Answer: If they have a joint household, a common concern, a common “account,” perhaps even children together, what difference does it make if they did a Huppah or went to the Rabbanut or swore to each other under the moon? They are considered to be a couple, for everyone recognizes them as husband and wife, they are a family.
They can even file a lawsuit in court for the distribution of property; it makes no difference if they are officially married or not. The witnesses complete the missing signature.
Question: There are people who have been married for 15 – 20 years, have children, but live separately. In fact, psychologically they are considered to be a couple, but they have a separate household. Can people like these be invited to workshops?
Answer: I think it is possible because they also feel themselves to be a family. Simply our ego today is so great, that it can’t endure anyone near it. Even if they have a single home, many men often sleep in another room and the women understand this, and she doesn’t want to see him near her that much herself. And the children certainly have separate rooms. That is, we have transformed into notorious individualists.
Therefore if they have a common concern and this concern is permanent, and further are connected to children in common, then they are considered to be a family.
Psychologically, the person is a complex creature. And so if he is officially married, this obliges him internally; this puts pressure on him, compared to life in a common law marriage (not officially married).
It is enough for a man to think that he is not officially married; he will be concerned about this woman much more than he would be to a woman to whom he is officially married. For then it would seem to him that the woman puts pressure on him, obligates, “locks” him to herself, and with another woman he feels himself to be free. And she will also feel the same way.
The dual structure of reciprocity says only that an official connection sometimes leads to rigidity, to hatred, that conspires against one; the state obligates one.
Whereas freedom that a woman allows, on the contrary, attracts and obligates a man to flirt all the time, to be concerned about his position, because nothing is obliging them to be together.
All of these familial variations are found today in a process of very rapid change. I don’t think that in the future these forms will be sustained. At the very least, the registration for marriage will be very conventional. All of this will not be necessary; rather mutual agreement will be enough.
In particular when people begin to distribute all that is required for a person in order to live properly and equitably, then the factor of “ensuring” and “anxiety” will disappear; only the factor of inner connection will remain. Then the role of the Rabbanut, the role of the marriage ceremony, will take on integral connections. Specifically they will begin to connect people with each other and a person will want to continue living in this harmony. Therefore married couples will emerge from the integral workshops that are ready.
From a Talk on Integral Upbringing 4/4/13