In his August 5 editorial entitled "You Call This Marriage?" Alexander Chee wrote:
The week of the decision on Proposition 8 was also the week of the decision on "The Bachelorette." Ali Fedotowsky said yes to Roberto Martinez, one out of 25 who competed for the chance. ...
There could be no more perfect metaphor for the state of modern marriage this week.
In the U.S., a couple who barely know each other can marry in a publicly validated media spectacle with a sound track, soft lighting, promotional deals and a cash prize, as long as they are a man and a woman. So far, since the show's inception in 2003, Trista Rehn is the only one of the annual contestants to still be married.
Yet a couple who quietly have been together for 15 years and married twice, in California, each time it became legal, have had to see their relationship invalidated twice by the courts, by people claiming their marriage was threatening traditional marriage.
Despite the political firestorm surrounding the federal court decision that overturned California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, little has been said about the real issues that are contributing to the dysfunctional American family. The disintegration of traditional marriage and the family, once the glue that kept society together, has set in motion a domino effect that, as it ripples outward, is relegating children to lives of poverty and servitude and destroying the foundations of freedom.
Contrary to what critics might say, same-sex marriage, while it may be a symptom of a cultural shift away from traditional marriage and all it has historically entailed, is not responsible for the collapse of marriage as a long-revered institution in this country. That blame rests squarely on the shoulders of heterosexuals for whom marriage -- and the family unit that arises from it -- has become a temporary arrangement at best, with divorce now seen as an immediate cure-all and cohabitation a happy, less permanent, alternative.
Even among professed evangelical Christians who tout traditional marriage, divorce rates are comparable to those of non-Christians. And while the decline in divorce in recent years has been hailed as good news (it now stands at 40 percent, down from a high of nearly 60 percent in the 1980s), it is a false positive that is offset by falling marriage rates and surging cohabitations. As researcher George Barna observes:
There no longer seems to be much of a stigma attached to divorce; it is now seen as an unavoidable rite of passage. Interviews with young adults suggest that they want their initial marriage to last, but are not particularly optimistic about that possibility. There is also evidence that many young people are moving toward embracing the idea of serial marriage, in which a person gets married two or three times, seeking a different partner for each phase of their adult life.
That said, divorce is not solely to blame for the collapse of the institution of marriage. Marriage generally seems to be falling out of favor everywhere except in the realm of reality TV. For the first time in American history, unmarried households now make up the majority of all U.S. households. Younger generations are also more inclined to live together.
Where once the institution of marriage gave legitimacy to sexual relations and children, it no longer serves as much of a gatekeeper. This can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution, which paved the way for sex outside of marriage; the feminist movement, which pushed to legalize abortion, thereby making pregnancy a woman's "problem" to deal with as she sees fit; and the decreased role of religion in American life. Consequently, nearly 40 percent of all U.S. children are now born out of wedlock. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the number of unmarried-couple households with children has risen to more than 1.7 million -- up from under 200,000 in 1970. Moreover, there are 9.8 million single mothers versus 1.8 million single fathers.
The ramifications of the breakdown of marriage and the subsequent rise in single-parent households are far-reaching and alarming. For example, children living with a single mother are six times more likely to live in poverty than are children whose parents are married. The same study found that children in stepfamilies and single-parent families are almost three times more likely to drop out of school than children in intact families. And living in a single-parent home can cause a disconnect among children between family and marriage. Moreover, as W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, notes in "The Evolution of Divorce":
Since 1974, about 1 million children per year have seen their parents divorce -- and children who are exposed to divorce are two to three times more likely than their peers in intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies. In their book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found that 31% of adolescents with divorced parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13% of children from intact families. They also concluded that 33% of adolescent girls whose parents divorced became teen mothers, compared to 11% of girls from continuously married families. And McLanahan and her colleagues have found that 11% of boys who come from divorced families end up spending time in prison before the age of 32, compared to 5% of boys who come from intact homes. ...
Sociologist Paul Amato estimates that if the United States enjoyed the same level of family stability today as it did in 1960, the nation would have 750,000 fewer children repeating grades, 1.2 million fewer school suspensions, approximately 500,000 fewer acts of teenage delinquency, about 600,000 fewer kids receiving therapy, and approximately 70,000 fewer suicides every year.
These statistics tell some painful truths about America at the dawn of the new millennium. They show that our priorities have clearly shifted. Despite the billions we spend on childcare, toys, clothes, private lessons, etc., a concern for our children no longer seems to be a prime factor in how we live our lives. What are the consequences of all this?
First, the loss of the traditional family structure has led to a destabilization in society of "mediating structures" -- neighborhoods, families, churches, schools and voluntary associations. When they function as they should, mediating structures limit the growth of the government. But when these structures break down, people look to mega-structures, such as the state, for help. According to Wilcox, the public costs of family breakdown among working-class and poor communities exceed $112 billion a year "as federal, state, and local governments spend more money on police, prisons, welfare, and court costs, trying to pick up the pieces of broken families."
Second, major religious institutions have virtually little to no moral or spiritual impact on American society -- apart from politics, that is. The Christian church is a prime example. Intensely political, many Christian organizations today work feverishly to enact such anti-gay measures as same-sex marriage amendments while doing little to impact the traditional family positively. Indeed, despite all the money ($40 million and counting), politicking, fundraising and energy that conservative Christian groups put into defeating gay marriage in California, nothing was accomplished in terms of shoring up the traditional family structure.
Third, the data supports the premise that the decline in the family leads to a decline in our democratic form of government. Indeed, the family, not schools, is where children should learn self-government, basic moral values and the beliefs that determine the future of democratic institutions. Thus, it stands to reason that without stable families, we can have no hope of producing self-reliant, responsible citizens.
Finally, traditional marriage plays a critical role in the structure of free societies by interposing a significant legal entity between the individual and the state. None other than D. H. Lawrence, author of Lady Chatterley's Lover, once recognized:
The marriage bond is the fundamental connecting link in Christian society. Break it, and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era. The Roman State was all-powerful, the Roman father represented the State, the Roman family was the father's estate, held more or less in fee for the State itself. Now the question is, do we want to go back, or forward, to any of these forms of State control?
Lawrence continued:
It is marriage, perhaps, which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State, given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State. Man and wife, a king and queen with one or two subjects, and a few square yards of territory of their own: this, really, is marriage. It is a true freedom because it is a true fulfillment, for man, woman, and children.
There can be no easy fix for these problems. Certainly, there are no legislative or governmental solutions, and fighting gay marriage isn't going to do it. Morality and the decline of the family have become convenient platforms for those on both sides of the political aisle. Having reduced the very real problems plaguing America's families to soundbites bandied about in the quest for political dominance, today's politicians, gay rights activists and traditional marriage activists are not providing a lasting solution to the marriage meltdown.
The solution, if there is one, is to be found where the problems start: with each man, woman and child taking responsibility for keeping their family together. So let's forget about politics. Forget about the debates over who gets to marry whom. Instead, let's look around at what's left of our neighborhoods, our communities and our families, and put our children first.
Follow John W. Whitehead on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rutherford_inst
The Traditional Family is Disappearing
What is a "Traditional" Family? - Parents - Families.com
Family values - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Status Of The "Traditional Family"
We may have missed the window to discuss this effectively but it is most certainly worth considering now that a whole new group of folks will be afforded a "right" that we have far too often taken for granted as heterosexuals.
You kinda' sorta' had me on-board, but I'm sorry, those last two paragraphs showed an dirty underbelly to your argument.
Consider first: "[...] today's politicians, gay rights activists and traditional marriage activists are not providing a lasting solution to the marriage meltdown."
That's like saying "this company's in big trouble! We're losing market share and despite a lot of big talk and platitudes, no one is pulling their weight and offering any solutions. Not Sales, not Marketing, not HR- not even this job applicant I turned away this morning!" It's disingeuous to lay *any* of the 'marriage-fail' blame- whether for action or inaction- at the feet of those who have hitherto been denied marriage rights. Same-sex couples who haven't been *allowed* to marry are not responsible for failings in the marriages of opposite-sex couples, nor for fixing them. If your house isn't in order, don't look to the neighbour you never let set foot inside.
Then there's this: "The solution [...] is to be found where the problems start: with each man, woman and child taking responsibility for keeping their family together. [...] Forget about the debates over who gets to marry whom. Instead, let's look around [...] and put our children first."
That statement subtly turns an argument that- from the headline- looked affirming of marriage equality into one that dismisses marriage equality as a non-issue. Which is terribly convenient for those who'd like to deny it; not so much for those who are deprived. Because "forget the debates" about admitting anyone else to the institution tacitly reinforces the attitude that only childbearing relationships between men and women are worth thinking about. They're the 'real' families that need saving, so lets put the "gay marriage distraction" on the back burner and hope that they go away while we fix man/woman marriage... 'for the children.'
You seem thoughtful and sincere, but hopefully reflecting on this will lead you to be a more positive position.
Most people who have made a lot of noise about something can't just shut up when they are proven wrong. And they definitely aren't grateful for having their knowledge-base extended.
But they CAN start yelling just as energetically about something else and just not talk about the thing they were wrong about at all. It's not that you were totally utterly wrong, you are just to busy with this new thing to have time for that anymore.
Getting them to focus on their own darn families and not rubbing their noses in their mistakes would be both productive and ... gracious.
no?
Secondly, the statistic concerning the fallout kids affected by divorce suffer fails to note whether there were issues within the onetime marriages that may have modeled dysfunctional behavior. For example, if one has a father who is a drug addict or in and out of prison, is abusive or if there was parental neglect on both their parts. Maybe the mom has substance abuse issues of her own, for example. Or both parents were impoverished and spent most of their time working unskilled jobs and thereby not having time to lend their offspring the necessary guidance and involvement.
I'm not saying divorce is wonderful, but I'm also not going to assert that marriage, that is, a state operated framework that largely dictates terms only when the pairing fails, is even necessary. What is required are two people who get along and have parenting skills. The piece of paper, the various church based ablutions and the expensive wedding ceremonies are superfluous.
We have had 3 distinct family structure eras; hunter/gather, agrarian, and now industrial. The hunter/gather family structures existed over hundreds of thousands of years. The agrarian family structures existed over thousands of years. The industrial family structure has only been around for 150 years, which makes it a relative neophyte.
Which means we are still trying to figure out the best family structure for this industrial age.
The key differences that affect family structure between the industrial age and the agrarian age are mobility, which separates extended families, and the emphasis on a single worker (wage earner) as opposed to the entire family working together.
The problem for Christians is they want to apply an agrarian family structure to an industrial age family. And unfortunately for Christians, it just does not fit, no matter how hard they try.
Let’s take divorce as an example. In an agrarian society, divorce doesn’t make sense, in that someone just couldn’t leave the farm or small business and go someplace else. And since it took the entire family to manage the farm or business the breakup of the family would devastate income production. However, in an industrial society, where people work for others, divorce is not only possible; in many cases it is desirable.
Does any of this make sense?
In the agrarian family structure, society was more "we" focused than "me" focused. Families and communities worked together to ensure all members survived.
In the industrial age family, society has turned the focus from "social responsibility" to "personal responsibility". We are told repeatedly to "take care of ourselves" - versus to "look out for our neighbors".
The problem for Christians is that they have become absorbed into mainstream, secular culture - instead of fighting for the principles that Jesus advocated. When one reads the parable of "The Sheep and the Goats" - we are told to take care of each other. There is no prosperity gospel or dictate to earn all you can and hoard it for your own personal needs/wants. We are simply instructed that eternity will be impacted by whether we love our neighbors or not. Until today's Christians are able to turn off Faux News and open their Bibles - they will be powerless.
And I would agree that Christians appear to be struggling in this area. In this context they are struggling with balancing the cooperative with the competitive. In an agrarian society the cooperative part of society was most important. In Adam Smith's industrial world the competitive focus on self interest is most important.
Clearly we need to find the balance. But as long as Christians are not willing to change or consider that there are alternatives, I fear they will continue to struggle.
But I could be wrong.
I don't really agree with your statement. The main problems back in America's agrarian days was that women were basically put on house arrest. So they had little choice but to stay in a relationship gone bad because to leave would have dire and longlasting economic and lifestyle consequences. Plus the social disapproval of those times piled on top of that.
What happened was the 1960's came along and people no longer saw the sense in that traditional structure. Feminism gave women access to economic independence and therefore didn't have to depend on a man (theoretically). People wanted to actually be happy. Unfortunately, that often means people do crap impulsively and so you see kids popped out for reasons of ego or biological imperatives and they get married too quickly before really getting to know their mate. Plus there is a HUGE difference between dating somebody and living 24/7 with them.
Marriage has long been sold as this kind of shangri-la that will put everyone on the path to happiness. People don't like to think about negatives. They like delusion. And the truth is that we are all humans with our own agendas and comfort levels and that often makes things quite messy.
But I might disagee with your time frame. Yes, the 60's brought us many things. But I would suggest that feminism started with the invention of the washing machine, the refrigerator and other appliances. Up until that time, women spent hours every day just doing the wash and cooking. When technology freed women from basic house work they were able to work outside the home. So I think the womens movement started much early than the 60's.
Finally, I am saying that the means of producing does have a great influence on the social structure. Hunter/gatherers had social structures that worked for them. Pre-industrial revolution communities had social structures that worked for them. And now we are trying to figure out the social structures that work for today's environment.
Am I off base here.
Force corporations? They are the ones in charge, the ones dismantling the middle class. They have staged a bloodless coup over traditional American values and as the middle class disappears, we now and going forward are a democracy in name only. The sad irony is that most of their victims have been complicit in their own impoverishment.
America: Requiescat in Pace.
The Industrial Revolution is responsible.
From the beginning of human communities, families knew that they had to stay together to survive. Families innately understood that their survival and the survival of their children was based on working and staying together to make the entire family proposer.
The Industrial Revolution with the subsequent migration to cities and factory jobs split the link between the family and survival. From the wage earners perspective a spouse and children no longer add value to the family, they take value away. The sooner the kids leave and go off on their own, the better for the parents. It is not hard see how a husband could view their wife as a net negative if all she does is consume the resources he brings home.
In the old days families could clearly see how work benefited each other. However, with wage employment, we severed the link between families working together and success. The wage earner goes off and brings home the proverbial “bacon” on his/her own. It can easily be seen how many wage earners would look at their “dependents” as just that, people dependent on the wage earner.
I think the move to wage based societies is a huge factor in the breakup of the family.
As a result we need a new family structures model based on this new economic model.
This caused a tremendous distortion of the social fabric that is now settling back to normalcy. Donna Reed and her ilk are aberrations, freaks.
In normal times adults are never dependents. They may be captives/prisoners .. but not *dependents*. A captive wife in Afghanistan, for example, does a lot of hard work that is valuable to her keeper. She is an asset, not a pet.
But take a nice pastoral archetype .. shepherd. He goes out and sheps while she stays home and keeps house.
Oh, and also transforms raw wool into clothe.
Clothe that sells for a LOT more than raw wool does. The difference in price between bales of fluff and her clothe being her economic contribution to the family. And if hes very lucky she is skilled indeed and can make fine clothe that is sought after by the wealthy and sells for many orders of magnitude more than raw bales of wool or normal homespun.
We will end up with duel wage earners being normal and necessary. And the adjustments we need to make to support this are things like universal daycare, etc.
With that shift the core family values (religious) that, by and large, defined our nation and set the stage for its most productive years, eroded as children moved away from the influence and preservation of parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc. Like a child’s first year at college there were, it seems, freedoms that were only disguises for temptations. Without the family to moderate, the seeds of the sexual revolution took root as did other seemingly attractive flora and fauna like dual incomes, less children, materialism and career aspirations. Not surprisingly, the Churches themselves, lacking the strength of a community of tight knit families and friends, lost their bearing and became more like obnoxious Big Government instead of a holy place to gather. I am no fan of “Progressiveness” or “Evolutionist”, but I share their disdain for folks like James Dobson or Pat Robertson.
But one should not confuse the sorry state of today’s Church, as noted by those representatives, with the true Church’s efficacy. That power rests in its Author and Creator and He will restore it at some point. When that time comes I suspect there will be no argument over His true intent for marriage.
I am a born again Christian... I am also divorced, raising my daughter on my own. It sickens me that so many of my fellow "christians" use their faith (if you can even call it that) as a means of propping up their own bigotry. I've apologized many times before on this site, and I'll do so again... to gays and lesbians, I profoundly apologize for how you have been treated, simply for being who you are and wanting the same rights we have. As much as the temptation exists to hate all Christians for how you've been treated (to say nothing of 2000 years of causing all manner of other strife and bloodshed), please try and understand two things: One, God loves you very much. Unconditionally and forever. Two, bigotry against gays is NOT a reflection of Christ's teachings; it is a perversion of them.
God bless you for having the courage and the committment it takes to fight for the rights you should have been guaranteed already. Tell us what to do to support you, and many of us will be there, whatever it takes.
Bronze Age superstitions just don’t work in the modern world. Thankfully we eliminated most of these barbaric beliefs such as allowing parents to kill their children for swearing, which is mandated in the Bible. Why do we still allow religion to interfere so much with our society?
Most followers of religion (Islam, Christianity, etc.) don’t seem to be willing to give up their fundamentalist beliefs. Until this changes and people take a real hard look at why they believe in religion in the first place, I honestly don’t see how gays will ever see equal rights in this country.
Don't confuse the Old Testament laws CREATED BY MEN as a way of creating a systematic means of worhipping God through everyday life but which also intrinsically captured the bigotry and shortsightedness of the time with the teachings of Christ. He made it very VERY clear that those laws were no longer part of the equation.
Unfortunately, even those closest to him, when writing about his teachings, immedaitely began to once again apply very human shortcomings, bigotry, etc, to His teachings... which is why we have guys like Peter and Paul advocating a much-less-than-equal partneship for women, for slaves to "adhee to their masters", and for a denounciation of all types of immorality, none of which Christ taught. Again, it's an all too human twisting (even if, at the time, their motives were altruistic) of God's teachings.
I completely agree with your observation about the damage wrought by so-called christians in society; likewise, I can see the the logical conclusion that a solution would be simply to reject all faith as an outdated and destructive force. I adhere to the principal, however naive it may sound to you, that faith is not incompatible with just leadership, with providing real world solutions to the world's problems, and with creating a more loving society...even if the society I seek to improve extends only to my own family.
I respect your point of view, thanks for the reply. God loves you, dpm.