Save Marriage? It's Too Late.

Opinion Journal ^ | March 15, 2004 | Donald Sensing

[Unam Sanctam]

Opponents of legalized same-sex marriage say they're trying to protect a beleaguered institution, but they're a little late. The walls of traditional marriage were breached 40 years ago; what we are witnessing now is the storming of the last bastion.

[tm22721]

God instituted marriage at the beginning with Adam and Eve

You had my undivided interest up to this point.

BUMP

[ScudEast]

...If the trend is ever to be reversed, society must become more open about bastard children being an embarassment, divorce a matter of shame, single motherhood (other than widowhood) a cause for public humiliation, and "shacking up" a cause for scandal.

I don't think our society wants to go there. But until these "non-marriage" choices are openly criticized, we will just see more and more extreme examples of them.

I had a thought on this. Back in the day, having children out of wedlock would result in financial penury - the workhouse or worse for those with no family to support them or an intolerable strain on family finances for those who did. Perhaps this is partly what caused the taboo about the things you mention. Now those pressures are not there, or at least greatly reduced, the taboo had gone. I don't have a solution to it, but it's a possible cause.

[NutCrackerBoy]

This column is very well reasoned and written. It draws the bleak conclusion that the cultural mayhem will not be stopped. I am not prepared to accept that, but I am willing to engage in a thought experiment which assumes it.

Fast forward 200 years. The demographic nightmare has come to pass, the one predicted by the low birthrates among the descendents of Europeans. Islam is now the dominant religion throughout the world. But most Muslims have by now succumbed to the same aspects of modern life which felled the Christians: birth control, abortion, women preferring careers, couples marrying out of wedlock and having only one or two children if any. A civil war breaks out between the traditional and the modern Muslims.

That's as far as I can see ahead.

[Unam Sanctam]

Interesting thought experiment.

[Pietro]

The good revrend seems to have tossed in the towel on marriage and w/ it any semblance of a rational culture.

Certainly marriage has been buffetted by multiple forces, but if Western society has any hope of outlasting this latest assault from w/i then we must stand fast upon the last barracade.

Long and dark will be that night should the forces of satan gain sway.

[brbethke]

Stop reacting emotionally to the word "libertarian." You're confusing it with "libertine."

Personally, I have great faith in the ability of the American Woman to decide that she will not put up with this kind of cr@p. And as for those women too stupid or weak-willed to refuse to be doormats for men: well, they're already living in the projects or the trailer park with three kids by three different men, none of whom they've ever been married to, so I fail to see how using the state to enforce a theologically based definition of marriage will help them.

[brbethke]

You're pretty much spot on, I think.

[Taffini]

bump

[NutCrackerBoy]

LOL - I wrote the phrase couples marrying out of wedlock. How stupid could I be? I meant having children out of wedlock.

[brbethke]

No, but I often see him saying, "I bring you these fifteen co-- OOPS! These ten, ten commandments!"

Darn that Mel Brooks!

[Varda]

"Marriage is primarily a social institution, not a religious one. That is, marriage is a universal phenomenon of human cultures in all times and places, regardless of the religion of the people concerned, and has taken the same basic form in all those cultures. Marriage existed long before Abraham, Jesus or any other religious figure. The institution of marriage is literally prehistoric. "

I've said this many times when defending marriage. First to defend it you have to define it. Unfortunately, most people defending marriage do so from a religious stance which is a sure loser.

[brbethke]

I don't know. I think "marrying out of wedlock" is a pretty apt description of a civil ceremony. We've gotten to the point where a civil marriage is only slightly more binding than a lifetime fishing license.

At least we don't have Marriage Wardens running around with unlimited authority to demand that we open the bedroom door and show 'em what we're doing in there.

[Varda]

The reason societies "sanction" marriage is that it is a social institution that is the means for the perpetuation of every society. It is therefore a very public institution. As the article points out it is neither a religious institution or a contract (although those conditions are often grafted onto marriage).

[brbethke]

You've got to remember that this world is the battleground between good and evil and that moral and Godly men and women will always be in the minority here.

One big difference between Christianity and Islam is that as Christians, we are required to live moral lives, not to force *other* people to live moral lives at the point of a sword.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Back in the day, having children out of wedlock would result in financial penury "

You got it. The welfare state was a great enabler -- nay perhaps THE great enabler . . .

[NYer]

Pope Paul VI, took a strong, faith based stance when he wrote the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. Despite the screams from many catholics, he did not endorse the use of birth control.

“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.”
HUMANAE VITAE

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Jim Noble]

Long and dark will be that night should the forces of satan gain sway.

Ask yourself this: Is it currently legal, in any state, for a couple wishing to be married to draw up reciprocal personal service contracts that specify: 1) Neither party will file an action for divorce during their lifetime, and 2) In the event of breach of contract, neither party may contract a second marriage during the lifetime of the other party?

The answer is, such contracts are contrary to public policy in EVERY state, and will not be enforced by the courts.

Even trying to pass legislation to ALLOW willing adults to enter into such contracts is impossible.

So, man the ramparts if you must, but watch your back, because the Enemy is already sitting on the throne in your city.

[Jim Noble]

We've gotten to the point where a civil marriage is only slightly more binding than a lifetime fishing license

In what way is a civil marriage "binding" on either of the parties (please be specific, because I think you are mistaken)?

[Jim Noble]

It'll happen . There was a reason that marriage was defined the way it was

Yes, and the reason was to prevent the good providers from soaking up all the potential wives, allowing an underclass of unmarriagable males to be created.

In the absence of legal prohibition, polygamy will most certainly happen here.

Ask any married man with a job how many women have expressed an interest in an exchange of services.

[brbethke]

I figure we have three great enablers which appeared between 1965-1975 and that in confluence have put us in our present state:

1. The Pill, which separated sex from procreation and made it possible for large numbers of women to be as promiscuous as men imagined they wanted to be
    
2. Roe v. Wade, which provided an escape clause in case birth control failed
    
3. The Welfare State, which provides the final fallback position if birth control failed, abortion was not an option, and the sperm donor was not good husband/provider material

Women have always been the domesticating influence on men, mainly by withholding sex until some sort of committment was made. But once the paradigm shifted from "Good girls don't, (at least, not before they've got the engagement ring)," to "Girls who don't are unhappy uptight prigs," then men were free to be as promiscuous and irresponsible as they wanted.

The result? The intrasocietal carnage we call "The Sexual Revolution," which is still producing new casualties every day.

We've got a lot of work ahead of us if we are to undo this 40-year-old mess.