Archive Columns: Society and Politics

Unmarried to Each Other

    Since living together is no longer risque, few people will be shocked that Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller have written a guide for improvising couples. Their book, Unmarried To Each Other gives in formation and advice on matters that might befall unyoked co-habitants.

    According to Dianna Marder, who interviewed the couple for the Inquirer, one out of eleven couples living together in the USA is unmarried. But, as Marder pointed out, since most couples who live together plan to marry eventually, Unmarried To Each Other will be of passing interest to all but the small remnant who stay intentionally unmarried..

    Even the authors, Solot and Miller, have apparently not ruled out marriage for themselves.

    Going on Marder's article, this is alarming because, notwithstanding their research, they seem not to have grasped how married essentially differs from unmarried. When Marder reports some of their reasons why people don't get married, the authors' seem oddly mystified: "[Some] couples need more time to consider what marriage should look like to them. Many can't wrap themselves around the idea of giving the government authority to say who they can have sex with... And sky high divorce rates are another deterrent."

    "What marriage should look like to them?" It is hard to imagine what this means but one fears that they think that the commitment can somehow be tailored to fit one's sense of oneself. Well, marriage looks the same for everyone: for better or for worse, richer or poorer, sickness or health, 'til death do you part. That's the contract. It may not work but if it does not, it is frequently because partners have spent more time pondering what marriage should look like to them than the text of the deal. The authors might note that romantic love, self-actualization, professional fulfillment, and  individual happiness are, alas, neither mentioned nor guaranteed in the covenant.

    The theme rather is mutual commitment, which is why the bit about giving the government authority to say with whom you may have sex sounds weirdly backward. It is you who say with whom you may have sex.  The government merely records it to refresh your memory in the breach.

    The height of self-preoccupation came later in the article: "The couple hope children are in their future. They don't know whether marriage is or is not." One wonders if they have access to a dictionary. Marriage: "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." (Webster's) There can be, happily, sex without marriage, and sex without procreation. There can even be marriage without procreation, but if you can countenance procreation without marriage, you have arrived at a perfect marriage of a different sort: the marriage of civic ignorance and selfishness.

    In the authors' defense, understanding frequently dawns after marriage. Still, it is disheartening to see an idea that was once limited to the celebrity fringe percolating into the mainstream, i.e. that bastard progeny are justified in the interests of self-expression. This view reveals a notion of marriage that is equally narcissistic. This notion sees marriage mainly as a framework to bestow benefits and promote emotional unity between partners, and blithely ignores its gravest institutional purpose: to ensure, in the event of their arrival, the well-being of children.

Back to Top