Conservatives say, Marriage is destroying society!

There is no surprise in the fact that people who do not support women's rights in general do not support equality in a marriage.  What may be surprising is the supposed goal they attach to that institution: Rather than family forming or promoting stable partnerships to care for each other, the purpose of marriage is to spread wealth and resources throughout society.  "Of course," you might think, "the parties in a marriage share their resources with each other, and may even help out each other's friends and families to a degree they otherwise would not."   However, what is meant by that statement is that a wealthy person should marry a poor person, in order to prevent a concentration of wealth in the most financially privileged families.  Their argument is based on the fact that in the middle of the 20th century it was not uncommon for secretaries to marry their bosses, or for nurses to marry doctors.  Therefore, opponents of equal rights argue, it is proven that unequal marriage benefits society.  What they choose to ignore is that there are likely many, many more bosses than secretaries, and there are plenty of men who are disadvantaged economically.  The conditions of marriage imposed by societies of this kind may easily discourage women of wealth from marrying any who are not at at least an equal level to their own.  Who should the poor man marry, if poor women are marrying only wealthy men?  Who should the wealthy woman marry, if the wealthy men are marrying poor, and presumably grateful, women?  We now have a large chunk of the population left out of the marriage market.  We also have relationships that are fundamentally transactional, that is based on material benefits, not on love or any other "virtuous" emotion.  While arranged marriages throughout the world function without the requirement of emotional attachment, at least at first, is this an acceptable way to conduct relationships in a society so steeped in individual fulfillment and romanticism?

Let us first address the romance.  We in the West assume that marriage will lead to a happily ever after style of life.  The two parties will learn to love each other in spite of or even because of their respective quirks, and they will support each other emotionally through thick and thin.  This is part of the traditional wedding vow in English, at least.  The relationship is principally between the husband and wife, even to the exclusion of their parents.  In arranged marriages, on the other hand, the relationship is more social, a cog in the machine of the community.  The couple is put together as an arrangement to benefit both families, not just one of them and not just each other.  The partner is considered for the advantages won through the legal connection of course, but also for the compatible characteristics when compared to the marriageable family member.  The arranged marriage, at least in theory, works because objective observers (not really objective, but anyway) have chosen a couple to form a stable pair, based on the characteristics of each one.  They are probably similar in many ways. They certainly are not from wildly different places in society.  This flies in the face of the inegalitarians' vision.  The arranged marriage, again, in theory, is a sensible transaction for the individuals involved, not the faceless society around them.  While there are many stories - fairy tales, movies, novels - that promote a happy and romantic relationship between people of vastly different social classes, inegalitarians seem to be forgetting one thing: The poor woman always has almost impossible positive qualities.  She is nearly inhuman.  Divinely patient, intelligent, or at least brimming over with common sense, admiration and respect for her betters.  No mere human can compete with that standard, and attempts at a "fairy tale" romance will surely lead only to failure.

In the mind of an inegalitarian, the poorer partner, or the woman in any case, should be grateful to be hitched up.  The shame of singleness is enough to lower the highest standards, or at least it should be.  This means that the poorer partner always has to work harder to maintain the interest of the wealthier partner, who has more incentive to look for something better.  Despite "happily ever after", marriage is an unending competition.  The clash of roles in the partnership of the wealthy woman and poor man ensures that they can never have a satisfying relationship.  As the richer partner, the woman should be more at ease and more able to explore options; however, as the goal of inegalitarians is not to equalize wealth distribution, but to enslave women, this cannot be allowed.  The woman must always be the grateful party.  How to achieve this when she has financial status?  Old laws gave all property that came with the wife to the husband, ensuring that women are in inescapable poverty and continually dependent on men.  Inegalitarians would applaud a return of such laws, no doubt.  Women may at first resist, but with the full load of single shame upon them, they will have little social choice but to marry for appearances, even to the detriment to their persons and liberty.

Like many horrible arguments, this one is based on tradition.  The problem with tradition is that conditions change and old habits become inviable.  What is even sillier with regard to this particular argument is that the tradition referenced was not really traditional.  Much of the social behavior of the mid-20th century, in the United States especially, was an aberration.  Social upheaval because of the recent war that required major shifts in roles and adjustments in self-identification created a very special circumstance in which people from very different backgrounds might meet and decide they had enough in common to forge a lasting relationship.  The key here might be that very idea. Inegalitarians seem to believe that expecting or forcing people to marry outside of their socioeconomic level will foster equality, when it is more likely that the belief in achieving social equality is what allowed these pairings to happen in the first place.  With a solidification of barriers between different social strata, members of each much of less likely to look for similarities and instead focus on the differences.  By removing the hope of upward mobility, we discourage those on top from associating with those on the bottom, because they have no chance of ever being like their betters.

Finally, if marriage serves no grand social experiment, why do people marry?   Our current ideal is the relationship based on love and affection, rather than mere survival strategy.  We have even left behind the pretense of biological reproduction (always an untruth anyway) and allowed homosexuals to legally protect their relationships.  I say protect because of the great quantity of rights that come with a legal marriage in the United States.  Even though we as a society have tried to leave behind the idea of a marriage as a financial transaction, much of the law still treats it that way.  Individuals, on the other hand, prefer to think of their marriages as partnerships between willing members, the more romantic ideal.  We want our spouses to be our friends, to support us and make us happy, while we want to do the same for them.  Most people get along best with those they are similar to, those who they share values with.  People of different backgrounds, be they cultural, religious, or economic, do not share all their values, perhaps not the most important ones in fact.  A marriage based on pure mathematical matching of bank accounts will not consider human values.  If we accept the idea of marriage that is commonly held in our society and our time, we cannot accept inegalitarian marriage. If it is so important to move money around in society, as they insist, it should be done with broader reaching means than a couple hooking up.