What Is Marriage #1A
A letter exchange with Von and Dad Explains.
Letter Exchange
Let’s start this off with a little context and some understanding. Von and I exchanged a few emails to get a rough understanding of how this letter exchange would be done.
We will not take one another out of context. This should be a good faith effort to engage in long form discourse. This means either re-posting the entirety of the content of the other writer or providing links to the referenced material. Neither one of us cares to denigrate the other or misrepresent their words purposefully or in a disparaging way nor would we want that to happen to us. So this understanding was good to lay out and make known, thank you
for clueing me in to this point. I hadn’t even thought about it myself, but I am new after all.I will be writing the first letter in the exchange and he will respond as he can. This will likely be done once a week considering we’re real people with lives and likely cannot produce much more long form content without negatively impacting other areas of our lives. This is also prudent and, again, I have to thank Von for this one as well.
This idea formed when I was reading through Notes and came across his about marriage, conservative values, and gay marriage. This was interesting to stumble on since I often find myself reading his works and agreeing on a great deal of it. (Thoroughly enjoyed this piece of his on the slippery slope logical fallacy and, as I interpreted it, the inherent fallacy of generalization with it.)
Given the impetus, we decided on the overarching topic “What is marriage?”. It is likely we will agree in many areas and disagree on few, though I am hoping we may disagree on a wider range of opinions regarding marriage. I view discourse as one of the most effective ways to gain insight that may prove difficult to attain reading on my own as it forces me to confront my own blind spots. All this being said, remember that just because we may not agree about multiple aspects of a subject doesn’t mean we don’t agree overall. An odd concept to be sure, but certainly possible. We shouldn’t fall prey to the narcissism of small differences, after all.
What is Marriage?
Going back to the original exchange Von and I had on Notes, this appears to be the best starting point for our discussion as he suggested here. Additionally, responding directly to that Note he added this definition from Webster’s 1828:
As it is cut off on the displayed Note, here is the full definition:
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
That is a compelling definition for marriage and one that reflects, more or less, with my own view of it. And, understanding this is the literal definition of it from Webster in 1828, I will risk taking some exception with it. From what I have noticed, there has been separation in what marriage is since it was published, specifically dealing with what marriage is in a religious sense and a legal sense.
Whether this separation should have happened is another point we could address and very well may, but at present “What is marriage?” needs to be established.
Unfortunately many definitions of marriage only touch on the legal and secular details around marriage instead of incorporating marriage as a whole, legal and religious. For instance, the Merriam-Webster online definition of marriage today cites only those:
the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
the mutual relation of married persons
the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
an act of marrying
a close union
And the legal definition:
the state of being united to a person as spouse in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law
the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created
I see marriage in two different areas, though reconciling how correct that view could be is one reason I wanted to undertake this letter exchange. My understanding is more implicit than one I could explain and assist someone to understand.
Marriage in the religious sense, and the one I tend to default to when thinking about or speaking on marriage, is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. With marriage itself having been established by as well as blessed by God. It is a promise to one another to hang in there when times are tough, to take it seriously, sacrifice what needs to be sacrificed to make it work, pride included, and a promise to help one another grow as people and as one.
It is the joining of two flawed individuals into one in order to mitigate those inherent human inequities. It is for the sake of the children to come that this must be sought. I see a working marriage as the desirable environment for child rearing as both an example for the children and to ensure those children get a more comprehensive upbringing than if they were to be raised by one parent or even two, if those two are not together.
With this in mind, I do see a difference in marriage religiously and marriage as it is defined by law. There is no impetus for marriage to work or to be beneficial for both parties, only that it is legal and consensual, to be sealed in a contractual agreement.
It is clean and dry, nothing mentioned in those definitions about why one would be married to another, what is expected beyond consent and signature, and that the law is who sanctions the marriage.
That doesn’t sound like the marriage as we understand it religiously, though it carries the same name.
It isn’t the marriage as understood religiously. It is simply a legal contract, separate from any religiosity or religious notions. Should this be the case? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it is.
It is for legal purposes, tax benefits and so on when not done in a religious manner and, one could assume, that would mean it is wholly separate from the religious interpretation in everything but name.
Hi there,
I am truly grateful for your support and interest in my writing. It's been an amazing journey with my 'Dad Explains' Substack, and I hope you're finding value in the insights I share as I navigate this beautiful, often confusing, thing we call life.
I genuinely want my work to reach as many people as possible, and to make that happen, I've introduced a paid subscription option. Your subscription not only supports the work, but it also gives you access to exclusive content, discussions, and more - a closer look at the world through the lens of a dad trying to figure things out.
However, I understand that not everyone might be in a position to upgrade to a paid subscription at this moment. If you're facing financial constraints, or there's another reason why you can't subscribe just yet, please don't hesitate to reach out. Write to me at dad@dadexplains.life, and I'll add you on as a paid subscriber for a bit for free.
Remember, we're all in this together. Let's continue to learn, grow, and navigate this journey together.
Best,
Andrew Ussery
Dad
So true! Saw a similar quote recently, "Life's too short to make all the mistakes yourself". It helps the more disagreeable kids understand they don't know everything yet....
So, when's your next letter coming out?