Allow me to submit this opinion emanating from a discussion that stole my attention from one notable media house locally. I found the discussions to be so insightful that my pen got its way to this paper spontaneously, in quest to airing my views. The bible says in Ephesians 5:25, “for husbands, this means love your wives just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her”. In Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh”. Scripture has described marriage as a mystery. Two persons cannot become one flesh from a logical point of view. It takes faith to understand the institute of marriage. Attempting to apply logic through reasoning, will only frustrate the process and seemingly render the institution unnecessary. Marriage is beyond legislation. It is not even worked out at the court of laws. It is a sanctified, coming together of a man and woman who allow the divinity of God to lead their union.
Do we marry in or out of community of property? Honestly I did not think that this question mattered. Neither did I believe that it was necessary. I am actually surprised that such a question arises whenever two persons are in the process of getting married. I am further perturbed by the fact that ‘out of community of property’ option is something that society considers at times. I have reservations in accepting that we are able to associate marriage with out of community of property arrangement. When I listen to proponents of such an arrangement, I get to realise that they are mostly discussing ‘assets’. They try to devise plans that will safe-guard assets in the event of a divorce or insolvency of a partner’s liabilities. To me, this is somewhat an insurance plan. Such plans have hallmarks of a profit making contract, and less to do with marriage.
Marriage is a sacrifice. By leaving your parents and holding fast to your partner in one flesh, it means that one has to give his/her all to the new partner. He becomes her and she becomes him. One totally surrenders the self to the other. The union is not about the good or bad times, health or sickness. That is why it is expected to sustain such conditions. ‘One flesh’ means celebrating the good times together and sharing pain and sorrows together in bad times. If only we can come to an understanding that marriage goes beyond asset accumulation, then we won’t have to concern ourselves of how we should be safe-guarding materials in the case of some awful eventuality. We cannot be planning for cases of divorce when we want to get married. Why focus on the negative? An insurance plan for some dreadful eventuality negates the very mystery of ‘one flesh’. Unless the motives for coming together as man and woman are driven by asset accumulation, out of community of property should not be a preferred option. I should conclude by stating that I am not an expert on marriage issues, rather I swim better on education waters