From time to time I like to look up quotes on a variety of subjects. Love being the most prominent cause for those searches springs a wealth of expression. Most consistently, of late, when asked my position on the subject of love (being in it, around it, the receiver/giver of it) my response is that love evolves. I take that position when love is shoved into the construct of marriage. I have been asked by my closest friend on more than one occasion over the course of our relationship if I love my husband. The response has unhesistantly been yes, but with a qualifier added...kinda how Kool-Aid comes pre-sweetened but isn't it's best without the sugar I put in it myself.
I recognize that some things I say may come across as though I am against marriage and would vehemently advise anyone not to marry. Contrarily, I think marriage is a contract that should be entered into with eyes (not so much the heart) wide open. In general, I think people should know what they are getting into. I realize that using the words "contract" and "marriage" in the same sentence erases the romance and even commercial appeal pledging to spend the remainder of your days with one person can evoke. I do that because that is precisely what marriage boils down to in my opinion.
Marriage is a contractual agreement between two people who vow that only death will part them. They promise that they will remain loyal, steadfast and long-suffering through sickness and health, riches and poverty. For all practical purposes marriage is a business partnership, a merger of two profitable entities to form one lucrative conglomerate that from the beginning of the negotiation of terms seems equitable for both parties. Over time, from my experience, the marriage of assets and liabilities, ebbs and flows of matriculation become cyclical constant incongruent compromise for one (usually the woman). So one can be become embittered enough to claim breach of contract and dissolve the contract (ie divorce). But why a contract? Because contracts inherently have conditions. They are supposed to have them. How else do those involved know how they are expected to conduct themselves in order for the agreement to remain in force?
So then that brings me to love...just in general. Quickly, people boast of how condition-less their love is. I counter with a question of the measure of their compassion. Family members are exempt from this discussion because we were born loving them it would seem so they are obsolete. I will use myself (as not to make you too uncomfortable). I love my spouse. The way I love him today is concretely different from the way I loved him almost ten years ago when we first exchanged vows. I have more compassion for him than love. I say that because, as stated to my closest friend recently, there are things that coincide with marriage that don't necessarily fit with love. One allows what the other would not dare tolerate. Thus, the need for compassion when tempted to sing-a-long with Tina when she sings "what's love got to do with it". Furthermore, my love toward him is not, by any stretch of the imagination unconditional. It can't be. I have expectations. He has expectations. We all have expectations of those we choose to love. We can play semantics all day. Love is conditionally condition-less.
