Bits and Bobs on Feminist Theory #8: Marriage As A Social Contract
The only difference with marriage is that in addition to agreeing to financial terms (pre/post-nups) you are legally binding yourself to social terms like love and fidelity.
People forget that the idea of marriage for romantic love is actually a very new concept. Way back when, people married not for love, but to ensure economic stability. Kingdoms were joined through marriage to forge political alliances; love had nothing to do with it.
A "good husband" was one who could provide for his wife and family financially, because often, women were forbidden from providing for themselves. Women were encouraged to vie for the attention of the most successful man, because that was the only to ensure that their own financial futures were safe.
But this is 2013. The "institution of marriage" as we know it is (and always has been) steeped in deeply patriarchal and sexist notions, and now that we've made some progress on the women's liberation front, it's not something that we as a society need. Granted, there are definitely practical reasons to get married, most specifically the legal recognition of your tangible and intangible contributions to another person's life. But the idea that it's the only way to show a long-time personal commitment to someone you love is at worst, bullshit, and at best, very silly.
Marriage is a choice that should be made practically. It's not a life goal. Like any other contract, its terms should be considered seriously. If the terms are to your benefit, go for it. If not, don't sign on the dotted line. A marriage should be an arrangement that enriches the lives of the people who have entered into the agreement. But on the flip side, contracts end all the time, and it's completely okay to end a marriage in the same way. It shouldn't be a decision that's steeped in shame.
At the end of the day, marriage is a business transaction between two people who love each other (with a few federal benefits thrown in).
