When I first saw this comic today, I read it quickly and was mildly offended at the mother’s comment in the second panel. Then I reread it and realized that I did agree with it. You see, at first I had read the second panel from the sacramental viewpoint. From the view of God’s desire as He unites people in marriage, there is no doubt that the Sacrament of Marriage does make a relationship permanent. This is why in some forms of the marriage ceremony, the phrase is recited that what God has put together let no one put asunder. It is a holy and awesome matter to be married, for it calls for a lifetime commitment, “from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health.”
But, from the human viewpoint, the mother is absolutely correct. “Marriage doesn’t make a relationship permanent.” No piece of paper, no sacramental ceremony, no good wishes, and no desires are sufficient to make a marriage permanent. Speaking to the British Parliament, Sir Winston Churchill said, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” Of course there is much much more to marriage than “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” But, certainly for any marriage to work, each side will, nay must, put in a fair amount of those four ingredients: blood, toil, tears, and sweat. The labor of coming to know each other is much more than knowing each other in the Biblical sense.
In one sense, young people in love are absolutely correct. It should be, and was intended to be, sufficient to love each other and to be willing to be with each other forever. I am convinced that this was truly God’s intention in the Garden of Eden. It is our fallen and damaged nature that has turned marriage into a mixture of high exaltation together with the need to keep working and toiling to make marriage work. Yes, I am a Latino romantic. I truly do believe and agree with the young who are in love. That should be all that is needed. The sadness of the fall is that so much more is needed than just love in order to make a marriage permanent.
I have to agree with the mom’s caution in this comic. Marriage isn’t just about “I’m afraid I’ll lose her” it should be confirming something that is already a sure thing. Taking a stable relationship to the next level not trying to tie down a sailing ship. How many women have gotten married or pregnant trying to keep a guy around just to find out they are on their own again, but they have lost something in the process? I also have to agree with you that marriage in the eyes of God IS permanent and should be treated as such.
I think, however, it is important to make a difference between being “in love” and “loving” someone. If you are “in love” it just won’t be enough to keep the marriage together. If you are just “in love” you gloss over the other person’s faults and see what you want to see, not what is. It is also not a commitment in and of itself. “Loving” someone you see their faults and love them despite or because of those faults, but you are not blind to them. “Loving” someone does not preclude being “in love” but does not require that flighty feeling either. Take for example Golde and Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. They were an arranged marriage and yet they learned to love each other; though they met on their wedding day there was no question of permanency. Golde’s definition of love: “For twenty-five years I’ve lived with him, fought with him, starved with him, twenty five years my bed is his, if that’s not love what is?” At the end of the song, however, they agree they do love each other and you can tell they are also “in love”.