Glenda Simms, Contributor
IN THE January 14, 2004 edition of the New York Times, writers Robert Pear and David Kirkpatrick reported that members of the Bush Administration are proposing to spend US$1.5 billion to help train couples to develop "interpersonal skills that sustain healthy marriages."
This initiative could, under normal circumstances, be seen as worthwhile in and of itself.
But these are not "normal times" and the move to promote the institution of marriage in the United States is a strategy geared to satisfy the conservatives who are feeling threatened politically and socially. This threat is felt in many states that are agitating for the enshrinement of gay rights in their constitution.
Pear and Kirkpatrick pointed out that, in November 2003, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that gay couples had a right to marry under the state's constitution.
It is interesting to note also that President Bush's advisers are suggesting that poor people should be targeted for the "marriage initiative." Mr. Bush will probably visit programmes trying to raise marriage rates in poor neighbourhoods.
One White House aide is reported to have said that "the president loves to do that sort of thing in the inner city with black churches and he is very good at it."
ADVANCING 'RIGHTS'
It is obvious that this New Age interest in "marriage promotion" to select segments of the American population is driven in reaction to an "out group" which wants to enjoy the mythology and the idealised notions that have promoted "marriage" as the most desirable status for persons who wish to be committed to each other.
In a real sense, both the Bush's Administration planned promotion of marriage and the push by gay people to get married are rooted in the same history and the same value system.
Both thrusts are related to the desire to prove that marriage is one institution that should guarantee "rights".
Both sides of the debate are promoting marriage, not because they necessarily believe in love and compassion for all people but because they are narrowly defining "rights" and "what is right".
It is in this struggle between the conservatives and the gay rights movement that we need to question why marriage is promoted by such a wide cross-section of religious, secular men and women of all sexual orientations.
It is within this context that we need to take a good look at why marriages are so appealing even to people who do not plan to procreate.
Obviously, both heterosexuals and homosexuals realise that the legality that surround marriages have always afforded married individuals greater rights and respectability than those which are accorded to unmarried persons.
An interesting question to pose could relate to whether or not gay or straight people would want to be married if they lived in societies that recognised and valued human relationships that are not based on legal prescriptions and religious edict, but are rooted in love and true commitment to another person.
IS MARRIAGE UNIQUE?
The answer to this question could partly be found in some recent research findings coming out of Britain.
In the November 11, 2003 edition of The Guardian, reporter Clare Dyer, in an article entitled "Not Married? Tough" detailed the findings of an Oxford University study which compared the circumstances and prospects of married couples with those who cohabit without the benefit of the legalities of the institution of marriage.
The study, carried out by Mavis Maclean and John Eckelaar, was designed to find out whether there is "anything unique about the institution of marriage which justifies its special status."
The findings of this study in Britain revealed what many people knew from their personal experiences and their observations of the lives of many of their friends and acquaintances.
For instance, the study showed that both married and cohabiting partners think of the value system guiding their relationships as one that is characterised by "trust, respect and consideration" rather than rights for themselves.
Also, both groups experienced a deepening of their commitment when children arrived and both groups were exemplified by individuals who thought "their union would be for life".
By the same token, individuals from both groups did not believe in the "til death do us part" segment of the vows of the commitment.
The researchers also found out that, while it is true that marriages tend to last longer than unmarried relationships amongst more financially secure persons, the poor, the young and the remarried are at greater risk of a break up when they get married.
The study also revealed that many marriages are entered into by persons who see themselves as "old-fashioned", "traditionalist", or "conformers to the wishes of their parents", "religious prescriptions" and "cultural norms".
Interestingly, the study also found that not many people mentioned "love" as a reason for treating their partners well. The few who did, were married.
Successful cohabiting partners appear to be guided by 'the Golden Rule' treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.
LOSING ALL
While there are no overwhelming distinguishing features between those who are married and those who cohabit, Clare Dyer highlights the fact that the British legal system does not confer any rights on unwed partners. When they get dumped, they lose all.
This was demonstrated by "the case of Valerie Burns" who was left with nothing by the courts after 19 years living with her partner, raising two children, making a home and working part-time.
Jamaica has seen several home-grown versions of the "Valerie Burns Syndrome".
That is why Jamaican citizens in general and women in particular are anticipating the passage of Rights of Spouses Bill, which is currently moving through the legislative process of the Jamaican Parliament.
Perhaps in the near future, Jamaica will join Canada, Australia and New Zealand as societies in the Commonwealth where "unwed partners can expect a much better deal when their relationships break up."
In a real sense, these former colonies are certainly leaving "Mama" behind and, in the specific case of Jamaica, there might never be any gay couples who will be mystified by the institution of marriage.
Dr. Glenda P. Simms is the executive director of the Bureau of Women's Affairs.
