Save Marriage; Don't Throw in Towel

OPINION

Policy Makers Should Protect Marriage Ideals Instead of Throwing in the Towel

By Dennis Durband
December 29, 2004

From the outset, I will not disagree with outgoing Rep. Wally Straughn’s assertions that marriage needs strengthening, that the problems with marriage are not due to its heterosexual dynamic and that the problems with marriage cannot be tied to traditional values.

As the representative asserted, the issue of marriage will come before the legislature once again this coming session. Unlike last year when the issue was framed merely as a message of support for traditional marriage to be sent to Congress, this time there will be an attempt to legislate an amendment to the state constitution protecting traditional marriage. If that doesn’t work out, then it is likely the issue will be put before voters as a ballot proposition in the 2006 general election. Thirteen states went the latter route, successfully, this year.

This is a proactive move by legislators. There is no point in waiting for homosexual couples to find a sympathetic and liberal judge to decree from the bench that same-sex marriage be allowed. The federal Defense of Marriage Act is under attack around the nation, and many leading Constitutional experts do not expect it to survive judicial activism of the kind that occurred in Massachusetts, where a mere four justices legislated homosexual marriage upon the commonwealth.

Rep. Straughn said he supports the ideal of traditional marriage, but says that it is much different from that which we see today. He is confusing an ideal for the exceptions to the rule. Furthermore, he says:

True marriage is a contract between partners, which binds them for life as an entity charged with creating, protecting and promoting the family.

This view has nothing to do with the gender of the partners.

The contract of marriage does not bind couples for life. Marriage vows create life-time pledges. The view has everything to do with the gender of the partners. Opposite-gender marriage has been the model throughout the history of civilization, and only agents of social change can make the claim that gender is irrelevant in marriage.

Furthermore, Straughn writes:

I have always assumed marriage was between two people who love one another and want to devote themselves to creating a life together as a family.

If this were true, then the tradition of one-man/one-woman marriage would have fallen by the wayside long ago. We don’t marry all the people we love. We love our aunts and uncles and grandparents, but we don’t marry them. There is far more to marriage than simply love. In fact, love is a decision and so is marriage.

Straughn complains that “traditional marriage has become a failure” and there are far too many divorces. He is wrong on the first account, correct on the second. As a society, we do not judge institutions, disciplines or value systems according to those who violate them. Couples have failed at marriage, but the ideal did not fail. Straughn seeks a radical and dreadful remedy to the problem:

We can correct the problems and refocus marriage to the nesting needs of couples today. … Marriage should denote a family unit of choice.

Marriage is not what needs to be re-focused. Individuals contemplating marriage and individuals in marriage partnerships need clear focus in order to be successful. Unwilling to work through the difficulties of marriage, many Americans have made marriage a disposable phenomenon. In fact, people can now use the Internet to divorce their mate. The term “nesting couples of today” is code for same-sex couples and those of the same or opposite gender who cohabitate.

History speaks against the institutionalization of open-ended marriage arrangements. In Scandinavian countries where same-sex marriage is legal, the institution of marriage has greatly diminished. Few children are born to married parents there anymore. Statistically, women and children born outside of marriage suffer greater economic and social hardships. Children in the homes of homosexual parents suffer abuse in much greater frequency, engage in more behavioral problems, do worse in school and experience more problems with drugs and alcohol. Scandinavians, the Dutch and soon the Canadians will soon “denote a family unit of choice,” and they do so at great peril.

When Straughn says: “Society should decide whether marriage is to be a religious sacrament, a civil affair, or continue the current dual model that allows for both,” he ignores the last 5,000 years of history. Civilization after civilization after civilization has set hetero-marriage as the norm. Only the aforementioned nations have tinkered with the natural design, and some day they may beg for a return to the norm.

Straughn then wrote:

Marriage should be for life with very few exceptions. Rather than making divorce simple we should require couples to know each other thoroughly before granting marriage so they learn their acceptability or lack thereof before the vows are made. Divorce should be the exception and not the easy out.

God forbid that a conservative ever say marriage should be for life; that would be decried as intolerance. Arizona has provided covenant marriage for couples since 1998, but unfortunately, too few people take advantage of this opportunity to make divorce tougher. The covenant marriage law includes the following language: “If we experience marital difficulties, we commit ourselves to take all reasonable efforts to preserve our marriage, including marital counseling.”

Churches offer pre-marriage classes, but many prideful persons forego the opportunity, only to crash upon the rocks of “wedded bless” later on. Sadly, our society has opted for the disposable marriage plan – leaving emotionally scarred children to deal with the turbulence in their wake. No wonder the younger generation disdains the ugly specter of divorce.

Straughn laments that traditional marriage and intact families are “far from the majority of marriages today.” Even in Massachusetts, traditional marriages far and away compose the majority of marriages. The other 49 states have not legalized homosexual marriage, leaving hetero-marriage as the only type of marriage available. Straughn may want to take back that remark.

Marriage should indeed be for life. Every marriage is going to experience turbulence, and it is incumbent upon couples to tough it out and make their marriages succeed. Researchers found that five years after couples had chosen to continue in marriage as opposed to divorcing were reporting greater happiness. Marriage requires work to succeed. That should be the aim of husbands of wives, to work through the rough spots and maintain their vows. Just because a few homosexuals want to change marriage laws does not justify radical re-nesting in Arizona or any other state.