Love and marriage no longer 'horse and carriage'

By Karen Go

Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins seem like the perfect Hollywood couple. As someone who considers People magazine a staple in her life, I have keenly watched their relationship through the years. I admire them. They have a couple of kids, some from past marriages and some that they created together. That Susan is considerably older than Tim does not faze either one of them. More significantly, they dare to live with each other and raise their kids together without ever planning to get married.

In Hollywood, image is everything, and some might scorn Tim and Susan for "living in sin." Yet Tim and Susan have stayed together since 1988, a lot more than I can say for most Hollywood marriages--or even marriages in general.

I admire their no-excuses lifestyle, which I believe must be based on true love, complete honesty, and great respect for each other. Instead of believing in a union because it has been written down on paper, I value the sincerity of Tim and Susan's relationship because it isn't based on a legal tie that forces them to stick it out.

Having been raised in the Philippines, a predominantly Catholic country that also holds the unique distinction of having a Cardinal named Sin, I believe that the relationship between Sarandon and Robbins stands for all the open-mindedness and freedoms of America.

The hypocrisy of good Christians who promised at their wedding that in sickness and in health they will maintain their devotion to one another--that is, until they ask that same Christian institution for an annulment--has made me skeptical of the merit of marriage, especially when it is supposed to represent love.

When Sarandon won the Oscar for Dead Man Walking, I was in front of the television, cheering her and her chosen lifestyle. And when she thanked Tim, who directed the film, describing him as "her partner in crime," I thought that no other couple could reach such a perfect union. Of course my conception of this unmarried couple is idealized, but can't I take a few liberties? After all, they work in Hollywood.

Hoping to find a course that would give me reason to believe in marriage again, I shopped Nancy Cott's DeVane Lecture Course on Marriage: Thought, Practice, and Policies. But I had to nod in agreement when Cott mentioned that marriage did not necessarily go with love as Frank Sinatra sings. In fact, she stated that the course would not attempt to link love and marriage, but would only deal with the public policies concerned with marriage. And why not? Love and marriage certainly do not depend on each other to exist.

Leaving the DeVane lecture, I felt let down. Not because I thought that the public policies of marriage would be boring, but because I didn't want to accept my own suspicion that marriage was a social construct. Realizing that marriage can be reduced to a public institution, one that is propagated by the government and societal conventions, scares me.

With the increasing numbers of pre-nuptial agreements and a high divorce rate looming over the heads of married couples, why do people still marry? I'd like to believe it is out of true love, but the pre-nups tell me that my attitude is naïve, simple-minded, and idealized.

Increasingly, people are getting married with the idea that the reality of divorce must be considered. My mind returns to my champions of co-habitational existence, Tim and Susan, and I ask myself: why can't everyone be like them?

Marriage is a social construct that is propagated by most religions, the government, and even your next door neighbor. When two people are devoted to each other and can only foresee a future together, the conventional next step is to take legal measures and "tie the knot." Marriage--with its rings and license--is tangible proof of love, a promise that binds, and a green light to form a family. But love changes, promises are broken, and pre-marital sex has become the norm. What happened to the permanent nature of marriage? Until death do us part? I think not.

Maybe the only reason to get married anymore is to appease your parents, religious leaders, or the government. Love and families can exist without marriage, and nothing--not even a contract--can bind you to someone you no longer love.

Perhaps there will be a time, and perhaps it is already here, when parents can say to their kids "your mommy and daddy love each other very much and have made an unwritten promise to be together," and have that statement mean more than a contract authorized by the state of Connecticut. Until I read in People that Tim and Susan have split up, I'll continue to hope.

Back to Opinion...