Look what marriage is doing [4]

Finally, let me turn to the establishment, or specifically the Judiciary, and the church again in a part of the law.  The latter first; the case lies in “which man giveth this woman away?”  I refer to when things begin to get rough at home, the child getting to marry and parents disagreeing primarily over the age issue.

The approximate base age of divorce petitioners at the courts in the country today is 22/3, married on average less than one and one and a half years to two.  The percentage of the total statistically is above 60.  The meaning by inference of that phraseology “which man giveth this woman away” raises the core in the statement that sanctified marriage as of divine institution has been sold out for soap opera.  The church is to blame for acquiescing in that “I…”.  Efie nye [there is no peace at home], and the pair get into it with that gloom-cloud over them. 

 My example question in the earlier discourse [2] was the thinking that follows the couple who have been at it for 30-50.  It is said they go to church for “blessing”.  I believe there is also a misunderstanding which has led to a wrong assumption for less than insightful appreciation of the word “blessing”.  It is not.  It is rather to thank God for holding them together that far.  The mislead occurs because the church wants that exhibition as part of obedience to their rules for full membership-recognition to claim all rites including the communicant and burial in house.  It is like an old English pub telly-advert: “I am only here for the beer”.  There is a cheapening here and that applies to the self-announcement response to the ‘which man….?, refers to the “I…” so-and-so pantomime.  Do we [the church specifically] check the credentials of the “I”?  It matters and I would say custom’s better formula is unique because it cuts out the feuding behind the pre-marriage discords between the immediate parents.  That pre-emption is something hugely important.  I mean there shall have to be a d’accord at that base because in our belief, it is blessing or real meaningful “wish well” for the couple to be ab initio—solidly fundamental.  

Untenable nuisance

The Judiciary is forced into the dirt cleanup or ugly confrontations willy-nilly.  The assumption is the unfairness for the divorce judge, thinking he or she has no marital problem(s) of his or her own.  Solution for relief?  That takes thinking back without impugning integrity of the bench in its most remote sense is recourse to take a closer look at the native custom which has an impeccable arbitration or mediation mechanism [the Creole will say: “na we own”]. It does not deliver a ‘nunc dimittis’ to a marriage, however shattered it looks.  Of course I am not oblivious of the insidious side effect of having to endure untenable nuisance by both in the marriage.  Its philosophy relies on “it will be well”-hopefully.  

The main idea of opting against is not to jettison the ordinance and the judicial annulment processes, if that is only ultimate but simply propose a re-engagement in studying both to create a hybrid that should settle the vexations about free-booting marriage-splits in the country.  The ancestor had a finest way out to prevent it primarily or damage-repair to maintain a certain sense of decency where the breach had become a fait accompli absolument—irretrievable.  The need for a final graceful saving from the native system is to stop the two parting as bitterest enemies.  The curiosa no one can explain is that even in the “cannot” mood, they each stalk themselves using all kinds of subterfuge.  It is easiest where there is even only a child.

That in part also runs back to the implied safety valve which tradition keeps that the father of your child is your husband.  St Peter’s letter has one man to seven wives futurely-theory.  There is also the flip side [not necessarily contradictory but somewhat concurs with the generality of the customary reasoning which abnegates from absolute dissolution] from St Paul in his most definitive definition of LOVE [Charity]—“…suffers long…never fails…”.  In Ga: sumo gboo ke moshi.  There are all of these to contend with for their secular contentions and contradictions by the church fascinating for in-depth study.

Solution?

Remember, it is not the imprimatur to marry from only inside the church or adze ko adze mu that galvanises marriage enduringly.  The one big factor missed or overlooked by all is that you are dealing with human beings tripped up or down in what should be an exciting partnership in adventure.  The painful question to ponder is to which extent the marriage erosion story might go.  I suspect from this scenario: Every woman wants to be a mother.  But if the rundown is not stymied, then for that cause the credo would be “you give me a child and go; I will handle the rest”, many a woman would say. Even married clergy are suffering; the singles are fighting within themselves individually.  The message from the meaning of that wisdom is for us to move away from our grandiose pretence to stop this rot.  I rest my case.

©Prof. nana essilfie-conduah.