessary to reward people who purchase a license to live together over people who choose not to buy a license. Does that concept not seem strange to anyone else?

[rmetz74]

08:05 PM on 03/07/2008

I might use the word 'archaic' or 'intrusive' in place of strange, but... Yes, I agree!

[rixhex56]

05:57 PM on 03/08/2008

I like the word, "archaic" better...

[johnnyjust]

03:23 PM on 03/08/2008

You must specialize in contract law.

[rixhex56]

05:55 PM on 03/08/2008

"Marriage", as it exists in our country today, is really nothing more than a legal contract. I don't see that such a contract serves any purpose except for government to keep closer track on individuals and exercise more control over us.

The religious components of marraige seem to have little to do with the licensing of a marriage, but probaly also originated in attempts by early religious leaders to garner control over their constituents. The idea that two adults require "permission" from others in order for their commitment to each other to be validated and justified is ridiculous in my mind.

[hootie1fan]

07:43 AM on 03/07/2008

You've heard of the three strikes law, well in my version, it's 2. After 2 divorces you are off the marriage market. After 2 divorces, just shack up and avoid the hypocrisy.

[hootie1fan]

07:07 AM on 03/07/2008

In the time that Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have been a FWOM, one of my relatives has managed to divorce not just wife #1 or #2 but also wife #3. This same serial divorcer won't hesitate to tell you that the biggest threats to marriage are the liberals, they gay and the atheists in government.

Since Angelina and Brad have become a FWOM, two of my colleagues have managed to get married, one had a child, and both are now divorce.

Marriage doesn't keep anyone together who doesn't want to be

[darker]

03:22 AM on 03/07/2008

republican ST[H]INK tanks--dozens of them--put on their stinking caps to demonize "feminist" and "feminism" and "liberal" to twisted language meanings 'frat-boy style". And stupid people are BUYING THEIR LIES --still?? Unbelievable! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE SMEARING. You're NEXT.

Philosophically speaking--stop drinking republican Kool-Aid! They'll wipe the floor with Obama.
Vote for competence. Vote H.Clinton.

[jumperpin]

11:26 PM on 03/06/2008

Fear, despair, insecurity, corporatism and childless coupling are each also a "growing movement".

[tchristin]

10:37 PM on 03/06/2008

I've been married a long time and I think the best arrangement is marriage. Life is not a bowl of cherries and when the tough times come to you .. and they will, there is nothing like those warm open arms and the acceptance of someone who shares your pain. It's not about feeling, it's a decision you make to spend your life with someone. Love in my opinion can't truly grow and mature without commitment.. and commitment can be hard. There is no other way to get there than to go through it.

[dshwa]

10:11 AM on 03/08/2008

You can have all that without a marriage.

[swokm]

10:06 PM on 03/06/2008

Hmm. I'm all for people ignoring (or indulging) in whatever church activities, but a legal agreement of the parents is a good thing if kids are in the picture. A civil union, I think, is in a child's best interest... they really need some security. It's kind of selfish to want a kid, but not want to commit to a partnership legally to secure a stronger future for that child. And we are pretty self-centered these days. Heck the idea of "common law" marriages still applies doesn't it? But if you aren't going to be responsible for children, heck yeah.... why WOULD you marry/unite? It's pointless then.

[hootie1fan]

06:42 PM on 03/06/2008

There's a big difference between being anti-marriage and simply being anti-divorce. If you are mostly certainly not going to have a marriage that lasts, take the hypocrisy out of it and remain single.

[ControlledBurn]

08:21 PM on 03/06/2008

I've been married 23 years and I'm still mostly certainly not sure it's going to last.

[SILVANUS]

06:19 PM on 03/06/2008

Marriage is great for those who want it.

[QueenTiye]

04:50 PM on 03/06/2008

It appears that maybe we are creeping toward my preferred solution - namely letting government regulate civil unions (for everyone) and letting people seek "marriage" if they want that, from whatever religious or philosophical institution offers that, and fits with their moral understanding.

The church ought not be in the business of signing civil documents, and government ought not be in the business of "marrying" people. All government has to care about is social contracts., i.e., civil unions...

QT

[hootie1fan]

06:46 PM on 03/06/2008

Leave the civil union as a function of government and let chirches decide on the whole marriage thing.

[Scornful]

02:04 PM on 03/06/2008

Too bad for those bitter frumps who cannot find a mate, that's the tone I get from the author of this piece.
Just because you are a failure in relationships, doesn't mean the rest of us are.

And sure, shack up all you want just like they do in Europe, then have a couple of kids in your 'agreement' and then like petulant teenagers, when one of you decides you no longer want to be a part of it, you can just walk, and break up a family in the process all to satisfy your selfish impulses.

[hoopesaz]

06:28 PM on 03/06/2008

I quite agree. Don't call it marriage and call it civil unions if you please. As soon as that happens civil unions will be the new marriage and all of the things people hate about marriage will be in civil unions as well. A 10 year civil union involving money, assets, and kids that desolves after 10 years is going to be subject to the same emotion, the same devistation, the same court battles as any marriage.

It's incredible that folks think changing the name of the agreement somehow makes the human aspects of the commitment change. It doesn't and it won't. And it is SO naive to believe that it will.

[elevate]

05:35 AM on 03/07/2008

This argument is ridiculously simplistic and ignores some basic political context. First, to put it out there, I'm in a long term relationship and both my partner and I have agreed not to marry, primarily because of our fundamental belief that if the LGBT members of our community cannot marry, we will not participate in a fundamentally discriminatory institution. Which brings me to the main point, and why I find this discussion ridiculous. This is not about commitment or people being naive because they think civil unions/domestic partnerships are less of a commitment. I KNOW it's just as much of a commitment and I certainly don't need you to tell me about commitment in my relationship. The point is that the term "marriage" carries with it tremendous baggage. The Christian conservative right has claimed it, it carries the historical weight mentioned both by their politics and the politics noted by this author, and some LGBT activists want the choice to take on that mantle if they so choose. So trying to paint all pro-civil union folks as unaware of the commitment of relationships only attempts to decontextualize one of the most heavily weighted words in our language and use it for the most insular interpersonal definition possible.

[hootie1fan]

06:48 PM on 03/06/2008

As opposed to what being married for a few years, having children, divorcing and then walking away? It happens all the time. Marriage just doesn't keep them together any more.