The union between a man and a woman is sacred, a coveted bond fostered by family and society. The purpose the union serves is not only for bearing children, but to create a long-lasting mutual dependence for perpetuating the familial lineage, and thereby mankind, with cultural, spiritual, and other factors at stake. Ideally such unions cannot be sacrificed -once they are formed and a pact has been decreed between the couple, there cannot be any physical or spiritual force that divides them. Emotions may disrupt the union and give way to infidelity, yet if the union is sound to begin with, if the canons written by man and woman are well-founded and just, such potential scenarios should not cause distress as being probable. The man and the woman must relentlessly be confident that their bond of promise and trust cannot be severed, that the family’s integrity will not be deprecated.
But why is it essential that the union be enforced by law and rite? Surely if a bond has been consummated by a man and a woman and the understandings of mutual dedication have been laid forth, no law or symbolic ritual will have any relevance. The term “marriage” holds lawful connotations that compel a couple to bind together as a unit decreed as being valid by the state in which the man and woman reside. For arguably thousands of years bonds have been sealed by governing bodies-political, religious, or both. The custom of marriage is thus dictated by society, it is a concept that came to fruition by societal bodies in order to dissuade immorality and convey supreme significance in the sacred union. In the early days of intellectual mankind marriage perhaps served as a commitment to the tribe to which the couple belonged, that children would be born to strengthen the tribe against foreign nations and ensure the longevity of the race. But in modern times, cross-race interaction is becoming a diminishing threat to society as cultural as well as religious divides are being decimated despite conflict created to oppose that reality. Transportation and communication facilitate international integration which will only progress, perpetually melding and homogenizing the human race. The relevance of religion and law in the certification of the personal union will slowly fade and the symbolic concept of marriage will wither as a result. The titles of husband and wife will revert simply to man and woman.
Given the modern times we live in and understanding the potentially imminent breakdown of religious divisions, the ideology behind marriage, that is the religious and lawful properties of the union, will possess less and less significance. The linkage must first and foremost be enforced by the couple entering that sublime cooperation in a private agreement which cannot be compromised by any external or interpersonal conflicts. The understandings of the relevance of the pact must be mutual between the man and the woman, while law and rite should not be essential in validating the bond. If the couple cannot come to terms with their commitment to the relationship itself and to each other, the union should not and cannot be forged in the first place. The decision lies upon the man and the woman to determine their own fate, to form the family structure, and perpetuate man’s existence. Such a union cannot be limited by terminology, and the state or institution should not demand how the bond is to be realized. Government and deity worship must have no influence on the union, as it is a sacred entity for the duo who wish the fruition of eternal codependence, to travel along the path of existence harmoniously with grace, fortified by immortal faith.