Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Winter 2025 PDF
    • WINTER 2025 HTML
    • THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW HTML COLLECTION PAGE
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2024: NEW MEDIA ADDED!
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner TABLE for TEN Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 2024 Young Adult / Pregnancy Center Staffer Tickets
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2024
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2024
    • ARCHIVE: GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2023
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Your Cart: Shipping is ALWAYS Free!

BLOG

Why from time immemorial have both Church and State felt the need to involve themselves in this thing called marriage?
0 Comment

Does the State Still Have Any Interest in Marriage?

Ellen Wilson Fielding
marriage, state
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Recently a friend saw Fiddler on the Roof and remarked on how much darker the plot was than he had remembered. It’s a musical, after all, and most musicals (barring West Side Story-style romantic tragedy or Sweeney Todd-style bizarreness) are upbeat. It has a lot of comic scenes and feel-good songs like “Tradition” and “If I Was a Rich Man.” There is even a bucolic Jewish wedding.

But of course, one of the early shadows over the story occurs at that very wedding, which is shockingly broken up by a pogrom. By movie’s end the village’s Jewish population has been evicted from their town, and they leave to emigrate to other countries.

But pogroms are only part of the reason that Fiddler on the Roof is not merely a rainbows-and-smiles movie about Tradition. What strikes me even more is the progressively greater strain that protagonist Tevye feels in his effort to reconcile his daughters’ marital choices with his cherished cultural and religious traditions.

You may recall that the eldest daughter, Tzeitel, resists the matchmaker’s choice of a prosperous middle-aged Jewish butcher in favor of the poor tailor she has already fallen in love with. Since the tailor is Jewish and a good man, Tevye eventually allows love to rule this choice. The second daughter, Hodel, pushes the envelope further by falling for Perchik, a young Marxist Jew with advanced ideas on scriptural interpretation. Because he too is Jewish (despite his unconventional views on the Hebrew Bible), and, again, because Hodel loves him, Tevye reluctantly agrees to this match too.

Chava, the third daughter, predictably moves entirely off the reservation by falling in love with a Russian Orthodox Christian. But this time Tevye refuses to budge. Denied her father’s blessing, Chava elopes and is married by a Russian Orthodox priest. Her father repudiates her, though there is a slight suggestion of thawing at the movie’s end, when Chava and her husband also prepare to leave Russia in solidarity with the unjustly exiled Jewish community.

What struck me as I reflected on Tevye’s reluctant march towards modernity (naturally applauded by the audience, which is set up to sentimentally take sides with the romantic couples while simultaneously soaking in the nostalgia of tradition), was the way it mirrors the even greater journey that traditional religious people of our own era have been pressured to travel in changing the actual definition of marriage, and not just the conditions for its acceptance. Same-sex marriage capped Western changes in marriage, divorce, contraception, and child custody that had in some cases been marinating for a couple of centuries. By the time Obergefell v. Hodges emerged from a very divided Supreme Court, the standard model was already badly broken.

In fact, the transformation of marriage and sexual relations in our time—I cannot term them “evolutions,” given how decisively they variously break from nigh-universal custom—sheds new light on the implications of Tevye’s (and our own) fateful acceptance of the merely romantic, couples-based understanding of the basis for marriage.

Why from time immemorial have both Church and State felt the need to involve themselves in this thing called marriage? Not because tribal chiefs, elders, kings, and priests sympathized with teen angst or were intimidated by the fear of Romeo and Juliet-style double tragedies, but because, in just about every human society ever heard of, marriage was recognized as the most stable and successful setting in which to conceive and give birth to children and initiate them into the culture of their community. An ancillary effect of marriage (with significant consequences for clans and larger kinship groupings) was the permanent linking of families and communities through the wedded couple’s offspring. Land holdings could be enlarged, coalitions could be established, bloodlines could be strengthened, and the talent pool diversified as a result. Feuds could be resolved and wars averted. But these were all specific, individualized goods that might be achieved on top of the general state or community goal of securing the group’s future by successfully reproducing, fostering, and educating their young.

And that’s all. That’s the basis for official state involvement in issuing marriage licenses and certificates and decrees of divorce—and in determining child custody, child support, and alimony. Oh, the State (through the human beings that act as its agents) may, other things being equal, want people in love to “just be happy”; they may realize that potentially impulsive or anarchic young men can often be tamed not merely by marital responsibility but especially by the love of a good woman; they may favor structures that help provide a lifetime of emotional and other kinds of support to vulnerable or aging or lonely people.

But motivations such as these, though they were and are today primary for the couples involved, were largely just that—motivations—rather than the biologically based rationale for institutional involvement and social, legal, and religious marriage protections over thousands of years of human society. As we have increasingly jettisoned societal justifications for marriage such as the wellbeing of children and instead elevated the claims of the individuals seeking their own particularized happy endings, the rationale for continuing to involve government in all this becomes flimsier and flimsier. After all, nowadays a great many people have children and more or less see them to adulthood without the marriage license; others who instead choose to marry often part company well before the children are grown. And then there are the increasing numbers of the intentionally childless, whether married or unmarried, and a smaller number of intentionally solo parents.

I am writing this on the eve of Valentine’s Day, which is perhaps not the most propitious time to throw shade on the role of romantic love in human history. And in fact, despite the view of the ancient Greeks and Romans (among others) that erotic love is a madness of the gods, “falling in love” is not only a catalyst for perpetuating the species but often an entry point for enduring and deepening love and cooperation over a lifetime. People do not fall in love to please Uncle Sam, any more than they reproduce to provide future cannon fodder. And it is neither necessary nor desirable for them to be so motivated. But unless the “but we love each other” argument for marriage predicts a lasting attachment and a healthy and secure family life more successfully than any other means of matching people up for a lifetime of sex and shared living, the State and other institutions presiding over society in an official or semi-official capacity have no legitimate reason to get involved in indiscriminately making all varieties or stages of lovers happy, any more than they provide licenses for going steady or alimony for a dumped dating partner.

Even in our own egoistic and hyper-sexualized era, official wedding vows never ask the couple, “Are you in love?” or even, “Does your betrothed sexually attract you?” Instead, we make promises that depend upon acts of the will, though some sort of emotional motivation is assumed. Love can assist us in keeping such promises, but both “falling in love” and the ebb and flow of feelings of marital happiness and satisfaction are not identical to the kind of long-lasting love that persists through periods of subjective boredom, disagreement, or unhappiness.

99 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
Ellen Wilson Fielding

—Ellen Wilson Fielding, a longtime senior editor of the Human Life Review, is the author of An Even Dozen (Human Life Press). The mother of four children, she lives in Maryland.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR
The-Human-Life-Foundation
DONATE TODAY!

Recent Posts

RFK Jr, Autism, Eugenics--and Pro-Life Silence?

09 May 2025

IVF: The Frozen Sleep Evading Time

07 May 2025

Report: "The Abortion Pill Harms Women"

05 May 2025

CURRENT ISSUE

Alexandra DeSanctis Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott Bernadette Patel Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke D. Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jacqueline O’Hara Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Marvin Olasky Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Matt Lamb Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Rev. W. Ross Blackburn Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro Wesley J. Smith William Murchison

Shop 7 Weeks Coffee--the Pro-Life Coffee Company!
Support 7 Weeks Coffee AND the Human Life Foundation!
  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • Annual Human Life Foundation Dinner

Follow Us On Twitter

Follow @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.