Avesther
New Member
(part of a link for another thread, but please feel free to read. It is a well thought out paper, covering a reality people are just not standing up for. It will take about 30 to 45 minutes to read it all)
Reforming or Demolishing Marriage
In recent years there have been public advocates, even academics, willing to argue the case for marriage. But, for some reason, they have been fearful of exploring and putting forward strong arguments in defense of the precious heterosexual fabric of marriage. In the current cultural atmosphere such arguments seem offensive.
At the same time, those intent on demolishing the heterosexual definition of marriage have been busy arming themselves to the teeth with legal, historical, philosophical, psychological, theological, and emotive arguments.
And now, in Canada, as the battle is fully engaged, the well-armed are proving victorious. To the surprise and dismay of some, Canadian courts have been rising up to hammer marriage with the judicial gavel of "sexual orientation rights" and to demolish the definition of marriage as a "union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." In Canada, the future of marriage as a heterosexual institution seems to be teetering on a precipice.
In the past two months both the Ontario and the Quebec Superior Courts have decided that the definition of marriage as a heterosexual form of life violates the fundamental rights of same-sex couples who wish to be married. The Ontario judges agreed with the gay and lesbian petitioners that the restriction of marriage to sex-inclusive unions is unjust since "'marriage' represents society's highest acceptance of the self-worth and the wholeness of a couple's relationship, and thus touches their sense of human dignity at its core."
The Hallmark sentiments that guided the Ontario decision seem almost disingenuous. They skew and distort contemporary cultural developments. Despite occasional spikes upwards, the so-called dignity and status of marriage has been steadily declining and its future seems uncertain. Fewer and fewer young people are marrying. Marriages are less stable. The internal meaning of marriage has been changing. It has been thinned out to a good committed close relationship.
Historically marriage earned public reverence and dignity because it had specific substance. It represented a decisive 'dedication' or covenant that bridged the sex divide. It earned respect because it involved, in Chesterton's words, real fidelity and demanding duties. The marriage vow was a public commitment to a dedicated and difficult monogamous journey. The vows publicly embraced the future suffering and sacrifices necessary to sustain this bond. The vows committed the couple to a resilient and stable form of life to meet the unique challenges of heterosexual bonding, procreation and child rearing. (Chesterton, 228-29)
But marriage has been subject to a considerable amount of legal and political manhandling over the past few decades: the establishment of no-fault divorce, the disconnect between marriage and procreation, the blurring of distinctions between marriage and cohabitation, liberalized abortion laws, and major reconfigurations of parent/child relationships.
These developments have had a considerable impact upon marriage. Since the 1950s divorce rates have soared, marriage rates have declined, birth rates have plummeted, cohabitation rates have increased, out of wedlock births have climbed, fewer and fewer children are reared from birth to adulthood by their biological parents, and there is a relentless movement to shift the nurturing of the critical stage of early childhood to agencies outside of the home.
In a sense, at each stage of the cultural debate a central pillar of the historic form of marriage has come under assault. Divorce reforms challenged the permanence of marriage, sexual liberation loosened the reigns of fidelity, abortion and contraception broke the connection between marriage and procreation, the push for career-centered marriages diminished the child-rearing functions of marriage.
The depth of the erosion of marriage is dramatically illustrated by the demographic shifts that have taken place in the province of Quebec over the last few decades. In the 1950s close to 100% of Quebecers were married by the age of 50. Today only 33% get married, nevertheless divorce rates are still spectacularly high. Close to 60% of all children are now born outside of wedlock. Our birth rates have dropped from one of the highest in the Western world in the 1930s to the lowest. The vast majority of children (67%) will grow up without one of their parents for some significant period of time. The erosion of long-term conjugal bonding has been deep and this has had a profound impact on spouses as well as children. Quebec family policy has collapsed into a one-dimensional strategy: a 1.5 billion dollar government investment in day-care.
And now we have reached the next frontier in the marriage debate. Same-sex advocates would like to see heterosexuality deleted from the definition of marriage. Legal cases challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage are now in Canadian courts. The Law Commission of Canada is proposing the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions. The Quebec government moved quickly to establish a parallel conjugal institution ('civil unions') that offers a 'matrimonial' relationship for same-sex couples that is identical to that of "marriage."
At each stage of our so-called marriage reforms, the experts have assured us that the changes will not affect marriage in any significant way. In the early years of the divorce debate, experts argued that legal reform would not actually increase divorce rates, it would only facilitate the process of dissolution for couples already on route to divorce. They were wrong. The cultural erosion of conjugal permanence proved to be quite profound and divorce rates rose far beyond anyone's expectations. The same story holds true for the disconnect between procreation and marriage, the transformation of child-rearing, and the expansion of single parenthood and cohabitation.
Over the last few decades the critical institutional bedposts of marriage have been loosened in order to accommodate adults who felt imposed upon by the constrictions of marriage, but still wanted to be married. Now heterosexuality itself is found to be too constricting for some, so once again we are being urged to hit the delete button. Once again, experts are arguing that the reform of marriage to include same-sex couples will not affect marriage in any major way. It is simply a small "add on." It will be, in effect, an expansion of marriage allowing more people to be involved in this venerable institution It will make no real difference for heterosexual couples; it will just help a few gay and lesbian folk. Heterosexual married folk will plod along as always. But will they?
Advocates of reform claim that these changes will expand marriage and broaden its appeal by creating a one-shoe-fits-all-sizes relationship. Yet, ironically, the reforms seem only to be diminishing not enhancing the meaning and significance of marriage. Marriage is less attractive. Fewer people are marrying, more people are divorcing, rates of cohabitation and single-parenthood are rising. Our new and improved versions of marriage seem to be less marketable, more prone to break-down, and less durable than the older clunkier models in vogue until the early 1960s.
Why have the experts been so wrong at each stage of our evolving cultural debate over marriage? Perhaps their basic premise is flawed. Reforms are predicated on making marriage more user-friendly, more tailored to the needs and wants of self-interested adults. The hard vows of the past have been transformed into sentimental exchanges of mutual affection. The cultural message embedded in these new developments is clear. Marriage has no essential relationship to long-term heterosexual bonding and children. Marriage is reduced to a cluster of extra perks and benefits for adults who happen to be in consensual sexual laisons. Marriage is reduced to public applause and legal approval for couples that can sustain a 'sexual relationship' for a few years.
Reforming or Demolishing Marriage
In recent years there have been public advocates, even academics, willing to argue the case for marriage. But, for some reason, they have been fearful of exploring and putting forward strong arguments in defense of the precious heterosexual fabric of marriage. In the current cultural atmosphere such arguments seem offensive.
At the same time, those intent on demolishing the heterosexual definition of marriage have been busy arming themselves to the teeth with legal, historical, philosophical, psychological, theological, and emotive arguments.
And now, in Canada, as the battle is fully engaged, the well-armed are proving victorious. To the surprise and dismay of some, Canadian courts have been rising up to hammer marriage with the judicial gavel of "sexual orientation rights" and to demolish the definition of marriage as a "union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." In Canada, the future of marriage as a heterosexual institution seems to be teetering on a precipice.
In the past two months both the Ontario and the Quebec Superior Courts have decided that the definition of marriage as a heterosexual form of life violates the fundamental rights of same-sex couples who wish to be married. The Ontario judges agreed with the gay and lesbian petitioners that the restriction of marriage to sex-inclusive unions is unjust since "'marriage' represents society's highest acceptance of the self-worth and the wholeness of a couple's relationship, and thus touches their sense of human dignity at its core."
The Hallmark sentiments that guided the Ontario decision seem almost disingenuous. They skew and distort contemporary cultural developments. Despite occasional spikes upwards, the so-called dignity and status of marriage has been steadily declining and its future seems uncertain. Fewer and fewer young people are marrying. Marriages are less stable. The internal meaning of marriage has been changing. It has been thinned out to a good committed close relationship.
Historically marriage earned public reverence and dignity because it had specific substance. It represented a decisive 'dedication' or covenant that bridged the sex divide. It earned respect because it involved, in Chesterton's words, real fidelity and demanding duties. The marriage vow was a public commitment to a dedicated and difficult monogamous journey. The vows publicly embraced the future suffering and sacrifices necessary to sustain this bond. The vows committed the couple to a resilient and stable form of life to meet the unique challenges of heterosexual bonding, procreation and child rearing. (Chesterton, 228-29)
But marriage has been subject to a considerable amount of legal and political manhandling over the past few decades: the establishment of no-fault divorce, the disconnect between marriage and procreation, the blurring of distinctions between marriage and cohabitation, liberalized abortion laws, and major reconfigurations of parent/child relationships.
These developments have had a considerable impact upon marriage. Since the 1950s divorce rates have soared, marriage rates have declined, birth rates have plummeted, cohabitation rates have increased, out of wedlock births have climbed, fewer and fewer children are reared from birth to adulthood by their biological parents, and there is a relentless movement to shift the nurturing of the critical stage of early childhood to agencies outside of the home.
In a sense, at each stage of the cultural debate a central pillar of the historic form of marriage has come under assault. Divorce reforms challenged the permanence of marriage, sexual liberation loosened the reigns of fidelity, abortion and contraception broke the connection between marriage and procreation, the push for career-centered marriages diminished the child-rearing functions of marriage.
The depth of the erosion of marriage is dramatically illustrated by the demographic shifts that have taken place in the province of Quebec over the last few decades. In the 1950s close to 100% of Quebecers were married by the age of 50. Today only 33% get married, nevertheless divorce rates are still spectacularly high. Close to 60% of all children are now born outside of wedlock. Our birth rates have dropped from one of the highest in the Western world in the 1930s to the lowest. The vast majority of children (67%) will grow up without one of their parents for some significant period of time. The erosion of long-term conjugal bonding has been deep and this has had a profound impact on spouses as well as children. Quebec family policy has collapsed into a one-dimensional strategy: a 1.5 billion dollar government investment in day-care.
And now we have reached the next frontier in the marriage debate. Same-sex advocates would like to see heterosexuality deleted from the definition of marriage. Legal cases challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage are now in Canadian courts. The Law Commission of Canada is proposing the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions. The Quebec government moved quickly to establish a parallel conjugal institution ('civil unions') that offers a 'matrimonial' relationship for same-sex couples that is identical to that of "marriage."
At each stage of our so-called marriage reforms, the experts have assured us that the changes will not affect marriage in any significant way. In the early years of the divorce debate, experts argued that legal reform would not actually increase divorce rates, it would only facilitate the process of dissolution for couples already on route to divorce. They were wrong. The cultural erosion of conjugal permanence proved to be quite profound and divorce rates rose far beyond anyone's expectations. The same story holds true for the disconnect between procreation and marriage, the transformation of child-rearing, and the expansion of single parenthood and cohabitation.
Over the last few decades the critical institutional bedposts of marriage have been loosened in order to accommodate adults who felt imposed upon by the constrictions of marriage, but still wanted to be married. Now heterosexuality itself is found to be too constricting for some, so once again we are being urged to hit the delete button. Once again, experts are arguing that the reform of marriage to include same-sex couples will not affect marriage in any major way. It is simply a small "add on." It will be, in effect, an expansion of marriage allowing more people to be involved in this venerable institution It will make no real difference for heterosexual couples; it will just help a few gay and lesbian folk. Heterosexual married folk will plod along as always. But will they?
Advocates of reform claim that these changes will expand marriage and broaden its appeal by creating a one-shoe-fits-all-sizes relationship. Yet, ironically, the reforms seem only to be diminishing not enhancing the meaning and significance of marriage. Marriage is less attractive. Fewer people are marrying, more people are divorcing, rates of cohabitation and single-parenthood are rising. Our new and improved versions of marriage seem to be less marketable, more prone to break-down, and less durable than the older clunkier models in vogue until the early 1960s.
Why have the experts been so wrong at each stage of our evolving cultural debate over marriage? Perhaps their basic premise is flawed. Reforms are predicated on making marriage more user-friendly, more tailored to the needs and wants of self-interested adults. The hard vows of the past have been transformed into sentimental exchanges of mutual affection. The cultural message embedded in these new developments is clear. Marriage has no essential relationship to long-term heterosexual bonding and children. Marriage is reduced to a cluster of extra perks and benefits for adults who happen to be in consensual sexual laisons. Marriage is reduced to public applause and legal approval for couples that can sustain a 'sexual relationship' for a few years.