Although far more than a contract from religious, cultural, biological, psychological, and philosophical perspectives, marriage is also a contract, the essence of which is transparent in the marriage vows. The man promises that he will be a husband, the woman that she will be a wife. Each promises that whatever changes are wrought by the winds of time they will continue to perform their respective duties in a spirit of “loving,” “honoring,” and “cherishing” for the remainder of their lives. In reliance on these assurances, each spouse invests in this marriage, thereby sacrificing current and future love interests and other life choices.

The promise to perform duties in a particular spirit is not merely hortatory; it is a material requirement of the contract. In marriage, more than in any other contract, the spirit counts, and counts a lot. Both the value to the recipient of spousal services and their cost, or value, to the provider are crucially dependent on the attitude with which they are delivered and received.

Some might object to the characterization of marriage as a contract. They observe that marriage seems more like status than contract. That is, it is the state that defines and specifies most of the explicit rights, duties, and privileges of marriage, rather than the parties. They also note the absence of substantial specific obligations voiced at the time of formation. How could this be a contract if there are virtually no specific, explicit duties?