As we’ve been discussing marriage in class, I’ve found myself
trying to understand the true meaning of this institution. Is it only through a
slip of paper that a strong family foundation can begin? Before our in-class
discussions, I might have answered, much too quickly, “yes”, but now I must
answer with a firm “no”. What changed my mind? It was the realization that
marriage was not only a display of love, but could also be defined by the slew of government benefits associated with it. Maybe it’s time that the government begin to
recognize the relationships between friends. Why not change our romantic lives
to be in the private sphere, and our friendships to be in the public sphere?
When I first heard of the “friends with benefits” proposal, I cringed. All I could picture was friendships having to
pass a checklist of some sort. But then it hit me. Don’t we already do this with our potential husband or wife? When “choosing” a spouse, I’d have to
imagine that many look to financial state and job stability as deciding
factors.
In class, we have discussed the economic benefits of marriage,
and even a delayed marriage. Marriage often involves a strategy that will aid
in greater financial success. If the government were to grant benefits between
best friends, one could argue that this might relieve some of the financial
stress between spouses. If one of the married pair were to lose his or her job,
the best friend could protect the couple from a harsh financial setback.
From an article in The Wall Street Journal, Katherine Rosman writes,"Why is time spent with friends so good for marriage?" I put to the group when we sat down. "Economies of scale," Sean said instantly, meaning that when the job of dealing with the kids is spread among many, everyone is left a bit more relaxed."
Our government should start the transition to support friendships,
which will, in the end, better marriages. In a marriage,
especially with kids, it is easy to forget about the outside world. Having a
third or fourth adult figure can produce a close-knit community. Often the pressures
of raising children are put on only two individuals. If the couple does not
have their parents or family to help them, a group of friends, who are legally
connected, can be the next best thing.Family closeness can still be achieved with many people, but maybe
the adoption of a “friends with benefits” policy can break down the stigma that
married life oppresses a person, or that it makes a man or woman feel trapped
in a relationship. A legal contract between friends can remind a person that he or she needs to spend time away of the home, and can have meaningful relationships outside of the one with his or her significant other.
With friends being legally dependent on each other, it could result
in a push in the right direction for our society as a whole. It could even be said that with friends
being granted the same rights as a married couple, both men and women might not
feel the constant societal pressure to get married. There doesn't need to be that shameful "if we're over 35 and still single..." pact, and instead two people can be dependent on one another without a romantic attachment. But above all, this could
provide for a temporary solution for the gay and lesbian couples who do not yet
have the right to marry. A shocking statistic is brought to light in a PBS article. Same sex couples can lose up to $500,000 over a lifespan, all
because they miss out on the benefits that marriage ensures. This figure is appalling, but sadly makes sense.
Is it time that that the government takes away the benefits exclusive to marriage and grants them to people who are still fostering strong relationships that will impact society positively? To me, it feels like a "friends with benefit" policy should be considered, or else it seems like we are punishing and disadvantaging those who choose not to, or are not allowed to, partake in the institution of marriage.
