"I don't believe in sex outside of marriage," she said.

"Wow! She's for me! She's got morals!" I thought, as I promptly fell head over heels in love with her.

Fortunately, after a few more dates I began to perceive reality a bit more clearly and I broke up with her before it was too late. Her idea of marriage was a mere social and legal mechanism having nothing to do with the sort of relationship I wanted. In fact, she even bristled visibly at the very word "relationship" as though it meant something slightly immoral.

In ancient times, many of the larger and more cosmopolitan cities had no statute laws governing marriage, leaving it up to individual couples to decide whether they were married. The various religions all had their own rules. Civil law considered any marriage valid if it appeared to the community that the man and woman were sharing their lives and appearing as a couple socially. This was the case in fourth-century Carthage, where this here dude named Augustine and this nice woman had been living together for quite a few years and had a son in his early teens. The community officially considered them married. Well, when Augustine returned to the regular practice of his Christian religion, he decided that since he and his wife had not performed any official ceremony of any sort at the beginning of their marriage they were "living in sin" so he abandoned her. And for this we elevated him to sainthood.

We all know the standard sequence of events. First you flirt. Then you have a date. Then you have some more dates. Then you go steady. Then you get pinned. Then you get engaged. Then you have the wedding.

But wait! Where does sharing your lives come in? At what point do you share ideas? When do you share feelings? Where in this sequence do you share a household, finances, and pleasures of the flesh? Most important, how soon do you share pleasures of the flesh to the degree that new flesh is created?

Whenever an institution comes into power and wants to consolidate its power over the citizenry, one of the things the institution comes up with is a way to control the personal relationships of individuals. Our current laws concerning marriage are an example of this. We have this grand and glorious event called The Wedding. Before the wedding, we are led to believe that we are not allowed to share much of anything except conversation and perhaps a bit of minimal smooching. Then we have the wedding, which suddenly makes it okay to share everything all at once. Wow! What a jolt!

Does the mere wedding itself, and the piece of paper that comes with it, suddenly make total sharing legitimate? Or does the fact that total sharing has become legitimate make it right to celebrate with a wedding? Just how suddenly or gradually is it right for the couple to develop a sense of sharing? And at what point in this development does it become right to "share your sharing" by means of a wedding? These, in my opinion, are knotty questions. Any simple answer presented to you by the power-seeking institution in control of your life is likely to be a wrong answer.

Nowadays when I hear somebody say, "I don't believe in sex outside of marriage," although I basically agree, I would question their motives and their morals. For me, the appropriate formula is, "I don't believe in non-marriage within sex." Same thing, different emphasis. Pleasures of the flesh should be shared to whatever degree matches the intensity of the relationship. Intensity of the relationship should match the sharing of the pleasures of the flesh.

Now I don't think that a true marriage necessarily has to include that nice little legal document. Nor do I think that the transition from non-marriage to marriage has to happen all at once. Many couples ease into a gradually closer and closer relationship, sharing more and more, over a period of months or perhaps even years, sometimes sharing a household for quite some time before they consider themselves completely married. Hey, whatever works for you is right for you. But whatever, a well thought out relationship is, to me, far more important than mere conformity to some arbitrary standard.

Even though that nice little legal document is not what makes your marriage real, if your marriage is real the lack of the legal document can lead to some pitfalls. Here's a case in point. Some friends of mine are living together in a house that was his before they met, and is still in his name only. The house needs massive renovation, and they are both contributing time and money. If something horrible should happen to him, or if the relationship should falter, she has absolutely no legal recourse to protect her share of what they've done together. I don't know what's in his will, if he has one. But a marriage license is a nice thing to have to simplify the writing of wills and to provide a modicum of protection if there is no will. Hey folks, the marriage license isn't very hard to get and it gives you some pretty nice legal benefits. Don't get caught dead without it!

Oh by the way, I don't know whatever happened with the woman I quoted at the beginning of this essay and I hope I never find out. I'm now married to a wonderful woman who sees things from a perspective much closer to my own.

I suppose I ought to comment on same-sex marriage for gay people. Sorry folks, my opinion on this matter is not sufficiently well-formed right now. I'm willing to accept the legitimacy of same-sex happenings. Whether our current institution of marriage would give gay couples the benefits appropriate for them to become participating units of society is something I'm not entirely certain that straight folks such as myself can ever be qualified to say.

Now, how about polyamorous group marriages? Well, if we should legalize such a thing, I suppose there wouldn't be very many of them. Long-term monogamy seems to be a majority view for most of the human race. Basically, a marriage of more than two people appears to have the makings of an out-of-control orgy that won't make anybody happy in the long run.

Some general advice about marriage
Smart Marriages