The Shotgun Blog
« We will not parley | Main | Polls Sagging »
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Nullifying marriage
I see the French are having some difficulty in their gay marriage debate (today's Globe and Mail "French court nullifies gay marriage").
For some decent writing on the topic, I suggest you read Kay Hymowitz's piece on the subject in the summer edition of City Journal: "Gay Marriage vs. American Marriage".
Hymowitz makes several interesting observations and emphasizes one important point. It's only recently, by loosening divorce laws in the late 1960s, that we have broken marriage away from its central function of protecting the family and children and made it into the for-you-and-me-only romantic-kal nonsense it is today, a write-your-own-vows bizarre bit of fluff that can be accomplished while jumping out of a plane or underwater while scuba diving, the stuff of kooky reality shows centering on some distraught, bitchy bride torturing everyone with her desire to make everything "just perfect."
I also like these two paragraphs:
So what are we to make of the fact that these mom-and-apple-pie young people tend to be more in favor of gay marriage than their parents and grandparents are? The great irony is that their traditionalism enlarges their sympathy for gays' hunger for ’til-death-do-us-part commitment; after all, that's what's they want, too. Odd as it sounds, gays and the children who grew up in single-parent homes share the experience of standing outside and looking longingly through the window at the peaceful, Norman Rockwell family reading or playing Scrabble in front of the fireplace. Rauch and Sullivan, in particular, have written touchingly of marriage as a solemn, even spiritual, union, a momentous public vow to another person that comes with profound responsibilities and aspires to transcendence. If you add together young people's earnest devotion to marriage and their interest in the civil rights movement (insofar as they have studied any American history at all, it's likely to begin with Rosa Parks and end with Martin Luther King), you have a generation for which gay marriage seems merely commonsensical.But what the young neo-traditionalists have trouble understanding is that their embrace of the next civil rights revolution, as many of them are inclined to see the fight for gay marriage, is actually at war with their longing for a more stable domestic life. Gay marriage gives an enfeebled institution another injection of the toxin that got it sick in the first place: it reinforces the definition of marriage as a loving, self-determining couple engaging in an ordinary civil contract that has nothing to do with children. That's no way for marriage to get its gravitas back. It is marriage's dedication to child rearing, to a future that projects far beyond the passing feelings of a couple, that has the potential to discipline adult passion. "The gravity of marriage as an institution comes from its demand that love be negotiated through these larger responsibilities [surrounding procreation]," Shelby Steele has written in response to Andrew Sullivan. Ignore those responsibilities and you get, well, you get the marital meltdown that this generation was hoping to transform.
Posted by Kevin Steel on July 27, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83465639769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nullifying marriage:
Comments
"It is marriage's dedication to child rearing, to a future that projects far beyond the passing feelings of a couple, that has the potential to discipline adult passion. "The gravity of marriage as an institution comes from its demand that love be negotiated through these larger responsibilities [surrounding procreation]," Shelby Steele has written in response to Andrew Sullivan. Ignore those responsibilities and you get, well, you get the marital meltdown that this generation was hoping to transform."
Really.
I was raised by a mother who put her kids before her marriage. Much as it was good to know we were loved, this freaked us kids out. We would have much preferred to know Mom’s priority was her relationship with Dad. It would have made for less tension in the house. It would have allowed us to relax and be ourselves, instead of constantly trying to live up to unrealistic expectations. It would have given us a better example to follow for our own relationships later in life.
My wife and I have been together for fourteen years now. We have two children (I’d say ‘two fantastic children’ but I know I’m biased).
When my wife and I married, we knew we wanted kids. We also knew from personal experience that the best way to give our kids a happy home was to make sure our relationship was a good one.
So our marriage was all about us before we had kids (and it took awhile – would we have weakened the institution if we hadn’t been able to have any, or if we had given up trying?). It’s about us now – even with young kids around. It will be about us after the kids grow into healthy adults and move out. Is that selfish? Not unless we neglect our relationships with our kids as a result.
Why do you think adult kids have such a hard time coping when their parents get divorced? If the primary purpose of a marriage is raising the kids, why is it so traumatic for everyone when marriages break up after the raison d’etre moves out? It’s because even the kids understand that marriage, first and foremost, is about the two loving adults who took the vows.
You can be a great spouse without being a great parent. You can be a great parent without being a great spouse. These concepts are NOT inextricably linked. Otherwise widows would have their kids taken away from them, and childless couples would have their marriages annulled after a few years.
Marriage is about commitment. Parenthood is also about commitment. But that doesn’t mean marriage is about parenthood.
You want to fix marriage? Focus on the commitment, not on the biology.
Posted by: Damian | 2004-07-27 12:22:34 PM
And I am in complete agreement with Damian.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-07-27 1:00:28 PM
It is a bit rich to hear Andrew Sullivan advocating gay marriage as a stabilizing, civilizing force for monogamy. Is this not the same Andrew Sullivan who not that long ago was extolling the joys of "bare backing" and "bears" in print, while being bragging about being part of a "committed" relationship?
Andrew Sullivan has a great deal of value to say on many subjects, but when it comes to his own sexuality, it is What Andrew Wants, Andrew Is Gonna Get. Not a very "conservative" attitude.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-07-27 1:19:49 PM
Damian, as usual, uses his own experience to generalize. Just because it's true for you doesn't mean it's true for everyone.
Posted by: David | 2004-07-27 3:33:00 PM
So let me get this straight -- because Damian's experience is personal (& therefore shouldn't apply for all), it isn't relevant?
If people want their marriages to be just about the kids, they can make them be just about the kids. Just don't drag the rest of us there with you.
If we want there to be more gravitas associated with marriage and other social and contractual commitments, perhaps we should start putting more emphasis on actually living up to one's commitments in general, whatever they may be?
That actually might be a moral revolution.
Posted by: Ben | 2004-07-28 7:36:59 AM
So let me get this straight -- because Damian's experience is personal (& therefore shouldn't apply for all), it isn't relevant?
If people want their marriages to be just about the kids, they can make them be just about the kids. Just don't drag the rest of us there with you.
If we want there to be more gravitas associated with marriage and other social and contractual commitments, perhaps we should start putting more emphasis on actually living up to one's commitments in general, whatever they may be?
That actually might be a moral revolution.
Posted by: Ben | 2004-07-28 7:39:12 AM
Hey David, I'm not Damian Penny. I'm Damian Brooks - the other one. Hint for next time: check facts, avoid crow for lunch.
I must say, however, I'm flattered you would confuse us.
Ben makes a great point about living up to one's commitments in general. Too true.
Posted by: Damian | 2004-07-28 1:55:53 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.