The Purpose of Marriage: Children and Societal Stability
In light of the upcoming CA vote on the marriage amendment, concerned Christians are wondering how to interact with others about this crucial issue. It may be tempting to immediately resort to the Bible, but that will probably be less than convincing to secularists or those of other religious traditions.
An August 2003 Weekly Standard article from Maggie Gallagher is, I believe, an outstanding example of how to winsomely persuade others that unisex marriage is bad for society. Though somewhat dated now, the issues she raises remain quite valid. Her bottom-line is that children need mothers and fathers. Meanwhile, nearly 40% of U.S. babies in 2006 were born out of wedlock. Gallagher articulately rebuffs the discrimination/civil liberties argument and the predictable "what about infertility" (deliberate or unplanned) response. She reasons entirely from secular categories to secular people. The co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially
Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. Marriage is inherently normative: It is about holding out a certain kind of relationship as a social ideal, especially when there are children involved. Marriage is not simply an artifact of law; neither is it a mere delivery mechanism for a set of legal benefits that might as well be shared more broadly. The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage.Another excerpt:In other words, while individuals freely choose to enter marriage, society upholds the marriage option, formalizes its definition, and surrounds it with norms and reinforcements, so we can raise boys and girls who aspire to become the kind of men and women who can make successful marriages. Without this shared, public aspect, perpetuated generation after generation, marriage becomes what its critics say it is: a mere contract, a vessel with no particular content, one of a menu of sexual lifestyles, of no fundamental importance to anyone outside a given relationship.
Of course, many couples fail to live up to this ideal [monogamous, faithful, heterosexual marriage]. Many of the things men and women have to do to sustain their own marriages, and a culture of marriage, are hard. Few people will do them consistently if the larger culture does not affirm the critical importance of marriage as a social institution. Why stick out a frustrating relationship, turn down a tempting new love, abstain from sex outside marriage, or even take pains not to conceive children out of wedlock if family structure does not matter? If marriage is not a shared norm, and if successful marriage is not socially valued, do not expect it to survive as the generally accepted context for raising children. If marriage is just a way of publicly celebrating private love, then there is no need to encourage couples to stick it out for the sake of the children. If family structure does not matter, why have marriage laws at all? Do adults, or do they not, have a basic obligation to control their desires so that children can have mothers and fathers?Read the whole thing.THE PROBLEM with endorsing gay marriage is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but that it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults' desires.
Comments
Social issues like these seem to create enormous divides based on fundamental differences in beliefs. I don't think that arguments have any chance of succeeding unless they address those beliefs; this article is a good example of one that doesn't succeed for this reason.
The idea that expanding the definition of marriage to cover same-sex marriage will somehow make people feel like families don't matter is just bizarre.
Also, the article seems to veer off topic on a number of occasions:
"Do adults, or do they not, have a basic obligation to control their desires so that children can have mothers and fathers?"
Hopefully it's clear that tying this statement to homosexual marriage is a difficult leap to make. All this talk of marriage keeping men from making fatherless children, in an article about same-sex marriage, makes one wonder if Mrs. Gallagher remembers what she is writing about.
This is a very confusing article.
Posted by: Erik Haugen | July 24, 2008 02:03 AM
I think Gallagher has done well in her secular analysis of marriage. For those of us who live by faith we have the added blessing of living a marriage covenant filled with purpose with God as the head of the family. But Gallagher at least demonstrates from a sociological standpoint how the beliefs and traditions of a society can be turned inside out when deviation from conformity is allowed (nay, perpetuated) for a few. I thought the concluding paragraph said it well. Marriage as an institution becomes gutted of its central presumptions just so we can accomodate the sexual preferences of a small minority. It's unbiblical and it's undemocratic.
Posted by: Deb Burton | July 24, 2008 09:23 AM
Erik, I understand what you are saying, but I think this article is a good start. It's true that without common beliefs/assumptions it is probably impossible to convince some people to oppose gay marriage. But, I think there are a lot of people out there who are thinking right now:
"I think I am against gay marriage; it doesn't seem right somehow. But I'm not really sure why, and I don't think I should keep someone else from doing something just because it doesn't feel right to me, or because my Bible -- that they don't believe -- says it's wrong."
When the truth is, there are some actual, valid, secular reasons why gay marriage should not be sanctioned or legal. And one of those reasons does have to do with, "what's the best environment to raise kids?" And where gay marriage has been legal for awhile (like Scandinavia, Holland, etc.) out-of-wedlock births are up. There are at least some strong correlations.
Gay marriage says (just as no-fault divorce says) that marriage between a man and a woman isn't important and isn't necessary for raising kids. And the sociological data says that absolutely kids need that. There is a great cost to society (teen pregnancy, drugs, crime, welfare, etc.) when kids aren't raised by their mom and dad.
Posted by: Marni Chediak | July 25, 2008 12:17 AM
Marni:
"And where gay marriage has been legal for awhile (like Scandinavia, Holland, etc.) out-of-wedlock births are up."
The obvious cause for both legal homosexual marriage *and* out-of-wedlock births seems to me to be more "liberal" attitudes in those countries. Do we have any particular reason to believe the causation you're implying?
"Gay marriage says (just as no-fault divorce says) that marriage between a man and a woman isn't important and isn't necessary for raising kids."
This seems like a non sequitur, since gay couples aren't going to be creating any kids via these marriages. Is the entire objection here that gay marriage will make it easier for gay couples to adopt? (It's not like they can't even now.)
"And the sociological data says that absolutely kids need that. There is a great cost to society (teen pregnancy, drugs, crime, welfare, etc.) when kids aren't raised by their mom and dad."
Conceding these sociological studies, it's still difficult to relate this to same sex marriage. Unless we're worried about gay couples hiring surrogate mothers or something?
Posted by: Erik Haugen | July 25, 2008 05:46 PM