which it summons them.

All this may be accepted as establishing a case for permanent unions as
the only legitimate things, but inasmuch as it claims that the demand
for permanence lies in the very heart of love itself it may still be
asked with some urgency, "Why introduce a marriage ceremony with public
vows?" And here I must follow a somewhat different line of thought
which may at first sight seem contradictory. In spite of all that I
have said, I believe that even ardent lovers are all the better for
being bound, because of the wayward element of inconstancy in human
nature. Thousands of married persons have never once been conscious of
their vows. They have never come near thinking, "We must hold together
because we promised," or "We must make the best of things because we
are tied together." Thousands have never for a moment wanted to change
their condition. But with others it is not so. No men or women are
always at their best. Though they may have had moments on the heights
when they gladly took each other for better or for worse, there will
come other moods when the finer notes of love will not sound in their
ears. There will come to all but a few couples hours when they will be
irritated and annoyed with one another. And if they were free to do so,
they might fling away from each other and so miss after all the best
that was to be. For the best is not to be found in those early days
when passion flames and dominates, but rather in those later days when
two personalities have at last become really fitted to each other and
when the daily round of labor is illumined by the lamp of love. And
therefore, being what we are, it is a good thing for our own sakes that
we should be bound.

Even though the bonds should actually mean pain, it is still good that
they should be allowed to bind, though it be only for the sake of the