Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Our culture is planning marriage's demise
A new survey out this week from the National Marriage Project shows that marriage is an institution in decline in many parts of American society. This "retreat from marriage in Middle America" will have wide-ranging social and economic consequences, say the survey's authors.
Another recent study of marriage, administered by the Pew Research Center, showed that nearly 40% of Americans believe marriage is becoming 'obsolete.'
What is marriage? Is it a civil union or is it a religious institution? How do you define it? Is there a marriage crisis in America today?
Not to be too crude in my response, but an answer to the question of "Is marriage obsolete?" can be given with the old saw: "Use it or lose it!" Marriage is becoming less and less viable in the American context because it too often isn't being "practiced" in a sustainable way. In a "throwaway" society, marital relationships are easily ended when it gets too difficult, something "better" comes along, or one or both partners just grow tired. Marriage takes work - hard work - and the statistics indicate that we are now acculturated to think that when the going gets tough, rather than toughing it out, we are inclined to say, "tough luck!" and bolt.
The rewards of a good marriage, though (and I would highly recommend Tom Mullen's book "A Very Good Marriage," Friends United Press, 2001), are worth the effort: a deep, secure relationship in which ones deepest needs, hopes, dreams, and hurts can be addressed - and can be reciprocated. As Quaker sociologist Elise Boulding has written in another very good book, "One Small Plot of Heaven" (Pendle Hill Books, 1989), a good marriage can also be a "demonstration plot for the kin(g)dom of G-d," a "zone of peace" where the ripples of love, understanding, empowerment, integrity, harmony, joy, equality, and justice can spread into the broader society.
As for the question about whether marriage is a religious institution or a civil union, I am tempted to parrot the old Homer & Jethro line, "Marriage is an institution; I don't like living in an institution!" But I will cite two founding Friends instead - George Fox and William Penn. In describing the unique practice of Quaker weddings, in which there is no ordained clergy officiating, Fox stated, "We marry none; it is G-d who marries." Friends have viewed marriage as a religious covenant in which partners promise, in the presence of G-d and their family and friends, to "be loving and faithful husbands/wives as long as the two shall live." And for his part, William Penn counseled his own children not to marry "but for love." Not for convenience; not for status; not for mere physical pleasure; but for the soul-connecting experience of the love of G-d which brings two people together.
Growing up in the hey-day of Detroit's planned obsolescence, I can see disturbing signs of our culture's doing the same to marriage. Whether one is evangelical, liberal, or non-religious, it is common these days in America to live together without benefit of marriage, to see restrictions on pre-marital sex as "quaint," and to put so much focus on the physical trappings of the perfect wedding as to make any viable marriage financially unfeasible! I do feel that some see marriage as a "dinosaur" of the same kind as those old fin-bedecked behemoths coming out of Motor City (and in the back seats of which many a marriage was made necessary!).
Yet I am also encouraged by many of the young people with whom I work that marriage can still be seen as a joyous life-long commitment to growing and planning together, sharing dreams of personal and societal betterment, in tandem with a life partner who will be there through thick and thin. I even hear some of these young people tell me that their physical intimacies are made more enjoyable by a relationship founded first on deep conversation and sharing their souls with each other - and knowing that they are committed to toughing it out together over the long haul, making such intimacies much more safe and secure.
If such is to go the way of the Edsel, I believe our society will be the poorer for it.
By
Max Carter
|
December 6, 2010; 3:58 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Find meaning in marriage without religion |
Next: Marriage: is it going the way of the horse and carriage?
Posted by: jobandon | December 12, 2010 9:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Weddings & Marriage: Much ballyhoo for the launch; fewer resources for the maintenance, as for buildings, social programs, and new administrations.
Of course more and more are couples opting out of marriage completely; the latter costs more, and doesn't have a confidence-inspiring sustainability rate.
Posted by: bitterblogger | December 7, 2010 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I appreciate hearing such practical, plain-spoken talk from a religious leader. Your comment about people spending so much money on a wedding that they can't financially sustain a marriage hit home! I also can't understand unmarried couples who decide to delay their wedding until after the baby comes so they can have the ceremony of their dreams. The marriage and the commitment are the priority...not the ceremony (a baby certainly doesn't care about the latter!).
Posted by: kelly63 | December 7, 2010 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
WriteOne, somebody apparently hurt you very deeply, and i feel for you.
But don't paint with such a broad brush. My husband and I are wholly committed to each other. That does not mean that neither of us has friends of the opposite sex, nor does it mean that we can't be trusted to spend time with said friends without a chaperon.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 7, 2010 1:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
thewriteone1129 -
At least you are self-aware enough to know that you are sexist. Too bad you aren't very familiar with the actual behavior of all adults.
Posted by: david6 | December 7, 2010 12:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
thewriteone1129:
“Although this will seem horribly sexist and anti-feminist”
Well, you got that right…
The problem is though, you may believe that women want to have their cake and eat it too, there is not really any evidence that this is any more or less true with men, nor is there evidence that this mindset actually has a significant statistical impact on the institution of marriage as a whole.
“under the guise of "friendship”
Uh, I have many friends that are of the opposite sex, and carry on perfectly civilized, non-sexual relationships with them, some for many years. It’s called maturity. You don’t, male or female, have to see or treat the others as prey for your lusts, nor you for theirs. Yes, m/f’s can indeed be just friends. I’m not saying that whoever it was that ticked you off was socially mature and so capable, she may very well have been a selfish, ungrateful, heartless specimen, but there’s no justification for condemning all women for the terrible behaviors of the vast majority. (sarcasm)
As for ‘selfishness’, well that’s pretty much why we eat and breathe in the first place isn’t it?
Posted by: gladerunner | December 7, 2010 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Although this will seem horribly sexist and anti-feminist, I believe that the main reason marriage is on a steep decline lies in the female desire to have one's cake and eat it too, to be in a committed uncommitted relationship, one in which the husband is faithful and provides economically for the wife, but also one in which the wife is free to pursue both sexual and nonsexual relationships outside of the marriage under the guise of "friendship". This is usually justified under the excuse that such behavior is "civilized", and just the way that grownups behave. Such behavior, however, is neither civilized nor grownup, but is instead a supreme expression of selfishness.
Posted by: thewriteone1129 | December 7, 2010 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I strongly value marriage and its benefits. No couple should be barred from taking advantage of it just because some supposedly religious folks want to inflict their bigotry on our laws.
Marriage works best when there is strong social support and both parties can see that they are both equals and voluntary members of the relationship. The old traditions and laws that were unfair to wives and made divorce almost impossible for those who were not rich may have kept the divorce rate low, but it made a mockery of marriage.
Posted by: david6 | December 7, 2010 10:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I thought this was a great piece. I agree whole-heartedly.
Posted by: forgetthis | December 7, 2010 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I have no mercy. If I was married chances are I would. You need a woman to have mercy. Then there are guys with no soul that knock up other broads and the wife has cancer and dies broken hearted. A shame.