What We Are About To Do Here Is What The Good Lord Would Call A Cleansing of the Wicked. I Call It A Good Old Fashioned Texas Ass Kicking.
Posted on 11/10/2005 12:28:27 PM PST by Wolf13
Traditional marriage under fire: Who's really to blame? Americans are less than passionate about institution
By DANIEL ALLOTT
Texas has become the 19th state to pass a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman. For traditional marriage activists, this vote represents another victory on the path to what they hope will be a federal marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
But, if and when a federal marriage amendment is ratified, marriage advocates may be surprised to discover that passing marriage protection laws may not be enough to save an institution in free-fall.
The National Marriage Project, a nonpartisan research institute at Rutgers University, recently released its annual study, "The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America." The report found that not only does the United States retain the dubious distinction of having the world's highest divorce rate, around 50 percent, but that fewer Americans today are marrying than at any other time in recent history. In fact, the marriage rate has fallen by nearly 50 percent over the past three decades, and by 20 percent since 1995.
Interestingly, the decline in marriage does not mean that people have given up living together. Unmarried cohabitation — the status of couples that are sexual partners, not married to each other, and sharing a household — has increased 1,200 percent since 1960. A majority of couples now live together before marrying, and an increasing number of persons, both young and old, are living together with no plans for eventual marriage.
Ironically, by their votes, Americans continue to affirm their opposition to same-sex marriage. But, by their actions, Americans continue to undermine their support for traditional marriage.
There is a laundry list of reasons why marriage's decades-long decline continues unabated. No-fault divorce laws that allow one spouse to dissolve a marriage over the objection of the other account for 57,000 divorces a year. And significant marriage penalties still exist in our tax code, despite recent reforms.
But the most striking reason for marriage's breakdown is neither legal nor political, but cultural. The foundation of any successful marriage is, of course, love. And for marrying couples, romantic or emotional love naturally dominates. But there is another dimension of love that is not simply about feelings or sentiment but about decisions. To quote C.S. Lewis, "It's a deep, mature love sustained by the will and purposely strengthened by habit."
Current societal understandings of the marital bond (perpetuated by the entertainment industry) run primarily on the notion that lifelong emotional love is a necessary condition for a successful marriage. When the tingling ecstasy of emotional love fades then one is entitled indeed, even obligated, to dissolve the relationship and seek another lover (just like those couples in the movies). But, without the ability to develop a mature understanding of love, this new love also inevitably fades as certainly as the first. (Second marriages have a divorce rate of 60-70 percent.)
This perfect storm of legal, political and cultural conditions has produced a generation of young people who have learned that traditional marriage does not work. Is it any wonder so many are opting out of marriage altogether, or why some marrying couples are choosing to replace the traditional wedding vow " 'til death do us part" with rather less ambitious promises like "for as long as our love shall last," or the utilitarian, "for as long as our marriage shall serve the greatest good"?
By treating marriage with such triviality, heterosexuals have given homosexual marriage activists their strongest case for gay marriage. They reason, "If Britney Spears can get married on a whim and instantly gain all the legal and social benefits of marriage, then divorce the following day and chalk the whole thing up to drunken indiscretion, why shouldn't genuinely committed homosexual couples be allowed to wed?"
Clearly, the key players in the battle over marriage are not politicians, judges or homosexual activists, but rather the millions of heterosexual couples who have thumbed their noses at marriage and abandoned the institution. While same-sex nuptials would certainly trigger further marital demise, they are also a response to, and strong indication of, just how critically weakened the institution has become. Tellingly, same-sex marriage does not exist in societies where marriage thrives.
In the two-front war over marriage, the importance of opposing efforts to foist same-sex marriage on an unwilling public cannot be overstated. But, for those who truly care about the health of an institution that has been the bedrock of healthy families and societies for millennia, the push for same-sex marriage should also serve as a wake-up call as to just how fragile the institution has become at the hands of heterosexual couples.
It is high time that the passion with which many Americans oppose same-sex marriage be matched with an equal amount of passion for the well-being of their own marriages.
Allott is a policy analyst for Gary Bauer's American Values, a Washington, D.C.-area public policy organization.
Oh, please. Because there are divorces we should do away with marriage? Because there are automobile accidents we should do away with cars?
There are a number of reasons why marriage is declining, however, the fact that out of wedlock sex (and even childbearing) are no longer stigmatized has to be right up there at the top. The old saw about not buying the cow if you get the milk for free really is true.
susie
Gee, no mention of the Womens' Lip movement and other socialist/commie movements designed to destroy our society? What a thoughtful piece ... NOT!
I think the point is not to do away with marriage but that normal marriage advocates often inadvertantly help the other side's cause by divorcing and, increasingly, not marrying at all.
I don't think widespread cohabitation has resulted primarily from a fear of marital commitment. I think the trend is the result of indifference and/or acceptance on the part of most of the public, including the parents of those who choose to shack up. It's really just a particular instance of the "nonjudgmental" ethic--the "tolerance" mentality--liberals have been promoting since the 1960s. And it gives us good evidence of how successful the libs have been. Even here on FreeRepublic, any hint of disapproval of cohabitation is met with the cry of "Taliban! Taliban!" As for the children who are caught up in the whirlwind of their parents' relationships, why, the hell with them!
So we should support gay marriage so they can get divorces and/or not marry at all? That's not a very logical argument.
America is not "less passionate" about marriage and family.
Marriage and family are institutions formulated by men and men only, when females had nothing to say about it. Marriage and family run contrary to a female's emotional constitution, which exists only in the short-term.
In recent decades, men unwittingly turned power over marriage and family to girls. That is why marriage and family are now being systematically destroyed. The only way to preserve marriage and family is to remove it from the purview of female influence.
DA740
America is not "less passionate" about marriage and family.
Marriage and family are institutions formulated by men and men only, when females had nothing to say about it. Marriage and family run contrary to a female's emotional constitution, which exists only in the short-term.
In recent decades, men unwittingly turned power over marriage and family to girls. That is why marriage and family are now being systematically destroyed. The only way to preserve marriage and family is to remove it from the purview of female influence.
DA740
Even tho you said it twice, I still gotta say, "Huh?"
susie
But, seriously, marriage is very personal. I really don't see how any "social force" or movement has an impact on how I CHOOSE to live.
I don't like this "blame society", "we are victimized" excuse for the individual's lack of personal responsibility.
I'm with you, susie. As a male human being I have absolutely no idea what DA740 is talking about, and wish I could post the photo of the bunny with a pancake on its head.
I see this raised consistently and it doesn't make any sense. First of all, why does the fact that divorces exist undermine the institution of marriage? Does the fact that business partnerships dissolve undermine business partnerships on balance? Of course not - they have their place and their value. That some choose to end doesn't mean the institution is weakened.
Indeed, if a nation has 40 million married couples and two million new marriages a year, and 1 million divorces a year, that doesn't mean that 1/2 of the marriages fail.
But again, even if there were 2 million new marriages a year and 2 million divorces a year (what some might call a 100% divorce rate), there would still be 40 million married couples out there. Why would the fact that two million marriages end in divorce somehow undermine the other 40 million marriages that are intact, or the institution of marriage itself?
I never understood the kind of thinking that says marriage as an institution is harmed because some people decide they don't want to be married anymore.
then, let me explain. growing up, none of my friend's parents were divorced nor were any of my parent's friends. my husband and i have been married for 20 years. my kids have tons of friends from divorced, remarried, blended families. i worry about my kids marrying someone that sees marriage as something that is temporary, something that oh gee, it didn't work out. the number of divorces and the fact that they are commonoplace and accepted means that societal attitudes towards the institution of marriage have changed over the years. And then there is the book that is out now, written by the 30 something product of a HAPPY divorce, about how those kids are really NOT better off than in a home with intact family. divorce is not a good thing. period.
Ironic words for one living in a society that has devolved to the point that personal responsibility is considered as only for saps. You don't believe that the left-wing "social movements" have contributed to the decline of personal responsibility and the institution of marriage? You don't think the left-wing "Lib" movements that cheapened sex into a fun experience to be shared by as many as possible and with no thought of responsibility (except the responsibility to abort the little inconveniences) has contributed to the decline of marriage? You don't believe the welfare programs that reward single mothers for breeding like rabbits contributed to the decline of marriage? You don't believe the "women are always right and the men are always wrong" mentality has contributed to the decline of marriage?
How much thought have you actually put into it, or is it all an "I don't like this " type of thing for you?
When society gets nudged and pushed by a detemined group of institutions, like the liberals movement folks and the MSM, for decades, with little resistance because most decent folks had no real recourse to check all the lies they were being fed, it affects all that is decent in a society and the most decent of institutions (like marriage) can't help but get hurt from it.
That divorce is not a good thing is true, and an opinion I share.
To say that the fact that there are many divorces cheapens the institution of marriage (for those who have successful ones) makes no sense to me.
The fact that some people break up is a terrible thing and bad for their children, if they have any. That being said, it doesn't harm the institution of marriage.
Certainly you make your choices. And there is no obligation for you to take part in the process of social change for good or bad. But it will happen without you. The civilization we are in won't survive forever in a meaningful form. The actions of everyone alive now influences the course to come. Smart actions allow for better survival.
Radical Feminism and the Nanny Government. Feminists declared decades ago their intention to destroy the Family and Marriage. Motherhood was impugned and Women were made to feel less valuable unless they pursued careers. No Fault Divorce signed into law by Gov. Ronald Regan accelerated the decline of the Family. And the Child Support Laws, Alimony, imputed income etc have made Marriages a nightmare for Men. The key is that without Big Brother replacing the Role of Fathers and Husbands this would not happen.
Conservatives recently including Rick Santorum unanimously reapproved FemNag Pork in the VAWA (Violence Against Women's Act) the worst publicly funded demonization of Men and subsidization of Divorce ever passed. Men are insane to marry in this culture as they have zero reproductive rights,
zero rights to Visitation in Divorce, and only liabilities.
This is a surprise? Rutgers University's Marriage Iniative explores the issues in depth.
The Marriage Strike is taking hold in America. Unless Women demand an end to the unreasonable demonization of Men, and support of one sided Domestic Abuse laws men will boycott Marriage and relationships. Bet on it.
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.