Marriage it's difficult but still the ideal state

THE goalposts have certainly shifted in the marriage stakes in Ireland. Couples live together. They buy houses together. They have kids. And somewhere en route the majority get married. Marriage is no longer the gateway, but a step along the way. Nor is it forever. Statistics suggest that as many as one in 10 of married couples in the under-40 age group may be heading for divorce. Put more optimistically, and more accurately, they are in need of marriage counselling.

The notion of personal happiness gained ground. Or to use the language of sociologists, the scales tipped in favour of marriage as a relationship rather than marriage as an institution. Respectability, security and social standing were no longer enough to compensate for the absence of intimacy, which is the real despair of an unhappy marriage. And as everyone knows, it is women who both "mend and end" marriages, who highlight problems, push for counselling, and seek out the solicitor.

Psychological research tries to explain why. Women see life in terms of relationships, the experts argue, while men also rate work and other activities as contributing to their sense of well-being. A troubled marriage thus spells disaster far more quickly for women than men, the absence of intimacy less bearable for her than for him.

All undoubtedly true. But it is important to add that that doesn't mean men are automatically lacking, the implication which usually lurks behind such findings. The truth is that many men are simply stoical. Faced with marital unhappiness which, unlike women, they feel powerless to alter they reach for their emotional reserves and settle, heroically, for solitude in the garden shed. The reason I say heroically is that research clearly shows a good marriage to be just as important to men's well-being as to women's. To quote the Interim Report Distressed Relationships: Does Counselling Help?: "Being married, rather than single, separated, widowed or even remarried, has a more powerful impact on well-being for both men and women than either income or employment. These benefits take the form of greater happiness, better health, longer life, more and better sex, higher income and better outcomes for children."

Social engineering has also played a pivotal role in changing the face of marriage in Ireland. In simple terms, the State took over man's traditional role as provider. It did so on humanitarian grounds, namely financially rescuing single mothers and, later, separated ones. In the process it meant that marriage could cost loss of income, so single mothers stayed single. And women could more easily leave unsatisfactory marriages. Social engineering also took place for socio-economic reasons as in our tax regime, which no longer recognises the notion of a family wage, or single breadwinner, and in the process pushes women out to work and makes marriage almost redundant in terms of financial advantage.

More subtle, yet potentially far more potent, is the pervasive liberal ideology that marriage doesn't really matter any more. This, of course, is never said. Instead we hide behind the politically correct position that no one should judge, no one should suggest one form of the family is better than the other, inclusiveness is all, implicit criticism or hurting people's feelings the only crime. Again, to quote the Interim Report: "Public policy in Ireland tends to focus on families rather than marriage. The Commission on the Family's report, Strengthening Families for Life, for example, outlined six principles which should inform family policy, none of which refer to marriage."

Despite the fact that worldwide research, even in high-divorce countries like Sweden and the United States, shows marriage makes for greatest happiness for both adults and kids, we publicly dodge defining it as the gold standard for togetherness. In our failure to make that public stand, we weaken marriage.

Anyone who doubts where that road leads need only read two recent reports in British newspapers. The first one, dated March 11, outlined the fact that Labour government ministers are no longer allowed to speak publicly in favour of marriage. They are not even allowed attend conferences of organisations such as the Family Matters Institute, which is a Christian pro-marriage charity. And the second report, carried the next day, explained that funding for National Marriage Week had been cut off by the British government, as part of a shift towards supporting non-marital relationships.

We have much to be optimistic about. The majority still get married. And stay married. Irish youth also hold marriage in high esteem. And they consider family to be of central importance. The greater emphasis on marriage as a relationship also has a very positive upside. Troubled relationships can be mended, are highly amenable to counselling so marriages can be saved. A conservative estimate says at least half of those seeking help stay married; an optimistic estimate says seven out of 10. Even more important, the research shows that success is ultimately down to the couples themselves. For what counselling gives them, above all, is hope, and faith in their own ability to master their problems.

Faith and hope are something society as a whole can foster too. All it needs is the intellectual clarity and personal courage to hold out marriage as the ideal, despite the fact that many of us don't meet it. And then put serious resources into supporting it.

Ain't that the truth! :-)

Despite the fact that worldwide research, even in high-divorce countries like Sweden and the United States, shows marriage makes for greatest happiness for both adults and kids, we publicly dodge defining it as the gold standard for togetherness. In our failure to make that public stand, we weaken marriage.

In our failure to make that public stand we leave our children adrift in a culture which does not attach men (nor indeed, their parents) to their descendents. And there is no concealing that fact from the boys, either . . .

George Gilder (Naked Nomads) was describing the implications a long time ago. For a model of those implications we need look no further than x42. Whoever votes for a Clinton votes for that model of society. It is a dystopia.

In our failure to make that public stand we leave our children adrift in a culture which does not attach men (nor indeed, their parents) to their descendents. And, ladies, there is no concealing that fact from the boys--it is the air they breathe.

x42 models the implications for society and, having publicly played the enabler for him, the identity Hillary! can in no wise be seperated from it. Whoever votes for Hillary votes for the fragmentation of society starting with its fundamental building block. The integration of men in the family structure is nothing less.

To see such immaturity prevail in the present era of low birth rates and expanding longevity would certainly seem ironic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.