The Tale of Oogie and Boogie, Part 6

The final, final conclusion. I promise.

As promised, this is the end of the road for Oogie and Boogie and their legacy, the MLC, the monogamous lifetime-commitment marriage.

Let me clarify that statement. This is merely the end of my commentary about MLC marriage. That neolithic institution is probably going to continue with us for some time. It will be favored by incurable romantics, religious fanatics, and implacable contrarians. The divorce attorney’s lobby will continue to praise the virtues of MLC - their cash cow - and loudly proclaim that it is traditional, universally recognized, and already in place. Predictably, disparaging comments will be made about the ART marriage form (annual-but-renewable) by the mother-in-law’s union. And old people who get toothless satisfaction from gleefully proclaiming, “They’re too young to get married,” will object… because, well, because it is common for old people to resist and be suspicious of change.

There are some, regrettably, who will reason that, “I had to endure it. I don’t want the new generation to have it easier than I did as a rookie.” This is the same argument that has been used to justify continuing hazing incoming freshmen, 120-hour workweeks for medical interns, discrimination due to ethnic group, upgrading to more efficient tools, and using graduate students as indentured servants. (Luddites of the world, rise up to resist such improvements, social or technological, even if more people would be more happy and more productive.)

There are even those who will intone, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Well, I’ve got news for them: It is broke. The millions of unhappy marriages, creative drives and professional lives ruined or stunted, and the generations of neglected, angry, disillusioned children growing up to form them own unhappy marriages are the result of a stubborn adherence to something that is outdated and simply doesn’t fit the present era.

It doesn’t matter. We truly are in a new era with new conditions and new demographics. All of their arguments and hypocritical poise will not endure against a flood of irrefutably satisfactory results after ART marriage becomes more common.

Such resistance is ignoring the fact that, a mere one hundred years ago (before the discovery of penicillin, the first modern antibiotic) life was fundamentally different. Life expectancy was shorter and life was more dangerous. True, we still have wars and pestilence but, for the majority of the world’s population, their standard of living is hugely improved over their great-grandparents of 100 years ago. In those more perilous times, it was not uncommon for an adult to survive the death of a spouse, then remarry - perhaps several times. Thus our present practice of serial marriage was created long before we increased life expectancy, standard of living, and leisure time sufficiently to develop the conditions for the multi-decade unhappy marriage.

While we are looking back though, let’s consider another social innovation that was breaking news 100 years ago, something that was comparable in impact to antibiotics. I’m referring to the automobile replacing the horse as the standard means of transportation. I’m sure there was lots of opposition from vested interests and contrarians who argued that the automobile was unnatural, unproven, unreliable, etc. when compared to the traditional, familiar, lovable horse. But the superiority of the automobile over the horse was irrefutable and the conversion was amazingly quick. You don’t see many people riding a horse to work today, do you? (Not surprisingly, the various arguments about the superiority of the horse were quickly silenced the first time they had to ride their horse to work in the rain.)

So, let’s conclude this commentary on the venerable, traditional, time-proven, religion-approved, never-to-be-replaced vehicle, the horse, er, the MLC marriage. Let’s look at how to alleviate the situation caused by MLC’s inadequacies and poor fit with modern life. As the upgrade, I proposed the annual-but-renewable form of marriage as a simple, acceptable, effective modification to the MLC contract.

No, it’s not one-size-fits-all. No, it’s not perfect. And, yes, it would have to continue to adapt and evolve to meet changing conditions in the future. But… it offers the possibility of a happier society, composed of happier couples and happier children.

You’re welcome.

The End.

********************************’

And another thing…

But, while we are on the subject, however, let’s speculate a bit further. In addition to the relatively simple transition from a lifetime-commitment marriage contract to the annual-but-renewable contract, what else could we consider to deal with this social hemorrhage, the unhappy marriage?

Icebreaker Question Number One: Are we as a society ready to raise the entrance requirements for getting married? Probably not yet. I told you in advance that some of the following ideas would be regarded as radical. Radical ideas are usually adopted only after the ship is already in danger of sinking. But, let’s explore a few of them anyway.

Hurdle 1: An unhappy marriage affects the larger community. Therefore, the community (society) has the right to limit your freedom to commit folly. What if we changed our way of thinking to this: Before you can legally marry, you must earn the right. Such proof might be in the form of hours of community service or some other way of accumulating points. This would stop overnight the practice of impulsively marrying someone for whom you have a strong mutual physical attraction… and nothing more. Likewise, just because someone says “Okay” doesn’t mean you must marry them. Watch almost any romcom, beginning with the venerable The Graduate, and ask yourself, “In the real world, how long would that last?”

Hurdle 2: What about a one-month or even a one-year remorse period… before the marriage license would be issued? Think about how many people you have met in the past five years. I am not referring to potential mates material; I mean people you have met and become good friends with. Now think about how many of those good friends have disappeared from your life. For different reasons, especially in a highly mobile society, friendships end. Even of the people with whom you formed a strong bond, most of them will not be close companions after five years.

Now think about how many tragic marital unions would be averted by the simple expedient of a cooling-off period. If everyone had to officially register their intent to marry and was then required to wait for a specified period before being granted the marriage license, how many of those marriage license applications would be quietly withdrawn before the wedding day? If couples had to wait a reasonable period before marriage, more divorce attorney’s kids might not be able to attend those expensive universities.

Sure, you can live together without getting married. Go for a test drive. Probably wise. Probably what most people do already. But… you cannot get legally married until you have waited long enough for the passion or the novelty - or the alcohol - to wear off.

What about any kids resulting from the premarital couplings? Have you never heard of birth control, Bozo? Lesson One of any sex education course should be to teach a pre-marriage mantra (to both boys and girls): “No condom, no sex”. Besides, thanks to modern DNA testing, paternity can be easily, positively, and cheaply determined, thus ensuring financial support from the biological father without a marriage contract. Even the dimmest of dimwitted Oogies and Boogies can grasp the concept if they cannot escape the consequences of their actions.  

While on the subject of children, let’s look at yet another tangent when considering the effects of divorce. Don’t forget the other side of the coin. What about the quiet cumulative resentment one or both parents feel when they unconsciously blame the child for “forcing” them to stay married? Can you say psychological minefield? Likewise, one partner feeling trapped into getting married is not a good beginning. Another example of the power of “get to” over “have to”.

Hurdle 3: What if you had to pass a background check before a marriage license was issued? What if your boss, your banker, your creditors, or your neighbors could, if there were legitimate reasons, torpedo your marriage plans? Your parents? Can you imagine the HR department in a corporation having a Marriage Approval Officer? Since an unhappy marriage can seriously affect other people - and may even be contagious - they could all claim a right to veto your proposed marriage in terms of their self-interest. (Note that I did say “legitimate reasons”.)

Icebreaker Question Number Two: If your brain cannot comprehend the magnitude of what you are undertaking, should society protect you from your folly?

Hurdle 4: Something more radical. What about establishing age limits before an individual is allowed to legally marry? (The difference between child marriage and child abuse is often nothing more than eight letters vs. five letters.) Oh wait, you argue, we already have minimum age laws. True, such laws already exist but their age limits - usually, defining the onset of puberty - are more suitable for Oogie and Boogie in neolithic times than a modern couple in a modern world. We already establish minimum ages for signing a contract, buying alcohol, and leaving the custody of your parents. Why not make it a law that a person cannot marry until their brain is physically mature?

Modern science has learned that the individual’s brain is not fully developed as a teenager. (Maybe not you. You never did anything incredibly stupid and impulsive, fueled by mere hormones and the belief that you were bullet-proof and teflon coated; I mean other teens.) We know today that some brain functions are simply not fully developed in teens. (I am referring to fun functions such as recognizing the principle of cause-and-effect or appreciating the odds of continued success when repeatedly engaging in high-risk behavior.) Even if the current law says you are old enough to get married, your brain is not yet fully grown. What might have been adequate brainpower for Oogie and Boogie to avoid sabretooth tigers is not sufficient for meeting the opportunities, stresses, and challenges of our modern world.

What if we made it a law that an individual must be 25 or some other science-based age before they could marry? Really, what if they must be old enough for their brain to be capable of comprehending the magnitude and possible consequences of their choice? (Or, at least, having the ability to reason, even if they choose not to use that ability.) Raise the legal minimum age and watch many social problems go away before they ever become a social problem.

Hurdle 5: Furthermore, and even more radical, maybe 25 is not old enough. What silly mistakes would never be committed it we were to raise the minimum age before they are allowed to get married to, say, 30 or 35? Again, such a higher minimum age would fall after the brain is fully developed… but there is an additional, important factor. For many people in modern times, that age would also be after they have finished their formal education and supported themselves by working for a couple of years to gain some life experience.

Sadly, intelligence without experience is often an unguided missile. A wise man said, “Perception without facts can be disastrous; knowledge without wisdom can be dangerous.” Without some personal experience to make our learning complete and meaningful, even the most intelligent person can make some really dumb choices.

Hurdle 6: What if, before the wedding day, the couple must post a substantial joint bond? After five or ten years, they get the money back… but this bond would be forfeited if they divorce except under certain specified conditions. If a couple had to borrow money from their friends, their two families, or even their bosses, all those parties would now have a vested interest in seeing the couple stay together. Yes, this threat (losing money) as a motivation for staying together may be antithetical to the concept of ART marriage. Likewise the outside pressure from other parties may be contrary to the get to vs. have to psychological principle. Tricky. Everything is an experiment. Try something. See if it works. Evaluate. Adjust. Rinse and repeat.

<Whisper>

What if they had to post such a bond before having children, thus motivating Oogie and Boogie to be nurturing parents? Is parenting a legal right, a social/tribal obligation, or a universal drive? Some are saying that Maslow’s highest level is not self-actualization but, rather, the drive to mate and parent. Very tricky. But this is about marriage, not parenting. Let’s not go down that rabbit hole.

</Whisper>

Hurdle 7: Perhaps the most radical of all proposals would be to establish competency testing as a requirement before a marriage license is issued.   Competency testing is not the same as intelligence testing although there is a certain amount of overlap. Closely related to the remorse period and the minimum age, the purpose of competency testing would be to ensure the individuals were aware of the enormity of their decision.  

Gasp! You mean you must prove yourself competent before you can get married? What about all the stupid people? This is blatant discrimination against the stupids… and there’s a whole bunch (astronomical term meaning “a lot”) of them. If the stupids are not allowed to marry - with the accompanying legal and social priviledges for them and their children - you are creating a caste system akin to Huxley’s Brave New World. Possibly, but an easily mobile caste system.

I told you some of these ideas would be radical. Imagine giving up part of your individual freedom for the good of the larger community. Radical thinking, indeed.

But wait. Before you reject this proposal as utterly unacceptable, please consider this: You have testing before you are issued a driver’s license, don’t you? Does anyone seriously propose that the freedom to drive a powerful car at highway speeds is an inalienable right? We accept that you should earn a license to drive after demonstrating a minimum level of skill. Is marriage more important than driving a car? Again, there is nothing to stop couples from living together without a marriage license but a marriage license would publicly state that you met certain minimum levels of competency. Oogie and Boogie could be leveling up.

******************’

Hurdles limiting your freedom to get married? Community service to get a marriage license? Lengthy remorse periods? Veto rights by the HR department where you work? Proving you are competent to get married? (Competent enough, anyway.) These are radical ideas maybe, but not crazy. Think about it.

Tragedy + time = comedy. In retrospect, how many of your early relationships now look like a bad joke? In your early-morning solitary recollections, do you flinch when you think of something really, really stupid you did? (Maybe not  you; but most of us do.) Do they feel like something that you would see on a terrible TV sitcom that was canceled after six episodes? What if we raised the minimum-height marriage barriers to avoid the pain of those attempts at humor?

One additional benefit that would accompany such barriers is that making anything difficult to obtain gives it a greater perceived value. Do you remember Tom Sawyer getting the neighborhood kids to whitewash his fence by making it a privilege? Something that smacks of higher status or elitism becomes infinitely more attractive.

It is not inconceivable that we might even establish tiers of marriage with accompanying rights, status, and privileges. With grave misgivings, I wonder if making marriage competitive might be a good idea. What if you could quantify your own domestic bliss and then compare your number with other couples? Thus a Tier 3 married couple could feel vastly superior to a mere Tier 1 couple and would be snide around a Tier 2 pair, but cowed by a 5 or 6.

Instead of seeing marriage as the final statement of social maturity, you could see it as an entrance, a beginning. For example, there are 9 belt colors in Karate: white, yellow, orange, green, blue, purple, red, brown, and black. As the lowest level in Karate, the white belt is where everyone starts. Can you see where this is going? You wouldn’t have to actually wear colored belts to indicate your proficiency at being married… but, what if you did?

It might get so bad that you wouldn’t want to hang out with any couple lower than your own belt color. Sounds silly but the results might be good. Maybe the idea is worth trying. This would be an odd reason for staying married but, hey, whatever works. Some individuals are so competitive that staying together until you get the black belt might be the incentive necessary to get through the inevitable rough times. Besides, we now know that our actions can affect our moods. We can trick our brains by controlling our physical actions. If our actions say we are happy, our brain will conclude that we must be happy and adjust our mood accordingly.

Conversely, what if you could lose your right to marry or to stay married? What would society look like if being convicted of certain types of crime would result in your right to marry being revoked? We already do it with driver’s licenses. What would happen if being convicted of such crimes meant an automatic, instant, non-contestable divorce?

In (final) conclusion:

Obviously, any relationship will have some good features and some bad features, some good days and some bad ones. Just as obviously, we cannot create a system that will bring happiness for every person in every relationship. But if we can change the parameters a little bit, it might provide an net gain for society and for individuals. Please consider the ART marriage contract when your children get married in the future - or for your next marriage. Then, consider some of these proposed additional hurdles. Everything is an experiment. For Oogie and Boogie’s society, the monogamous lifetime-commitment marriage was a radical concept. Today, many generations after Oogie and Boogie, many marriages are unhappy and unfulfilled. Why not experiment with new ways? Llike the ol’ boy fighting with a wildcat in the upper branches of a tall tree in the darkness said, “Shoot up here amongst us ‘cause one of us has got to get some relief.” By considering options, we can take the first step to implementing improvements. (Don’t worry, Chicken Little. Nothing is permanent.)

These ideas and proposals are offered as a public service. If they generate some intelligent discussions or even actions, we will all benefit.

You’re welcome.

As before, your comments are invited. And, as before, I request that you share this series of articles with some of your weird friends and colleagues. Not all of them; just the ones who are married or might get married in the future.