For several centuries preceding our own, people in
Christian countries had only two socially acceptable
“lifestyle” alternatives: they could take binding
lifelong marriage vows, often to a partner not of their own
choosing, and remain faithful to that partner until separated
by death; or they could remain celibate in the protective
environment of a religious order. Western history and
literature is full of tragic tales about what became of
individuals who failed to conform to one of these
alternatives. Medieval Christian ideas on marriage and
celibacy may seem arbitrarily dictatorial to us, as
accustomed as we are to modern freedoms, but in the days
before reliable birth-control and social welfare systems,
there were very practical reasons for requiring sexually
active men and women to marry for life, and for putting
social and economic considerations above any concerns about
the happiness of individual women and men.
Marriage served to create alliances, uniting the economic
resources, military strength, and social status of two
extended families. As institutionalised monogamy, marriage
assured a man that the children his wife gave birth to were
exclusively fathered by him, and assured a woman that she
could count on her children’s father to contribute all
his available resources to supporting them, rather than the
children he fathered with another woman. Rules of
inheritance were based around the marriage institution,
ensuring the elders of both sides of the family that their
hard-won wealth and property would be passed on to their
genetic descendants. Marriage “till death do us
part” helped ensure that husbands would continue to
support their post-menopausal wives, rather than going on to
produce more children with younger women, thus complicating
issues of inheritance and leaving their former mates as
burdens on the community. Any children produced outside of
holy wedlock would stress the socio-economic system, hence
the great stigmatisation of bastards in former times.
Our modern social environment is radically different than the one in which the institution of marriage-for-life evolved. The nuclear family has replaced the clan or extended family as the dominant social unit. Women no longer have to rely on either their parents or husband to support them, and therefore can chose to remain single and self-sufficient for as long as they like. Both men and women are far less dependent on their relatives and have more opportunity for training, education, and advancement as individuals. Those unfortunate enough to be abandoned by their families or partners with no means to support themselves are supported by the state. Modern birth control has made it possible for couples to live together without the responsibilities imposed by children, or to limit their number of offspring to those they can support without the assistance of others. As a result of all these changes, most of the practical socio-economic reasons for taking lifelong marriage vows no longer apply. Although no doubt many couples today feel pressured by their parents or their church into undergoing traditional Christian marriage ceremonies, this pressure is no longer of life or death proportions. Many sincere and responsible couples now opt for formal partnerships other than marriage “till death do us part”.
Couples contemplating long-term relationships today have many choices. They can simply move in together, with no ceremony and no mutual obligations, or they can choose to enter into some sort of formal commitment to each other. If they decide upon the latter, they are once again faced with several choices. They need to determine the nature of their commitment ceremony—i.e. public or private, traditional or innovative. They need to agree upon vows that they can take to each other in full awareness and good conscience. And they need to determine the extent of those vows. The three most popular modern options for length of nuptial commitments are discussed below.
A Year and A Day
“When we are handfasted, as we term it, we are man and
wife for a year and a day; that space gone by, each may
choose another mate, or, at their pleasure, may call the
priest to marry them for life; and this we call
handfasting.” Sir Walter Scott, The Monastery
(1820)
Within modern Neo-Pagan and New-Age circles the term “handfasting” is often used to indicate any sort of non-Christian wedding. However, as historically practised in medieval and early modern Scotland, a handfasting was not considered a wedding at all. Rather, it was a declaration of intent to marry. The handfasting was an informal betrothal ceremony between a man and woman, performed without benefit of clergy. If, after a year and a day, the couple were still committed to staying together, they would then be legally wed in an official Christian ceremony.
When a modern couple are handfasted in a traditional ceremony, they are released from their vows after a year and a day. They are then faced with several options which were unavailable to couples being handfasted in earlier times. They may renew the same vows for another year and a day. They may choose to “make it legal.” They may renew their vows until death, but forgo a registry office wedding. They may take new or revised vows to each other on the basis of what they have learnt about their relationship over the past year, and continue renegotiating vows on an annual basis. Or they may choose to go their separate ways, content in the knowledge that both have behaved honourably and upheld their vows for the appointed time. It is becoming increasingly popular in Neo-Pagan ceremonies for couples to be handfasted for “a year and a day and as long as love shall last”. This binds them to their vows for at least a year and a day and, thereafter, until such time as the couple choose to separate.
Handfasting for a year and a day is a very wise option for any couple who want the security of a formal commitment, but who lack the life experience or emotional maturity to know whether they are ready to take lifelong vows. Young people who are furthering their education or establishing their careers can enter into a formal partnership through handfasting while allowing for the possibility that their lives may take different directions at some point in the future. Couples who become attached at a vulnerable time for one or both (such as after a divorce, death of loved one, or job loss) can benefit from the healing security of a formal partnership while putting off decisions about lifelong commitment until their lives are back on an even keel. Even couples who have decided to marry for life may wish to go through a handfasting ceremony to mark their engagement and to formalise their commitment during the time it takes to plan (or save up the funds for) an elaborate wedding ceremony.
A built-in benefit of the year-and-a-day handfasting is that it requires a couple to actively reflect on their relationship after a year and to choose whether they want to continue it, evolve it, or dissolve it. This discourages complacency and may encourage a couple to try harder to make the partnership work. A handfasting ceremony also allows a couple the luxury of “trying vows on for size”. After a year of striving to keep a particular set of promises, a couple will have a better idea of what they wish to commit to, and may well decide to rewrite their vows before making them more permanent.
As Long as Love Shall Last
“Do you now commit to each other to love, honour,
respect each other, to communicate with each other, to look
to your own emotional health so that you can relate in a
healthy way, and provide a healthy home for children if you
choose to have them; to be a support and comfort for your
partner in times of sickness and health, as long as love
shall last?”
Mary A. Axford — Pagan Wedding Ritual
It is becoming increasingly popular among those who chose non-mainstream weddings to forgo a commitment “till death do us part” in favour of one that will continue “as long as love shall last” or “as long as the gods will it”. This option combines the formal obligations of a mainstream wedding with the open-endedness of a living-together arrangement. The couple agrees that as long as they are together, they will behave towards each other in the ways specified in their vows. If, after six months, six years, or any length of time, the couple decide to separate, they are no longer bound by their vows. If they stay together for the rest of their lives, they are bound to their vows throughout that time.
The “as long as love shall last/as long as the gods will it” option recognises that we can’t always know what lies ahead for us. Our ultimate destiny doesn’t always correspond with our current plans. Sometimes two people’s life paths come together for a time and then diverge. Sometimes it is more healthy for partners to separate after a number of years than it is for them to stay married. Thus, open-ended vows are appropriate for many couples who, at the time of their wedding, are personally committed to staying together for the rest of their lives, but who have the honour not to take an oath unless they are certain they can keep it, and the wisdom to realise that the universe may hold some surprises in store for them many years or decades in the future.
There is a happy paradox involved with this option. If the couple write good vows, of the sort that, if kept, ensure a healthy partnership, and if they do strive daily to keep them, chances are good that their love will last and/or that the gods will smile on the marriage. Thus, a wedding with conscientiously written and spoken open-ended vows probably has a higher likelihood of lasting “forever” than many mainstream marriages in which permanent vows are naively repeated.
Till Death Do Us Part
“Will you love her, comfort her, honour and keep her in
sickness and in health, and, forsaking all others, remain
faithful to her, so long as you both shall live?”
Episcopal Book of Common Prayer
Most Christian wedding ceremonies include words which indicate that the partners are not to be released from their stated obligations to each other until one or the other dies. A wedding vow so popular it has become a cliché is one which includes the words: “To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish till death do us part.” These familiar words convey a commitment of awe-inspiring proportions: a commitment to continue to behaving lovingly towards one’s chosen mate for the rest of one’s life no matter what. To take such a vow with sincere intent, and in full awareness of their consequences, is a brave and noble deed and certainly not one to be undertaken lightly. Given the magnitude of these vows, it’s a wonder that anyone who has a choice dares take them at all, especially when so many couples who do take them fail to keep them. These days, about half of all legally recognised marriages end in divorce, and the many couples who stay together in loveless and unhappy marriages are just as guilty of breaking their marriage vows to “love and cherish” each other “for better, for worse” for the rest of their lives as those who split up.
So why are lifelong vows so popular? The legacy of the past, as discussed at the beginning of this article is certainly relevant. Customary rites of passage in any culture tend to be conservative and slow to change. Traditions last long after the reasons for their inception have ceased to be relevant. In our society, many non-Christian couples, who have never previously set foot inside a church, will opt for a church wedding ceremony conducted by a Christian priest or minister because “it’s traditional”. Similarly many couples blithely repeat vows ending with the words “till death do us part” simply because they are customary. When couples speak such standard marriage vows “by rote”, rather than in full awareness of what they are promising, they are not likely to put much effort into working towards upholding their oaths, especially when circumstances are “worse” rather than “better”. As a result, they often fail to keep them.
There are couples, of course, who take lifelong vows and go on to have marriages which continue as loving, happy and fulfilling unions until the death of one of the partners. The topic of what makes for a healthy, enduring marriage has been the subject of a number of psychological and sociological studies. But clearly the two individuals involved—their level of emotional maturity, self-awareness, empathy, flexibility, and commitment to common goals are important factors. Often the level of wisdom required on the part of both partners to enable them to sustain a loving relationship which lasts for decades is achieved only by learning from mistakes they have made in less successful past relationships.
The advantage of a marriage “till death do us part” for couples who enter into it fully prepared, and in complete trust that each will keep their vows to the other, is that it provides a secure basis from which to build. The couple who know with certainty that they will be together “forever” can embark on joint plans which may take decades to achieve. They can each invest fully in the other, knowing that their efforts will not be wasted. They can take risks to help each other grow – such as honestly discussing painful subjects, or making difficult but necessary changes—confident they are not risking, but rather enhancing, their marriage by doing so.
For couples planning a wedding or handfasting, deciding upon the extent of the vows is a very serious matter, and one that should be given as much careful consideration as choosing the vows themselves. Common sense and divorce statistics combine to suggest that “Till death do us part” is not the ideal initial level of commitment for everyone, though it may be for some. Partners who chose to commit themselves to vows for “a year-and-a-day” or “as long as love shall last” retain the option to take permanently binding vows to each other at some point in the future. Partners who decide to be married for life severely limit their options.
Ultimately, each loving couple must decide what is best
for themselves. While our ancestors were forced to conform
to a type of marriage dictated by the Church, we are blessed
with the freedom to guide our own destinies as regards our
commitment to a partner. Such freedom is a wonderful gift,
one that will not fail to serve us well if used wisely.