What Marriage Offers and Why So Many Resist It

irbis picture/Shutterstock

For the first time in literally thousands of years, marriage in our Western culture has viable, socially acceptable competition, and so the pressures (and necessity) of marriage have diminished greatly. 

In the past 50 years, the marriage rate in the U.S. has fallen dramatically. In 2008, a mere 26% of people in their 20’s were married, as compared to 68% in 1960(link is external).

We have not stopped coupling, but staying single or unmarried has become a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice for younger adults. Having lived with two serious boyfriends at different points in my life, I understand this choice—and in many ways, I think it makes sense. There are things you learn about togetherness in general and about your partner in particular that you might not learn any other way.

Moreover, you can have a lovely relationship, be very committed in the moment, and yet, if or when you break up, you can simply go your separate ways. It’s certainly easier and cleaner to split when you don’t have all the legalities to contend with: Often it's just a few dishes, airline points, or pieces of furniture to split; nothing small claims court can’t handle.

But here’s the rub: Big problems emerge when couples make other kinds of long term commitments that do bind them legally—like having children or buying property together—without having protections in place. As outdated as marriage can be, one thing it does do is provide important protections to both parties if a breakup occurs.

No one knows that better than someone who got the raw end of a real-estate deal, with no recourse, or someone who got booted on the street with a two-year-old and an infant. While there are laws that protect children in those situations, there are not the same protections forpartners as there are for spouses.

As we watch the pendulum swing toward a less-structured paradigm, I think we’ll start seeing and hearing more about this kind of fallout.

And it won’t be pretty.

Why can’t we have more options than risking so much by coupling but avoiding marriage, or opting for security by marrying someone we may not want to be with forever? It’s not as if it’s never been done before.

The Romans had three different levels of marriage: Confarreatio, the most formal option, withreligious overtones; Coemptio, a less formal and more business-like union; and Usus, an informal marriage that occurred by default when a couple lived together for more than a year. (Confarreatio and Coemptio required ceremonies, but Usus did not.)

Throughout history, people have married for all kinds of reasons that had nothing to do with love—primarily business and monetary gain, political gain and procreation. Love was even seen as an impractical emotion in such relationships. The Greeks, seeing the insanity caused by those in love, coined the phrase “lovesick.” Indeed, some cultures even described love as dangerous(link is external) when it came to setting up stable family structures.

Having spent the past two years researching the subject of marriage for a book (The New I Do, Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels, with Vicki Larson), I can tell you that informal changes are actually happening to the institution behind closed doors.

Unbeknownst to family, friends, and clergy, young couples tying the knot are agreeing to the conditions they want to see in place. Ryan and Lisa are one such example: These twenty-somethings are marrying with a purpose and an end date. They agreed to have children together but they also agreed that their marriage would end when the kids are out of the house. (The option to stay married remains, of course, just not the expectation.)

At the other end of the age spectrum, unapologetic third-timers (many of whom are Baby Boomers) are stating unequivocally that they want only the best parts of marriage. How are they doing this? Many are vehement about maintaining autonomy. Some are choosing to live in separate houses, others are asking for open marriages, and still others are quite frank about needing practical things like someone to grow old with—someone with insurance benefits or financial security.

Far from breaking from traditional marriage, these seeming rebels are actually reverting back to ways of old. Yet because they fear being judged, many of these couples keep such arrangements secret. But why? Are they really doing anything wrong? Are these couples harming themselves? Are they harming anyone else? Are they taking anything away from anyone?

If you think about it, marriages based on love often have the most fallout because love is fragile. Love can easily turn to dashed expectations (especially since expectations are so much higher for lovers than they are for friends), jealousy, betrayal and even hatred. These are the things that crimes of passion are borne out of.

Now, I’m not saying that love has absolutely no place in marriage, but perhaps love shouldn’t be in the Number One spot. Perhaps we should rethink purpose-driven marriages rather than emotion-driven ones. Perhaps we should give individual couples the right to pick and choose aspects of relationship that they want rather than assuming that monogamy and forever are right for everyone. As things stand now, those who don’t play by the current rules are told they are doing something wrong, or they are looked at as odd, damaged or unlucky.