Is marriage obsolete?

• Author: Christopher, Michelle C.
• Position: SPECIAL REPORT on Marriage

Is marriage obsolete? Given the continuing furor over legislation allowing same-sex marriage in several jurisdictions across the country and in other parts of the globe, the answer is arguably "no". However, in its recent Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, the Supreme Court of Canada put to rest the view that marriage can still be regarded as it was when Canada was founded. In 1867, marriage was defined as it was "understood in Christendom". The Court said that Canada was then "a society of shared social values where marriage and religion were thought to be inseparable. This is no longer the case. Canada is a pluralistic society. Marriage, from the perspective of the state, is a civil institution." The Court went on to say that, accordingly, the meaning of marriage in Canada is not constitutionally fixed, or "frozen" in historical time, but is rather fluid and subject to interpretation like the Constitution itself, to be viewed as "a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life." Clearly, times have changed!

Leaving aside the debate about same-sex marriage and corresponding arguments for abolishing marriage in favour of civil union, what can be said about marriage as an institution at the heart of Canadian society? Marriage rates are on the decline (other than perhaps for same-sex couples!) while divorce rates continue to rise. Moreover, recent government studies illustrate that particularly in Quebec, more and more couples are choosing to live together, and have children together, without getting married. What, then, are the implications for marriage?

It is argued that marriage, although based on ecclesiastical and biblical concepts of unity with a man and a woman united in marriage as one person, evolved as a way for men to justify taking control of women's property and personal legal rights since, on marriage, these rights vested in the husband, and a woman was then regarded as subservient to her husband. While it can fairly be said that this control was not absolute, in that women did have some residual rights upon a husband's death, this was little consolation for independent women who prior to marriage enjoyed many rights on par with men.

The idea of women having value as commodities was reinforced by the dowry system, which regrettably continues in practice today in many countries such as India (even though the concept is officially abolished in that country). The payment of a dowry to a husband was seen as compensation for the husband's undertaking to support his new wife and relieve her father of that continuing burden. This concept, and others...