How to Make Marriage Great Again

The case for marriage has a lot going for it. Married persons are, on average, happier, more purposeful, and less lonely. They’re more likely to thrive and report higher life satisfaction. Married persons are, in a real sense, living their best lives.

Conspicuously, marriage’s benefits plausibly derive from the fact that most married couples live and spend the rest of their lives together. Surely, if I’m spending every waking moment with the love of my life, I will generally be happier and less lonely. Surely, if I help raise a family, my life will feel more meaningful. This seems intuitive. It also, however, poses a problem for marriage proponents: If married couples tend to flourish because they typically live (and start a family) together, then the above research does not provide a case for marriage so much as a case for cohabitation. That is, if marriage’s benefits derive from living with one’s beloved, then why can’t I secure marriage’s goods by simply living with my beloved rather than marrying her? If marriage isn’t necessary to flourish, then why get married?

Marriage proponents may respond with—what I call—the “security argument.” There are variations of the security argument. But here’s the gist: The security argument responds to the above by asking: If two people fully intend to spend the rest of their lives together, then why not get married? By staying unmarried, so the argument goes, cohabitants leave open that they might eventually break up—contrary to how cohabitants claim to view their relationship. By getting married, however, cohabitants eliminate this possibility. In marriage and only in marriage, two people formally establish their intentions to love and cherish each other until death parts them. There is, of course, the possibility of divorce. But divorcing from one’s beloved is harder than breaking up with her. So, at the very least, the security argument argues that marriage adds an extra level of security to cohabiting relationships; it becomes harder to end things with one’s beloved by marrying her. At most, the security argument argues that marriage ensures that cohabitants don’t live in a contradiction. If two people truly intend to spend the rest of their lives together, they will make this clear by diminishing the possibility that they’ll split, i.e., by getting married.

On the whole, I don’t find the security argument very persuasive. Cohabitants may deem getting married unnecessary. They may think that their love will hold them together and that they don’t need marriage’s added security. And while data suggests not only that the vast majority of unmarried couples will fail in this quest but also that their relationships will harm the men, women, and children involved, perhaps there’s no reason for a couple to think they wouldn’t be part of the lucky few who beat those odds. So long as those lucky few exist, cohabitants can reasonably hope that they’ll flourish in their relationship. Hence, I don’t think the security argument succeeds; marriage proponents should encourage marriage a different way.

Despite how things may seem, I am a huge marriage proponent. All I’ve done is argue that the vast positive data on marriage doesn’t render getting married a “no-brainer.” But again, I still think people should get married. And here’s how we can better motivate that end.

We must show that marriage is good in and of itself. 

Again, it’s conspicuous that the benefits typically used to promote marriage are social. More importantly, they’re instrumental. They are goods that are separate from marriage, but that marriage can nevertheless help one secure. This leads to the following problem: Instrumental goods are plausibly attainable through multiple means because they are detached from the means by which they are attained. This is why cohabitants can generally attain marriage’s commonly-cited goods—because those goods are instrumental to marriage rather than inherent to it. Thus, we must stop appealing only to marriage’s instrumental goods to promote it. Otherwise, young people may never understand why they should prefer marriage to cohabitation.

So, instead of appealing only to marriage’s instrumental goods to best promote marriage, we should appeal to marriage’s intrinsic goods. We must show that marriage is good in and of itself. 

Unfortunately, today, ‘marriage’ is so deflated; it doesn’t seem to differ from cohabitation, save that it involves a signed document and tax break. Not too long ago, however, marriage obviously differed from cohabitation. Many considered marriage sacred or at least transcendental. We must resurrect this attitude to successfully promote marriage today and reveal its intrinsic goodness. 

This, I think, requires a cultural shift in our perception of marriage; it requires a cultural effort to inflate marriage. Lucky for us, the deflation of marriage hasn’t stopped many from agreeing that there’s something special and worthwhile about getting married, such that they favor it over cohabitation. So, bringing back marriage as “transcendent” may not prove as difficult as one may think.

Now, to resurrect marriage as transcendent, the case for marriage’s transcendence must be plausible. To that end, I propose that marriage is transcendent in a logical sense. On paper, marriage seems illogical. Literally speaking, no married couple can have full confidence that their marriage will last; humans aren’t omniscient. All couples know this at least to some degree. Nevertheless, many couples voluntarily get married. Why? Are married couples simply irrational? No. For the marital promise itself transcends rationality.

Bringing back marriage as 'transcendent' may not prove as difficult as one may think.

That two people cannot, with full confidence, be sure that they both will keep their marital vow reveals the significance behind a married couple’s love for one another. In marriage, two people love each other so much that they’re willing to make a promise they are uncertain they will keep. Again, on paper, it may not make sense to make such a promise. But that’s precisely the point: Marriage shouldn’t make sense. Marital love is beyond comprehension. It’s not that marriage is irrational. It’s that marriage is beyond rationality. Marital love is the strongest love possible. Marital love is so strong that it drives people to promise to love and cherish each other forever. Can we ever understand this love? No. But we know that it’s out there. And because it’s out there, we know when it’s appropriate for two people to get married: when they love each other enough to make such a public and binding promise.

Hence, the non-instrumental reason to get married: In marriage and only in marriage do two people exhibit the kind of transcendent love described above. When two people marry, they take the transcendent oath to lovingly remain always together until death. No such thing occurs in cohabitation. As a result, no matter how much cohabitation approximates marriage, it necessarily differs from marriage in the following way: Marriage involves a transcendent oath, whereas cohabitation involves a fragile intention—which is one reason why cohabiting relationships are, on average, less stable, less committed, and less happy than married relationships. And that is why young people should get married—because it is the proper response to a kind of love of which human beings are certainly capable.

John Mancini is a social and political philosopher at the University of Virginia. He has a special interest in gender, race, marriage, and law. He regularly speaks on marriage and gender at professional philosophy conferences, both nationally and abroad.