I don't think marriage is in the cards for me. I think it's an

In the words of CM Punk, the rebel of the ring and philosopher of his own defiance, we hear a cry that cuts through the ages: “I don’t think marriage is in the cards for me. I think it’s an archaic institution.” These words, though born of a modern man, carry the same fire that burned in the hearts of the ancients who questioned the chains of tradition. They are not the dismissal of love, but the challenge of conformity. For in every era, there arise those who refuse to bow to customs merely because they are old. Such spirits shake the dust from worn-out institutions and ask: does this still serve the truth of the soul?

Marriage, that ancient covenant sanctified by gods and kings, has long stood as a pillar of society. Yet what began as union and devotion has, through centuries, been bound in layers of expectation and control. In the days of our forebears, marriage was not the dance of hearts, but the joining of property, power, and duty. Women were given, not chosen; love was seldom the architect. The institution itself—though once sacred—has often become a vessel of ownership rather than freedom, of obligation rather than choice. Thus, to call it archaic is not to despise union, but to unmask the weight of centuries that have buried its purest meaning.

When Punk speaks of the cards not favoring him, he speaks like the stoic warriors of old who saw fate as a deck dealt by unseen hands. He does not curse the deck, but accepts its truth. Perhaps he senses that his soul walks a path too solitary for the laws of men, that the fires of his purpose cannot be contained by the bonds of tradition. Like Diogenes, who cast away comforts to live by his own measure of truth, CM Punk rejects the illusion that fulfillment must be found in the same vessel as others. His defiance is not bitterness—it is authenticity.

Consider the tale of Hypatia of Alexandria, the philosopher who lived not for the embrace of man but for the pursuit of wisdom. She walked unwed, not out of disdain for companionship, but because her marriage was to knowledge itself. Her love was boundless, directed not toward one, but toward all who sought truth. She defied the expectations of her time and paid dearly for it. Yet through her sacrifice, she proved that the worth of a life lies not in the rituals one obeys, but in the courage to live one’s conviction. Punk’s words echo this same spirit: the refusal to kneel before tradition when it no longer carries justice or meaning.

And yet, there is a quiet tenderness beneath the rebellion. To call marriage archaic is also to mourn what it once was—a sacred partnership of souls, now often dulled by law and performance. Punk’s lament reminds us that love, in its truest form, does not need parchment or priest. It thrives in freedom, in honesty, in the meeting of equals who walk beside one another, not behind. The institution may age, but the essence of love is eternal—it evolves, seeking new forms in which to breathe.

The lesson, then, is not to reject marriage outright, but to seek authenticity in all bonds. Let no man or woman be wed to custom for the sake of appearance, nor cling to union for fear of solitude. Let every partnership—be it romantic, platonic, or spiritual—be chosen freely, without the ghost of obligation whispering in its halls. For the soul that is enslaved to ritual cannot love truly, and the love that fears freedom is but a shadow of itself.

Therefore, dear listener, when you hear the words of Punk, do not take them as rebellion for rebellion’s sake. Hear them as the thunder that precedes renewal. Question what has been handed down to you. Ask yourself whether your beliefs are alive or merely inherited bones. If you marry, do so not because the world commands it, but because your heart finds a mirror in another’s eyes. And if you walk alone, walk proudly, for solitude too can be sacred.

In this, CM Punk’s declaration becomes not an act of cynicism, but of wisdom—a torch in the darkness of conformity. He reminds us that to live truthfully is to live courageously, even if it means standing apart from the crowd. Let us then honor both love and freedom, not as rivals but as partners in the grand art of living. For the ancient institutions may crumble, but the soul that chooses its own path will endure forever.