And while we're on the topic of marriage...
Q: In the chapter "Marriage and History," you point out that Christians believe marriage to be a sacred union. Where does this belief stem from and can marriage really be deemed a sacred union? (This was taken from
A Conversation with Elizabeth Gilbert on her official website).
A: Just to be clear-Christian leadership decided that marriage was a sacred union only very recently. The early Christian fathers demonstrated a serious aversion to marriage, believing instead that the only truly sacred state of being was lifelong celibacy and fellowship (in imitation of Christ and the angels.) For the first thousand or so years of Christian history, the church did not concern itself with the business of marriage at all, because marriage was not seen as a sacrament (as opposed to baptism, say, which was always a sacrament); instead, marriage was considered a worldly and secular affair, that had everything to do with sex and property and taxes and women, and nothing to do with the higher concerns of divinity. That changed in the year 1215 AD, when the Catholic church officially took over the marriage business, as a means of exerting greater control over the unions and divorces of European royalty. And since then, Christian leadership has embraced marriage and preached marriage and now is even "defending" marriage. But all that Christian reverence toward marriage is very recent-certainly in contrast to, say, Judaism, where marriage has been considered a noble union for thousands of years (although even in ancient Hebrew society, the union was never considered inviolably sacred: there was always provision for divorce.) I am not saying that marriage shouldn't be seen as holy or sacred, but I object when those words are used as weapons against individuals within something that should be a private union, and that is almost invariably a complicated one.

More on the topic from Committed:
"So when modern-day religious conservatives wax nostalgic about how marriage is a sacred tradition that reaches back into history for thousands of uninterrupted years, they are absolutely correct, bit in only one respect - only if they happen to be talking about Judaism." (Committed, p. 58)
"Then-congressman James M. Talent of Missouri undoubtedly spoke for many when he said in 1996, 'It is an act of hubris to believe that marriage can be infinitely malleable, that it can be pushed and pulled around like Silly Putty without destroying its essential stability and what it means to our society.' The problem with that argument, though, is that the only thing marriage has ever done, historically and definitionally speaking, it to change. Marriage in the Western world changes with every century, adjusting itself constantly around new social standards and new notions of fairness. The Silly Putty-like malleability of the institution, in fact, is the only reason we still have the thing at all. Very few people -- Mr. Talent included, I'll wager -- would accept marriage on its 13th century terms." (Committed, p. 71)



What I take from this is that we cannot simplify the history of marriage. I fully respect people and churches who see marriage as a holy union. I also respect (though I disagree) with churches who want to control who can can get married inside their walls; they are, after all, private institutions. Just keep in mind that marriage has not always been seen as this intimate, sacred bond. Historically, it was a secular institution that often had a lot more to do with wealth management and social order. There was a time when The Church was not involved in marriages at all. So marriage has evolved... a lot. And when people say that we have to protect the sanctity of marriage and the way that it's always been... that's just not true. There is no "way it's always been," even within Christianity. Of course, marriage can absolutely be a sacred, holy commitment if that is what suits you personally and religiously.
Thanks, EG, for the fascinating info!