“Honey, when we were growing up we knew we were going to get married. We didn’t live with each other first,” my grandmother is patiently explaining to me,”you, all you kids, your cousins, too, have lived with your partners before getting married. We just didn’t do that.”
I was engaging my grandmother in a conversation I’d had with her many times before. I was in an intimate relationship for right at seven years and leaving felt like being rent in two, the way I imagine a divorce might feel. In deed, in lifestyle, we were married. We’d faked being married several times during our travels to ward off bandits. Or something.
The question I had asked my grandmother was about why I’m of the marrying age but feel neither inclined to get married nor have any strong prospects on the horizon. This post is an attempt to answer the marriage question in a way that honors the sanctity of relationship and allows us to open ourselves up to a new kind of relationship contract. Paul Salamone coined the term micro-marriage in the way I’m using it here.
How Micro-Marriage Works
As in the real thing, micro-marriages include some form of contract. You sign it, I suspect, before you seriously commit to (living with/fucking?) each other. It lays out the terms, conditions and length of the relationship. With an opportunity to renew at the end of the contract (similar to that of a Cohabitation Agreement).
Things that might be included:
The level of exclusivity between the engaged parties
What to do in case of unintentional pregnancy
What to do in case of intentional pregnancy
How major shared purchases will be distributed should the contract be broken
How joint investments will be divvied up
What happens in the event of emergency, sickness, infidelity or death (the relational EAP)
Financial information
If you decide on, say, a five year contract, both parties sign the way you would an Operating Agreement. What must be clear is what happens in the event that the relationship dissolves. I really want to be clear that that option is built in from the get-go.
Why Marriage (Rightly) Scares Some of Us
I happen to believe that living with one person for the rest of my life would stunt my growth, and theirs, too. We get fixed, rigid in our thinking while in relationship with the other. Is it necessary or even helpful for us to mate for life? If we’re not seeking security outside ourselves, is it possible to be happy and content changing partners every few years or doing the quirky alone thing?
What’s with the stigma for those that do change partners frequently? I never have been one to partner hop, but I don’t see others that do as a threat. I think it’s scarcity mentality. Some women are afraid of women that date a lot of men because they wonder if she’s going to try to roll up on their man next. The contract idea I’m laying out here would hopefully alleviate some of that fear. It helps clarify roles, boundaries and needs for all involved.
Reproduction, The Wrench in all this
A micro-marriage isn’t a micro-marriage if it’s “until death do we part.” I think one reason we want to mate for life may be because we anticipate passing on our genes. One hundred years ago if a woman had a child out of wedlock and tried to raise it on her own, it would have been completely impractical. That’s not true anymore. My mom had me in the eighties and my father left her when she was pregnant. She went on to have three more children and made it work.
Of course if you asked some members of my extended family with more Conservative and religious leanings, they would probably say the worst thing that happened to my mom was getting pregnant outside of wedlock. I don’t think they ever let her live it down. Societal pressure, rather than actual, factual situations, may influence us more than we could possibly know.
The Real Benefit to Micro-Marriage
Maybe it’s my personality type, but I love to know where I stand with people. A contract, written up (and even the struggle and pain involved in writing one–looking at hard facts or distant possibilities is never easy, is it?), signed and kept in a safe place clarifies roles, boundaries–the hard stuff. It also opens up doors for new possibilities and flexibility. If you know what the container looks like you have a better idea about what to put into it to make the situation within it thrive.
One of the options on your Facebook profile for relationships is “It’s complicated.” (The complete list: Single, In a Relationship, In an Open Relationship, Married, Engaged, It’s Complicated) I laughed when I saw the “Complicated” option. Really, though, it’s not funny. It’s sad. And it’s a difficult place to be when you’re in a “Complicated” relationship. Some people spend a lot of time there, some spend lifetimes there–married couples as well as singles.
Creating a Micro-Marriage is creating a sacred bond. It can be as restrictive or inclusive as the two (plus) parties like. It can be a page long, or ten. It acts the way the safety announcements do at the beginning of your flight. Seemingly not important– until you actually need it. Doesn’t do anything to get you off the ground, but gives you peace of mind while in the air.
(A TED talk from Dan Gilbert on Synthetic v. Natural Happiness)
I may have coined the phrase, but you’ve definitely fleshed it out here. Bravo! Now, a question: how does one PROPOSE a micro-marriage? Is it the full on, bend at the knee, look up expectantly, and produce some form of jewelery? Or is it more casual, and arm around the waist and a gold-flecked ice cream cone? You know, for the new traditionalists…
Of course, this also opens the questions of “Why should marriage, or micro-marriage, be between two people only?”
I was involved in a “V” style polyamorous relationship for about three years. We all lived together for two of them. Effectively, my girlfriend had two partners, only one of whom she was legally married to… I’ve performed a wedding for a similar triad of people within the last two years as well.
If you’re going to open marriage up to being contracts (which I think is perfectly reasonable), it might be a good time to reexamine other potential assumptions. Gender is also another obvious one for many people.
The downside to all of this is that you have to create and sign a contract, which is tedious as all hell. There is probably money to be made in templates for such contracts… along with new social norms which take the sting out of the bureaucratize.
Hi Gwen,
In response to this passage:
I happen to believe that living with one person for the rest of my life would stunt my growth, and theirs, too. We get fixed, rigid in our thinking while in relationship with the other.
This strikes me as the nut of the whole idea of remaining single, of being in a non-marital relationship, or of perhaps “micro-marrying”.
Now, I believe that you (and others) believe either the above statements, or something similar, to be true. I respect that belief, and, ya know, to each his/her own, and all that. (I mean that sincerely.)
But I do think, from personal experience, that the statements add up to hogwash. No one can stunt another person’s growth without the complete and utter permission of the stunt-ee. (The person supposedly being stunted.) I’ve been married for eight years, and with m’lady for over ten. Sure, sometimes I might feel that my wife is “holding me back”, or some such similar sentiment. But is a sentiment, only.
Upon further reflection, each and every time I feel such sentiments, the genuine truth is that I’ve projected upon her something of my own insecurities, lack of confidence, lack of stick-to-it-tiveness, lack of ambition. It is never her actually holding me back; rather, it is me.
I’m not saying that every relationship can work, long-term, or that people who get married ought never divorce, or that, in general, there aren’t entirely legitimate reasons not to marry somebody. There are, on all counts. But, saying, in toto, that marriage as an institution will keep people fixed wrongly lays internal blame upon the external.
There are a million ways to not get fixed, not get rigid, not keep things lively in a relationship. A big one, of course, is honest conversation between partners. Related is trust in the other person’s wild and crazy ideas (and the not so wild and crazy ones, too). The third is mindfulness about one’s own ruts, and self-knowledge about ways to get out of these. The fourth is patience, because seeming rigidity is, in my experience, entirely temporary (life refutes stasis). The fifth is courage to make our own relationships, and not allow relationships to seemingly make us.
But, again, there are plenty of good reasons not to marry this or that person. However, I’m not sure whatsoever that there are good reasons to generalize about the entire institution, especially in the way I quoted. Because marriage is best regarded in the details, the intimate touchpoints between two people — and very little else. No one outside the two married know what it is like to be married to THAT person at THAT time — which is, ultimately, a big part of how being married is … wait for it … actually quite a bit of fun, and liberating.
take care,
md
Gwen:
I love this concept, and think it is highly book-worthy. Have you thought about writing more about this idea?
I think a year-by-year contract makes the most sense if you want to have a child-free relationship.
If I ever were to get married again (and not sure I want to go down that road) I would most definitely do year-by-year.
Wow! First time reader to your blog…passionate bloggers on this subject, ha? I have been married for two years to my husband and we have a two-year old daughter now. I’m almost 37 and my opinions on marriage are different than in my 20’s. So many women fall into that “trap” of living that quintessential married life with the big house and other earthly possessions. Marriage is hard and it’s even harder with a child. By the way, I got pregnant too (out of wedlock). Apostle, Paul said,” It’s more blessed to be single than married.” I salute to all of you who are single-you have trials and tribulations too just like us married folk.
MD & all, I took some time to reflect on these comments & have responded, in podcast form