I have seen some interesting and thought-provoking articles arguing that the institution of marriage should be discontinued, or that the State should have no role in marriage. But Michael’s argument is essentially an argument from narcissism. What the author so decries - that committing completely to another person in marriage undermines our freedom to pursue other relationships or other forms of self-interest – is actually central to authentic marriage. Mutual self-giving, to the point where the other’s interests are regarded at least as highly than one’s own, is part of the ideal of marriage, though not always realised in practice.

I wonder if Michael applies the same logic to the choice to become a parent?

Marriage does not require any particular vows, such as promising to love one person forever. People write their own marriage vows these days. Marriage makes a relationship legal and public. It has a legal definition but it does not have an emotional one. If a couple chooses to, they can write a vow which says, "I promise to take steps to dissolve this marriage if I feel at any time that I can no longer maintain a sense of commitment to it."

Hi Louisa

Yes certainly when the designated marriager person or mutation says:

"Should anyone here present know of any reason that this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace."

The Groom should take the opportunity to Declare the Get Out of Gaol Free clause:

"I promise to take steps to dissolve this marriage if I feel at any time that I can no longer maintain a sense of commitment to it."

Where-upon the Bride or Other Groom or Lesbian Partner, Transexual, Transgender, or Hermophrodite could add:

Bloody Oath Mate!

The doting aunties will love it :p

Your post leads me to believe that you haven't attended a marriage ceremony recently.

Lousia

At common law, the definition of marriage was and is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into, for life.

The Marriage Act adopts this definition.

So if people make vows inconsistent with the legal definition, the law does not recognise that union as a marriage. However the property relationships laws, formerly the de facto relationships laws, in effect impose the status of marriage on couples who live together as husband and wife although not legally married. Critically, they even impose this status on people who have deliberately chosen not to marry, and who reject that definition for their own relationship.

There is another sense in which people are not free to enter into marriage as defined by their own self-made vows. This is that bigamy is a crime.

So it's not true to say that marriage does not require any particular vows, for two reasons:
1. if it's not monogamous and heterosexual, the law will not recognise it as marriage
2. certain vows are a criminal offence. It's a speech crime, a thought crime: the actual uttering of the words is the "offence" of bigamy.

If you're saying that people should be free to enter into whatever consensual marriage relations they want, as expressed by their vows, I agree. No doubt many people just ignore the law and fashion their own, which is as it should be.

Notice how the so-called marriage equality movement was completely silent about this injustice. Polyamorists actually face imprisonment for their sexuality; whereas it was simply untrue that homosexuals didn't have the "right" to marry. They had the same right as everyone else. They just can't get the gumment to register it. And the supporters of same-sex "marriage", when confronted about this hypocrisy, usually make it quite clear that they are in favour of the imprisonment of people for consensual marriage vows of which they happen to disapprove.

Louisa:
"Marriage makes a relationship legal and public"

Why does it need to be either? People who live together as a couple do not miss anything in relation to the government by not having a marriage certificate. Nor do they lose out in relation to the government by not having their relationship declared public. Unless marriage gives them some advantage in relation to the government then there is no need to have any government involvement.

"they can write a vow which says, "I promise to take steps to dissolve this marriage if I feel at any time that I can no longer maintain a sense of commitment to it."

Why would you need to promise this? Wouldn't you just do it when the time came. You are allowed to make choices that you have not given a fore-warning about.

Marriage vows have to have some commonality about them or else how do you define a marriage?