Tag: marriage

Categories
culture

5 Evidences of Our Broken-Family Culture

grandmother
Photo by Peter Dahlgren

When I saw a link to an article titled 5 Ways Retirement Is Different For Women I hoped to see a profound insight or two in the article. Unfortunately what I got was proof of how broken our cultural views are related to families. There’s no way to argue the facts behind the 5 points in the article:

  1. Women live longer.
  2. Women are more likely to fly solo in their later years.
  3. Stepping out of the work force is easy; stepping back in is not.
  4. Retired women are poorer than retired men.
  5. Part-time work rarely leads to a solid retirement.

The point of #3 is that women pay an ongoing price if they step out of the workforce to rear children. My immediate thought was, “great, let’s keep convincing women that raising children is a burden on their lives.” When it went on to say that taking time to care for aging parents can be even worse financially than taking time to raise children it clearly suggested that families are a financial burden.

Points 4 and 5 were really sad because they would be completely non-issues if we had a culture of lasting marriages rather than a culture of disposable marriages. As I thought how lasting marriages would affect each of these points I realized that healthy, loving families mitigate all five issues listed in the article. Let’s see how.

Continue reading “5 Evidences of Our Broken-Family Culture”
Categories
culture

Saving Marriage

wedding ceremony Photo by Tom James

An article in the Deseret News about various efforts to make it harder to divorce led me to an article in Bloomberg View by Megan McArdle. The whole thing is worth reading but the part that got me thinking and writing was this:

The divorce laws of an earlier era were one part of a complex social institution with mutually reinforcing norms and a fairly elaborate system of punishments and rewards. People were encouraged to stay in marriages because divorce was difficult — but it is at least as important that divorce was heavily stigmatized. Even more important is the energy society spent encouraging people to get married in the first place — not just with the gauzy dreams of wedding gowns and perfect babies that help sustain the institution today, but also with a complicated system of carrots and sticks that have now completely vanished. Old maids were stigmatized; women who had babies out of wedlock were shunned. Marriage was the only socially permitted way to cohabit and, for that matter, often the only legal way to do so: Landlords didn’t like renting to people who were shacking up, and hotels that rented rooms to openly unmarried couples risked being indicted as brothels. On the positive side, getting married often meant a raise for a man, and for both parties, it constituted instant admission to adulthood. In short, the legal system of yesteryear didn’t have to worry that harsh divorce laws would discourage marriage entirely; any marriages that they did discourage probably shouldn’t have happened. But people would continue to get married, because there wasn’t any viable alternative for the majority of people who wanted to live on their own and raise a family without the neighbors talking — or calling the vice squad.

McArdle may be right in suggesting that making divorce harder could have unintended consequences but she has clearly identified many of the social supports we’ve kicked out that were never intended to bring the consequences that we are dealing with now.

Continue reading “Saving Marriage”
Categories
culture politics thoughts

What is Marriage?

I read What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense and came to the realization that we need more public discussion of the fundamental question in our “marriage equality” debate. The fundamental question is, What is marriage?

I’m not going to offer any potential definition here. Instead, I would like to offer a comparison to illustrate why that question needs to be discussed openly and on its own terms. Hopefully in the process I also offer a framework for having that discussion in an objective, non-threatening way. The comparison is to ask the question: what is Pi?

Theoretically we know what Pi is (which is possibly more than we can say about marriage). It’s the ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference. Functionally it is a number that we’ve never found the end of – 3.1415926535…

Continue reading “What is Marriage?”
Categories
culture thoughts

Perspectives on Promoting Marriage

Tyler Smith asked a great question on Google+ about whether people were concerned about the waning influence of the traditional family in American Society. I answered with a resounding “yes” but I think the topic deserves more attention. I’d like to address this in two parts. First, the conversation cycled around the issues of how and when we do or should make the decision to get married in modern western culture. In a separate post I will directly address my perspective on the question that sparked the original discussion.

As a starting point, here was my initial response (early in the discussion but not the first response):

Based on my observation – “haven’t met the right person yet” is usually a cover for “it really isn’t a high priority for me yet.”

I spent a few years “not meeting the right person yet” and then I realized that it was time for me to be really serious about it. I “met the right person” within 2 months and was married within a year.

In hindsight (based on the experience of more than a decade of marriage) I realize that some of those I had spent my time with during those years of “not meeting the right person” would have been pretty good for me (no better for me than my wife, but no reason not to get married). The difference was that I wasn’t prepared in those earlier years and the difference in my preparation was almost entirely an outgrowth of my recognition that it was time to get serious about moving forward with marriage.

I’m not trying to put pressure on +Tyler Smith or +Ryan Bickmore‘s brother but I do hope that those who are still looking for the right person will stop and consider if they are really not finding mr/ms right or if it is simply not yet their priority.

As to Tyler’s original question: Yes, I am concerned that the influence of the traditional family is waning in our society. The alternative lifestyles (meaning all the lifestyles that take the place of traditional families) are not conducive to the long term stability of society when practiced on a wide scale for a sustained period of time.

The discussion that followed his post had participants representing a number of fairly typical perspectives. I apologize in advance if any of them feels that I misrepresent them or oversimplify their perspective. I have no intention of doing either of those things. I will be presenting their perspectives in boxes that I find to be fairly consistent but I understand that their personal perspectives are almost certainly more nuanced than I make them out to be and hope others assume that as well. Also, I will not be including myself or my perspective in the list of characters & perspectives not because I think I have some more grand, overarching perspective to offer, but because as the author of this article I expect to display my perspective writ large. (Besides, I fully expect that readers will find at least one character in the list that they associate with my perspective.)

Continue reading “Perspectives on Promoting Marriage”
Categories
culture National politics

Fighting the Right Fight for Marriage


Photo by paws22

With declarations of inevitability by the advocates for same-sex marriage coupled with accusations of bigotry leveled against those who wish to defend marriage as an institution that necessarily includes participation by people of differing genders it can be daunting to stand up in defense of heterosexual marriage. I was impressed with the way Jeffrey Thayne presented a defense of marriage being a necessarily heterosexual institution that showed that such a position need not be based on bigotry. His description of a companionate view of marriage versus a conjugal view of marriage got me wondering – what are we fighting for if we oppose the idea of gay marriage?

Continue reading “Fighting the Right Fight for Marriage”
Categories
life

Nine Years and Counting

Nine years ago today I was privileged to make covenants with the greatest woman I have ever known. I spent a lot of time today thinking back to our wedding day (hint: that was back when Mother Nature still remembered that it’s not supposed to snow in May) and all that has happened in the years since then. We have been blessed with five kids and I get to contrast my nine years of marriage with the ten months and counting that a friend of ours is enduring of divorce proceedings. While we were at stake conference today being spiritually edified I saw the weight of care showing on this friend’s face and thought how blessed I was to have a wonderful wife to share the weight of raising children to the Lord so that they will be prepared for the challenges they will face when they go out into the world.

Categories
culture National politics

The Case for Telling the Truth

Perhaps it would be better to say that this is the case for tellling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” After months and months of watching the various arguments for and against Proposition 8 in California – which would define marriage as being between a man and a woman – I finally spoke up. I could no longer sit silent while people on both sides of the debate obscured the truth of what was to be decided.

The way this is the case for telling the truth is that one side received all the benefit as both sides argued about related obscurities that were all false to one degree or another. Those opposing Prop. 8 claim that the measure was designed to institutionalize discrimination. They benefit from this because of the emotional reaction that good people have to the idea of discrimination. When the proponents of Prop. 8 focus their arguments on the secondary effects of legalizing gay marriage, using fear as their tool in place of truth the opponents can easily counter with the idea that the repurcussions of this action will not have a ripple effect citing the fact that gay marriage has already been legal for months (and naturally within those few months we would already be seeing the side effects of such a monumental social change as redefining the primary unit of society).

If the advocates for Prop. 8 would stick to publishing the truth of their position and defending themselves accurately against the false claims of discrimination their opponents would not be able to obscure the real issue as effectively as they have been able to do. The voters would be left to decide on the issue of whether marriage is a construct of man or something more eternal in nature. If the issue were decided based on the real argument then it would almost not matter the outcome of the vote – the people would be declaring where they stand on the issue and the debate would serve as an opportunity to teach the truth.

As it stands, the debate has circled around the central issue and been hijacked by half-truths and high emotions. The people of California will decide the issues based on viceral reactions rather than honest or clear belief. Many will make a choice that they honestly do not understand and cannot be fully held accountable for that choice which means the issue will undoubtedly be revisited without the benefit of so many people already understanding what it being decided.

Categories
culture National politics

Politics and Marriage

I was invited to share my views on political issues relating to marriage and was pointed to DefendMarriage.org as a reference point. I think the issues relating to marriage and the politics surrounding marriage (gay rights and abortion rights are listed in the invitation and states rights are a part of the political discussion as well) really illustrate that there is more to this issue than simply answering the question of what defines “marriage” in our society. The following statement on traditional marriage from defendmarriage.org really outlines the socially conservative position on the surface issue of defining marriage:

Marriage between man and woman is the time-honored foundation of the institution of the family. This legally recognized and protected union is intended to be life-long, preceded by sexual abstinence and followed by absolute fidelity and loyalty. Such marriage offers security, benefits, and joys that no other relationship can, including children born and nurtured in a home of love and total commitment. Marriage is the institution universally sanctioned by civilization to ensure that children receive a full measure of parental love, resources and attention.

I fully agree with that definition of what marriage is. The question that I keep asking myself in order to define the parameters of the deeper issues is why, and in what ways should the law “recognize and protect” marriage. If we return to a proper protection of individual rights many of the reasons used to justify stretching that legal definition of marriage evaporate. If two people engage in a homosexual lifestyle and establish a loving and committed relationship then the government has no business interfering with hospital visitation rights etc. Our society gains nothing by infringing upon those individual rights.

On other questions, such as tax breaks and insurance benefits there should be no issue. Individuals can will their property to anyone regardless of family connection and the government should never have a primary right of ownership that is functionally implied through inheritance taxes. The same holds true with tax breaks for married couples – there should be no need for tax breaks because we should not have an income tax (which again implies that the government owns the money and simply allows individuals to a portion of what they contribute to the GNP). If we had no income tax there would be no tax benefit for being married.

As for health care benefits for families, family insurance policies would essentially be a type of small-group policy. Insurance companies could offer policies to match any kind of group whose business they want.

With regard to adoption, that is a social service that should not be run by the state. Instead, adoption should be a matter that is resolved between willing biological parents and individuals that are willing and to whom the natural parents chose to transfer the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. No need to worry about biological children because homosexual couples have voluntarily chosen a lifestyle that does not produce biological children. (Even those who argue that homosexuality is an inborn identity must recognize that those individuals may choose not to engage in the lifestyle.)

By removing those issues from the arsenal of those who agitate for recognition of gay marriage, the discussion would be reduced to the core issue of what constitutes marriage. That issue is not primarily a political issue, it is a cultural/theological issue. The government is only responsible to ensure that individuals on both sides of the issue do not have their rights trampled by others.