It couldn't be a simpler answer. Marriage doesn't really mean

"It couldn't be a simpler answer. Marriage doesn't really mean anything to me. I feel like in many ways marriage is more for the families of the couple than for the people involved, so I don't gravitate to it." These words from Jon Hamm reveal a profound truth about the institution of marriage, one that challenges the traditional notion of it being a sacred or essential bond between two individuals. In his reflection, Hamm highlights the disconnect that many feel between the institution of marriage and its true significance in the lives of the people involved. Instead, he suggests that marriage has often become something more for the families of the couple—an external ritual rather than an internal, personal commitment. His words call us to question whether the modern marriage serves the individuals in the relationship, or whether it is driven by societal expectations and family pressures.

In the ancient world, marriage was viewed as a societal duty more than a personal choice. In ancient Rome, marriage was a contract between families, one that ensured the continuation of lineage, the transfer of property, and the maintenance of social order. The relationship between the couple was often secondary to the role they played in the greater social structure. It was in the medieval era, under the influence of the Christian church, that marriage began to be viewed as a sacred covenant between individuals, ordained by God. But even then, marriage was often not a personal matter of love or partnership, but one influenced by familial and political alliances.

This shift in the meaning of marriage is echoed in Hamm’s reflection, suggesting that even in modern times, the institution of marriage is often about the families more than the individuals. Much like the ancient Romans, today’s weddings are frequently elaborate affairs that satisfy not only the desires of the couple but also the expectations and social obligations of both families. The societal pressures to conform to these expectations can overshadow the true emotional connection between the partners. Consider the countless weddings that are more concerned with guest lists, dress codes, and traditions than with the deeper significance of the union itself.

Hamm's skepticism about marriage also touches on a broader, more modern perspective on the institution. In recent years, many people have questioned whether marriage is still relevant in the same way it was in the past. The rise of cohabitation, the acceptance of same-sex unions, and the increasing number of couples choosing not to marry have all contributed to the evolving idea of what a committed relationship should look like. The notion that marriage is a symbol of commitment is being challenged by the realization that commitment itself—whether within the framework of marriage or not—is the real foundation of any lasting relationship.

Let us take the example of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, two artists whose marriage was fraught with tumultuous passion, creative brilliance, and personal challenges. Their bond was far from conventional, with both of them having numerous affairs and disagreements. Yet, they remained married for many years, united not by the traditional notions of marriage but by their shared vision and love for art. For them, their union was not defined by an external institution but by the personal connection they had with one another. Their story reveals that the true meaning of marriage is not always tied to societal expectations, but to the understanding and commitment between two people.

The lesson from Jon Hamm’s perspective is one of reflection and individuality in the face of societal pressures. It challenges us to think deeply about the significance of marriage and whether it is something that is truly meaningful for us as individuals, or something that we feel obliged to enter into because of family or social norms. Marriage can still be a powerful expression of love and commitment, but it should be based on personal choice rather than external expectations. The true foundation of a strong relationship lies not in the ritual of marriage, but in the mutual respect, trust, and understanding between two people.

In our own lives, we must carefully consider why we choose to enter into relationships—whether in marriage or in any other form of commitment. Let us not be swayed by societal pressures or the expectations of others. Instead, we should create relationships that are built on genuine connection and shared values, where both partners feel free to express their love and commitment on their own terms. Just as Hamm suggests, it is important to question the institution of marriage and whether it truly serves the people involved, or whether it simply caters to external demands. Let us strive to build relationships that are meaningful, authentic, and driven by the true desires and needs of the individuals within them. In doing so, we can redefine what it means to be truly committed, in ways that are relevant to the lives we lead today.