| Subject: "I'll feel the heat from your wedding ring" Brian Funk |
Author:
Frizzell
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:57:47 01/15/03 Wed
What is marriage? Bold question. I have been married as long as Adam (actually one week longer but who is counting). And, like he, have thought about it often. I don't know that I can adequately define marriage but I would like to outline a few perceptions of marriage.
First, marriage as a mandate. The capstone of the twenties. The view predominantly, although not stereotypically, of midwestern, protestant churchgoers. You graduate from high school, you graduate from college, and shortly thereafter; marriage. To do otherwise requires some sort of explanation. Acceptable explanations might be a considered entrance to the mission field, travelling the world (temporarily), or further education. "I just don't want to, or I just can't find someone," would probably not find its way into the orthodox cannon of single excuses among your parents, your parents friends, your extended family etc. Or it may produce a full front offensive to find a mate for you. Over thanksgiving I eveasdropped on a conversation between two unmarried twentysomethings in my extended family. They both felt that they had nothing to offer at the holidays because they did not have child, spouse, or even a prospect. I don't know where marriage as a mandate came from but its here.
Second, marriage as archaic. Marriage is an antiquated institution that impedes personal development and freedom. It is repressive, prehistoric, and in need of revision if it is to be saved. I see this coming from the media centers and specifically, although not stereotypically, from the homosexual community and the feminist movement. There are reasons for the perceptions of these two groups. Same sex domestic partners cannot be co-dependents on health insurance like spouses can, they cannont transfer assets to their partners upon their death through a marital trust like married people can, and visiting hours are limited to domestic partners in hospitals. Employers tend to be more sensitive to time needed off to care for a sick spouse or child. A single women may not get the same leniency. There are tax benefits available to married people that are not available to those who have chosen to remain single or those who co-habitate in same sex relationships. Thus, it is said, in a progressive society, a regressive office is rewarded.
Third, and for my money, marriage as a crucifixion. The text referenced often by dogmatic Christian man is Ephesians 5:22-24
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
At this point the Bible is ceremoniously closed, the wives all bow in submission, the men gloat, and the feminists fume. But, if we read on: Ephesians 5:25
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."
Is it safe to say that the husband is the head of the wife only in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the church? Further, is it safe to say that the marriage that most closely resembles God's divine plan is the marriage that most closely resembles a crucifixion? If so, husbands should not gloat, wives should not mumble in submission, and feminists should not begrudge the male sex for the charge they have been given. Husbands have been left holding the bag.
Frizzell
*The views expressed in this commentary are not necessarily the views of Coolhombres or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 