Marrying for the “Right” Reasons

Viewers of dating shows like “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” will be familiar with the oft repeated concern that contestants might be there “for the wrong reasons.” The wrong reasons in the context of these show are reasons other than love. This concern is odd given that such programs are premised on the idea of one man or one woman dating multiple people (often literally) while broadcasting and dissecting these relationships on national TV. In fact, under the dating circumstances of these shows, the idea that love would be the primary, let alone sole, reason a “contestant” would participate is absurd. Nevertheless, such worries reflect the widespread belief that love is the only acceptable reason to marry.

The problem with assuming marriage must be motivated by love alone is that it casts marriage as a solely emotional relationship while ignoring that fact that it can also be a practical one. In my book, You’ll Do: A History of Marrying for Reasons Other than Love, I show that there is a long history of marrying for instrumental reasons, and that in the past, such marriages were common and encouraged. I also show these relationships could be highly beneficial and that they were no less successful, and sometime more successful, than pure love matches. 

The exclusive focus on love obscures the tangible importance of marriage and, relatedly, its practical benefits. If marriage is nothing more than a formal declaration of love, then it is unsurprising that many couples increasingly view marriage as irrelevant and unnecessary. A common refrain among such couples is that they don’t need a document to prove their commitment or, as Joni Mitchell wrote in “My Old Man”: “We don’t need no piece of paper from city hall, Keeping us tied and true.” 

The view that marriage is just a “piece of paper” is not only shortsighted but also harmful. Marriage is a legal status encompassing substantial rights and obligations. However, couples declining marriage in favor of cohabitation appear to be doing so based on an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of the legal effects of marriage. Such unmarried cohabitants often suggest that marriage is unnecessary because they can simply contract for the marriage benefits they want. Unfortunately, one cannot duplicate the benefits of marriage through private contract. For starters, such a contract is impractical given the sheer number of benefits attached to marriage. More importantly, since many marital benefits are “status benefits,” meaning they are only available to legal spouses, they simply cannot be acquired through contract.  

In my family law class, I often ask my students to guess how many federal benefits attach to marriage. In recent years, the numbers they suggest in their answers have been getting smaller. This past fall, the majority of my students suggested “a dozen.” When I told them to go higher, they suggested 50, then 100. They were floored when I informed them there are well over 1000 and that this number does not include state benefits. Although some of these marriage benefits can be obtained through contract, many of the most important—specifically tax advantages, social security benefits, disability, immigration preferences, and the use of spousal privilege in court cases—are only available through marriage. Furthermore, even if all these 1000+ benefits could be obtained through contract, an additional benefit of marriage is that it makes such contracts unnecessary. Upon marriage, spouses are automatically entitled to all the rights and benefits of marriage and do not need to contract for them individually.

Currently, marriage rates are decreasing, and this decline may be at least partially due to the growing perception of marriage’s irrelevance. Ironically, this also means that the tangible benefits of marriage are likely to increase. As the Supreme court stated in Obergefell v. Hodges, marriage is “the keystone of social order” and “essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.” Given marriage’s perceived importance to American society, there is little doubt that new benefits will be proposed as a means of combating these declining marriage rates. One such benefit is already under consideration.

This spring, the Biden administration began considering a potential deferred action program for undocumented immigrants married to American citizens. Generally, immigrant spouses can qualify for green cards when they marry American citizens. However, there are exceptions for immigrant spouses accused of certain immigration crimes, such those charged with repeated, illegal entry or the use of forged legal documentation. By expanding immigration law’s marital benefit to include such spouses, the Biden administration is drawing on the long-standing belief that the societal advantages of marriage are so significant they can outweigh other potential harms. 

In response to declining marriage and fertility rates, marriage-based benefits, such as Biden’s spousal deferred action program, will likely become more common. Still, the current tendency to downplay the tangible advantages of marriage and treat their consideration as taboo means that increasing marital incentives may not have the desired effect. There is no one “right reason” to marry. Nevertheless, by acting as if there is, we are essentially ensuring that marriage rates will continue to decline and perhaps guaranteeing that marriage becomes obsolete.

Marcia Zug is a family law professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law. 

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or views of the Institute for Family Studies.