[John O]

Marriage after 40 is a shadow of the real thing, and no society can accept it as a substitute for the real thing. As better for those doing it than nothing, perhaps, but that is utterly irrelevant to the public policy issue involved.

Have to disagree with you here JC. Men and women both function far better married than single. While an oldeer marriage is not likely to produce children (although many older couples adopt) it does produce two more productive members of society who stay healthy and happy longer then they would as singles.

Marriage is honorable in all.

[linda_22003]

I disagree too! Marriage is wonderful at any age (at least it can be!). I've been married 20 years, and I'm 50; according to what Jason says, there was no reason for my husband and me to stay married after we could no longer procreate, and we should have divorced. Sorry, won't do it.

[JasonC]

It can be as honorable as you please, it is still a shadow of the real thing when it is childless. In case nobody noticed, childless marriages equal utter silence shortly thereafter. Marriage is becoming part of something larger, the chain of life that merely passes through the living, without being exhausted in them. As a matter of mere law, the possibility of children is acknowledged as the purpose of marriage. As a matter of public policy, a society that prefers childless marriage or marriage so late a high portion of them become childless regardless of preferences, commits suicide. We don't get to make these things up to suit our romantic ideas of equality. Peoples that try to simply disappear.