Destroy Marriage to save it?

[Catholic_Dude]

I was reading an news article regarding the possible elimination of the concept of marriage from the law books in the future. In other words as far as the state is concerned there is no such thing as marriage.

This got me thinking eek, would this be such a bad idea?
After all, what right does the law have messing with what is actually a divine institution?
If marriage was restricted to the Christian realm then wouldn’t the number of divorces drop as well as the gay lobby to recognize “same sex weddings/couples”?

If marriage no longer offered the legal benefits, only the divine, then I would bet the only ones who would even bother would be the conservative Christians. It would be like saying you are going to go get Baptized, nobody in the secular world cares because no legal benefits result.

The only downfall I can guess is that it would send a very negative signal to the nation that there definitely no need to “wait” now and that the family means nothing (or less than what it does now ).

What do you think? Am I missing something very significant?

 

[Proletarian]

Couldn’t agree more!

 

[blessedtoo]

What do you think? Am I missing something very significant?

Yes.

Research has consistently shown that CHILDREN (remember them?) do best when they are raised by a mom and dad who are married to eachother. No matter who does the study on this issue, the results are always the same. So why do we keep experimenting with our children?

Sure, you could say that Catholics and Christians should just go off and do their thing, have their Sacramental marriages and let the rest of society be damned. But there are children involved and hence, future citizens who will live alongside us Catholics and Christians.

Children who are raised in single parent, step-parent, same-sex parent, or no parent households are more likely to live in poverty well into adulthood, more likely to do prison time, more likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, more likely to drop out of school, more like to abuse their partners, and on and on.

I guess if we don’t mind living in a society where the state has no concern for the way their future citizens turn out, then sure, do away with the government’s investment in marriage. However, if we care about future generations and the health of our society, I would say we all should support the state’s interest in traditional marriage.

People seem to be under the impression that the state’s involvement has something to do with morality or tradition or values or sentiment. This is erroneous. If it was proven tomorrow that children flourish with single moms or same sex parents, the state would be showering benefits upon these “family” situations. It’s interest is in preserving the health of society and after 40 years of grand experimentation, it is still a proven fact that traditional marriage is the best deal for children.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Children who are raised in single parent, step-parent, same-sex parent, or no parent households are more likely to live in poverty well into adulthood, more likely to do prison time, more likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, more likely to drop out of school, more like to abuse their partners, and on and on.
When I was 11, my father abandoned us and left me in the care of a woman who he thought was capable of murder, and who seems (in retrospect) to have suffered from both clinical depression and borderline personality disorder.

I have not been to prison, have embraced monastic poverty, never gotten anyone pregnant, do not abuse either drugs or alcohol, and have a master’s degree.

On the other hand, I know of plenty of people who were raised by parents whose marriages might have been intact, and were the image of '50’s family stability, who nevertheless dropped out of school, suffered sexual abuse, were substance abusers, spousal abusers, etc, etc, etc…

Blessedtoo, can you provide documtentation for your assertions?

 

[mapleoak]

Society has not only the right, but the obligation to enact laws which protect the well being of its citizens in order to maintain social order. What social order is more fragile and in need of protection more than that of the family unit. Legalising abominable types of marriage is not protecting this well being and social order, but rather is an affront or all out assault against the family unit. Stepping out of the picture altogether and letting chaos ensue is neither the answer.

If marriage no longer offered the legal benefits, only the divine, then I would bet the only ones who would even bother would be the conservative Christians. It would be like saying you are going to go get Baptized, nobody in the secular world cares because no legal benefits result.

It is interesting to note that the feminist agenda sparked and initiated a spiraling decline in respect for the family unit. This began with novelties such as ‘equal pay for equal work’. The idea was to force employers to pay employees equally whether they were married or single, male or female, no regard for marital ‘status’. Being ‘married’ was to be considered a halter for women. Women in the work forced became more a so-called ‘necessity’ which took precedence over motherhood. Fatherhood became less depended upon, to which the ramifications have been more or less obvious.
To entirely throw out legal protection and recognition for the sacred institution of marriage would be to further the ideas promulgated by the feminist movement.

 

[Newbie2]

Would this be a bad idea?

You bet.

The core family of Mom, Pop and kids has been proven over time to be the best environment for (any) society. As has been said, laws are ways of supporting what’s best for that society (in general).

Marriage, although not nearly as highly respected as in the past, is still the glue that holds the smaller elements of our society together, secularly speaking.

Granted, secular/sociatal marriage is easy enough nowadays to walk away from, but if a piece of paper gives those who might discard their spouse and family like yesterday’s news when a new honey comes along pause to consider the consequenses, eliminating it would be a very, very bad thing.

 

[Bennie_P]

When I was 11, my father abandoned us and left me in the care of a woman who he thought was capable of murder, and who seems (in retrospect) to have suffered from both clinical depression and borderline personality disorder.

I have not been to prison, have embraced monastic poverty, never gotten anyone pregnant, do not abuse either drugs or alcohol, and have a master’s degree.

On the other hand, I know of plenty of people who were raised by parents whose marriages might have been intact, and were the image of '50’s family stability, who nevertheless dropped out of school, suffered sexual abuse, were substance abusers, spousal abusers, etc, etc, etc…

I’m not blessedtoo but I couldn’t resist answering your question-
You’re ignoring the norm because you are an exception, the studies are out there.

Does marriage matter?

Full documentation may found at end of the full brief.
Are you also saying that things might not have been more conducive for your success if your father would of stuck around? and that woman you speak of, was she your mother? you seem to have low opinion of her?

[W]hether American society succeeds or
fails in building a healthy marriage culture isclearly a matter of legitimate public concern.” Among their conclusions:

Marriage increases the likelihood thatchildren enjoy warm, close relationshipswith parents.

Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage.

Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.

Marriage reduces child poverty.

Divorce increases the risk of schoolfailure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.

Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.

Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.

Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.

Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.

Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.

Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.

Children raised outside of intact marriages are more likely to be victims of both sexual and physical child abuse.

They conclude, “Marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social good. Not every person can or should marry. And not every child raised outside of marriage is damaged as a result. But communities where good-enough marriages are common have better outcomes for children, women, and men than do communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried childbearing, and highconflict or violent marriages.”

Congrats on your Masters, what field of study, my I ask?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Society has not only the right, but the obligation to enact laws which protect the well being of its citizens in order to maintain social order. What social order is more fragile and in need of protection more than that of the family unit. Children of Abortion! Legalising abominable types of marriage is not protecting this well being and social order, but rather is an affront or all out assault against the family unit. Stepping out of the picture altogether and letting chaos ensue is neither the answer. Like in the case of Abortion!

It is interesting to note that the feminist agenda sparked and initiated a spiraling decline in respect for the family unit. This began with novelties such as ‘equal pay for equal work’. The idea was to force employers to pay employees equally whether they were married or single, male or female, no regard for marital ‘status’. Being ‘married’ was to be considered a halter for women. Women in the work forced became more a so-called ‘necessity’ which took precedence over motherhood. Fatherhood became less depended upon, to which the ramifications have been more or less obvious.
To entirely throw out legal protection and recognition for the sacred institution of marriage would be to further the ideas promulgated by the feminist movement.

I’m not disagreeing at all with this statement at all.

I do think that it is odd that the same government that allows and protects the slaughter of innocent children should be intrusted to legitimize the sacrament of mariage.

 

[mapleoak]

I’m not disagreeing at all with this statement at all.

I do think that it is odd that the same government that allows and protects the slaughter of innocent children should be intrusted to legitimize the sacrament of mariage.

It is indeed very odd. The government has the right and duty to protect social order, which means protecting the lives of the unborn. How miserably it has been failing in this area. The U.S. government for instance, has demonstrated a complete hand washing of its duty to protect the unborn. The decay in morality because of this has certainly been realized. Even more added upon that if the sanctity of marriage is disregarded as well.

 

[blessedtoo]

<<Children who are raised in single parent, step-parent, same-sex parent, or no parent households are more likely to live in poverty well into adulthood, more likely to do prison time, more likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, more likely to drop out of school, more like to abuse their partners, and on and on.

It has been researched to death and proven time and again.

There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule, obviously.

You were clearly blessed to have survived your experience relatively unscathed.

center.americanvalues.org/?p=55
center.americanvalues.org/?p=6

Children raised by both biological parents are less likely than children raised in single- or step-parent families to be poor, to drop out of school, to have difficulty finding a job, to become teen parents or to experience emotional or behavioral problems. Children living with single mothers are five times as likely to be poor as those in two-parent families.”—* Marriage Promotion in Low-Income Families,* Fact Sheet, National Council on Family Relations, April 2003

nncc.org/Parent/childview.html

For those who are truly interested in this issue (and not just attempting to stir the pot) read this essay by Maggie Galagher.
New From Maggie

"If Marriage is Natural, Why Is Defending It So Hard?"Ave Maria Law Review 2006

 

[Sr_Sally]

We visited Williamsburg, VA recently and participated in several of the reinactments they do. One was in the courthouse and was a case of a couple marrying who wanted to create a pre-nuptial agreement (yes, they existed back then). The couple who was chosen to participate were young adults who actually were engaged to be married. The judge gave an interesting statement on their request. (Obviously, the Williamsburg people had several responses based on who volunteered to participate.) The judge basically said that pre-nuptuals were only for older couples (widows remarrying for example) who had property and specifically children from previous marriages to protect. Back then women didn’t participate in public life as we all know. But it wasn’t just not voting or not owning property that we always hear about. Married men were also responsible for serving time for their wives civil crimes, paying back their wives debt, etc. And the reason for all this is that the women’s job of bearing and raising children was so important to the society. She wasn’t to be taken away from that job or distracted in anyway as much as possible. So in fact, it was the MOST important job–it was protected in many ways. Through the brainwashing we’ve had recently, we only see oppression in not ‘allowing’ women to work outside the home, and other ‘rights’, when in fact society’s ideal was a job so demanding and so important that women shouldn’t be taken away from it for almost any other reason. The only way to protect this job–raising children–is to ensure that every mother has a full-time partner devoted to providing for her and her children. And the absolute best person for that job is her husband–the father of her children!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I was reading an news article regarding the possible elimination of the concept of marriage from the law books in the future. In other words as far as the state is concerned there is no such thing as marriage.

This got me thinking eek, would this be such a bad idea?
After all, what right does the law have messing with what is actually a divine institution?
If marriage was restricted to the Christian realm then wouldn’t the number of divorces drop as well as the gay lobby to recognize “same sex weddings/couples”?

If marriage no longer offered the legal benefits, only the divine, then I would bet the only ones who would even bother would be the conservative Christians. It would be like saying you are going to go get Baptized, nobody in the secular world cares because no legal benefits result.

The only downfall I can guess is that it would send a very negative signal to the nation that there definitely no need to “wait” now and that the family means nothing (or less than what it does now ).

What do you think? Am I missing something very significant?

People will form exclusive pair bonds between a man and a woman, and in practise the state will end up recognising this reality. Catholics, of course, will continue to marry.

However a period of pretending that marriage is a purely private arrangement might be salutary. Certainly it would remove the state’s right to proclaim a divorce, which has to be a good thing.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Thanks for all who responded. I cant believe I forgot about this thread, what happened was I logged on one day last week but forgot to look at this thread, then it disappeared off my recent threads list so I forgot all about it.

Anyway, blessedtoo brought up some good points. We are starting to see the effects of a generation where children grow up in broken homes, to have marriage as a legal institution eliminated would probably make things worse. At the same time I just cant get away from the fact the state has made a mockery of marriage and the damage it is already causing. If the state were to recognize same sex unions (which they are starting to) that would undermine marriage even worse than it already is…thus in that sense I do think marriage as a legal institution should be eliminated.

 

[blessedtoo]

Anyway, blessedtoo brought up some good points. We are starting to see the effects of a generation where children grow up in broken homes, to have marriage as a legal institution eliminated would probably make things worse. At the same time I just cant get away from the fact the state has made a mockery of marriage and the damage it is already causing.

While the state has HELPED damage marriage through no-fault divorce, single parent benefits, etc., it is not the REASON marriage hit the skids. For that we must thank the scourge of feminism and the sexual “revolutionaries” of the pathetic 60’s.

You were making sense in the logic department until you fell into this mistake:

If the state were to recognize same sex unions (which they are starting to) that would undermine marriage even worse than it already is…thus in that sense I do think marriage as a legal institution should be eliminated.

The state does not need to eliminate marriage. It needs to SUPPORT it, encourage it, as it once did, with more stringent divorce laws, removal of benefits to women who bear numerous children out of wedlock, education in the schools about the benefits of marriage, increase tax relief for larger families, etc. We need to re-build the institution, not tear it down.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

While the state has HELPED damage marriage through no-fault divorce, single parent benefits, etc., it is not the REASON marriage hit the skids. For that we must thank the scourge of feminism and the sexual “revolutionaries” of the pathetic 60’s.

You were making sense in the logic department until you fell into this mistake:

The state does not need to eliminate marriage. It needs to SUPPORT it, encourage it, as it once did, with more stringent divorce laws, removal of benefits to women who bear numerous children out of wedlock, education in the schools about the benefits of marriage, increase tax relief for larger families, etc. We need to re-build the institution, not tear it down.

I would agree that the state needs to put more stringent laws on the books, the problem is whether they will or not. Wouldnt it take a very conservative congress to get such things passed? At the very least that would take another generation because for some reason the generation that caused these problems refuses to die off.