Readers Write: The Myth of Marriage

AlterNet readers greeted Monica Mehta's recent interview with Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, with an outpouring of responses ranging from deeply personal accounts of marital problems to deeply-held opinions on marital policy.

Coontz's book proposes that our idea of what constitutes a "traditional marriage" is not based in fact. The concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman based on love and mutual consent is only about 200 years old. Whereas many see marriage as a solid, unwavering institution, Coontz describes it as an ever-changing entity that "has always been in flux." The push to preserve an earlier model of marriage, to "shoehorn everyone back into the older forms of marriage," is a vain attempt, Coontz says.

Changing perceptions of gender roles are a root cause of the most recent shift in marriage, Coontz argues. More women have managed to become economically independent and now see themselves as equals to men, and if the woman has more of an egalitarian view of the relationship than the man, she is more likely not to get the change she wants. This situation often leads to divorce.

What threatens to make marriages less secure also makes them more rewarding when they work, Coontz says. While marriage today is more delicate and demanding, it is also fundamentally superior to its older form: It's more satisfying, loving and fulfilling than ever before in history.

Coontz and Mehta also discussed the government's role in marriage. Coontz believes that the government's current support of marriage is concentrated only on getting couples married as a cure-all to their problems. She advocates more concrete aid, such as childcare programs, paid parental leave and decent jobs. These, she says, will help keep marriages stronger because poverty "is a huge stress on marriage."

Gay marriage is the most hotly debated facet of marriage today. Coontz avoids passing an ethical judgment, merely admitting that "people have different moral values," but feels the government must be ready to accept gay couples. "Gay and lesbian relationships are not going to go away," she says. Couples will separate, however, and this, she feels, is the biggest reason the government needs to be involved.

AlterNet readers exchanged opinions about changing gender roles, the history of marriage and homosexuality question. They also gave each other tips on marital felicity and, in one case, a recommended reading list. Most readers agreed with Coontz's assessment of marriage as an amorphous entity, although there was serious dispute over whether today's incarnation of marriage is an improvement over past ones.

A few readers felt Coontz's comments related directly to their own personal experience. Xenacat wrote: "For those of us who have ever been trapped in a bad marriage with all of its destructive implications, this article is a breath of fresh air." Angie hailed Coontz's statement, that "the difference in divorce rates is that if the woman is more egalitarian than the man, she's more likely to not get the changes she wants," as "my new summary for why my marriage didn't work." AZcrone declared that the book should be "mandatory reading."

Not everyone was as enthused, however. Agarillo, for example, thought the book was "a thinly-veiled justification for gay marriage."

Readers disagreed on the government's role in regulating marriage. Mmaden1@cox.net argued that "the law should have nothing to do with it." Marriage should be "relegated to one's particular religious or philosophical ideals." 09times, on the other hand, said marriage definitely is the government's business, especially in terms of homosexuality, which the reader described as a "sexual perversion." This reader felt gay marriage "should not be sanctified by vows through a religious group or made legal by our government."