Companionate marriage

The Bahá'í Faith does not accept any of three definitions of companionate marriage (cohabitation, promise to never procreate, trial marriage before children are born), though only the first would lead to removal of voting rights

"Concerning the three definitions of 'companionate marriage' which you give in your letter: the first, which is defined as living together without being married, on either a trial or immoral basis, is obviously unacceptable in Bahá'í teachings and is, moreover, an offence which, if persisted in, could call for deprivation of voting rights. The second and third, namely (2) a marriage where the couple agree ahead of time that they will not have children, ever, and (3) a marriage in which the couple would not have children until they are sure that they wish to stay married, divorce by mutual consent being envisaged before children are born, are private situations which would be undetectable by anyone who has not been confided in by either the husband or the wife. Thus, unlike the first type of 'companionate marriage' they do not constitute blatant immorality and no question of the removal of voting rights would arise. Nevertheless they are also both contrary to the spirit of Bahá'í law. The Bahá'í Teachings do not contemplate any form of 'trial marriage'. A couple should study each other's character and spend time getting to know each other before they decide to marry, and when they do marry it should be with the intention of establishing an eternal bond. They should realize, moreover, that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. A couple who are physically incapable of having children may, of course, marry, since the procreation of children is not the only purpose of marriage. However, it would be contrary to the spirit of the Teachings for a couple to decide voluntarily never to have any children."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, November 3, 1982, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1269)

Companionate marriage, where parties initiate and maintain their relationship on a trial basis or on other immoral grounds, is condemned

"The basic difference between the two categories of relationships is that common law marriage is considered by the parties concerned as a solemn contract with the sole intention of establishing a family but which, because of legal complications, cannot be duly registered, whereas in companionate marriage and the like the parties concerned initiate and maintain their relationship either on a trial basis or on other immoral grounds, both of which are condemned in our Teachings.

"We feel that by applying these principles in each of the cases you cite in your letter, with wisdom, kindness and love you will be able gradually to educate the friends in the fundamentals of our Teachings and enable them to overcome their moral difficulties."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Paraguay, November 21, 1967, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1271)

Companionate marriage where there is no legal or religious mariage is an immoral relationship and we cannot accept believers openly behaving in this way (though see also common law marriage)

"Regarding companionate marriage and flagrant immorality, we quote below two passages from letters written on behalf of the Guardian:

'The Guardian has instructed me to say that companionate marriage, where there is no legal or religious marriage, is an immoral relationship and we cannot accept as believers those who are openly behaving in this way.' (To the NSA of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, dated September 26, 1957)

'As regards flagrantly immoral relationships, such as a man living with a mistress, this should be brought to his attention in a loving manner, and he should be urged to either marry the woman if he is free to do so, or to give up this conduct, so detrimental to the Faith and to his own spiritual progress.'" (To the NSA of Central America, dated February 9, 1957)

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Paraguay, November 21, 1967, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1275)

Regarding common law marriage (where not legally recognized due to church and state/legal complications) being different from companionate marriage

• See Common law marriage

Prophets of decadence advocating (among other things) companionate marriage and who do not regard procreation of children as sacred and primary purpose of marriage would, if given free rein, lead the human race back to barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction

"The recrudescence of religious intolerance, of racial animosity, and of patriotic arrogance; the increasing evidences of selfishness, of suspicion, of fear and of fraud; the spread of terrorism, of lawlessness, of drunkenness and of crime; the unquenchable thirst for, and the feverish pursuit after, earthly vanities, riches and pleasures; the weakening of family solidarity; the laxity in parental control; the lapse into luxurious indulgence; the irresponsible attitude towards marriage and the consequent rising tide of divorce; the degeneracy of art and music, the infection of literature, and the corruption of the press; the extension of the influence and activities of those "prophets of decadence" who advocate companionate marriage, who preach the philosophy of nudism, who call modesty an intellectual fiction, who refuse to regard the procreation of children as the sacred and primary purpose of marriage, who denounce religion as an opiate of the people, who would, if given free rein, lead back the human race to barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction--these appear as the outstanding characteristics of a decadent society, a society that must either be reborn or perish."

(Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 187-188)

See also

• Common law marriage