on the (continuing) decline of marriage
From Gene Edward Veith in World, more on the macro-social impact of "family collapse"...
He opens with an insightful and provocative quote from Sara Sarasohn, who was discussing her then-impending marriage in California to her lesbian partner in The Washington Post and explaining how the institution of marriage has been and continues to fall apart:
"I can't pretend to speak for the people who are against gay marriage. But I think this is part of what they mean when they say that gay marriage will unravel the whole institution. Our national conversation about gay marriage has already shown how the different elements of marriage— legal, religious, romantic, economic, civil, procreative— have become independent.... Now, adults have the prerogative to mix and match the various things that make a marriage in whatever way they choose. It's just that when gay people do it, it's more obvious that 'marriage' has already been deconstructed."
Veith extrapolates from there:
The dissolution of the family as the basic unit of society means that all of its authority, powers, and responsibilities go, instead, to the government.
He clearly overstates his case, but he's found a nugget: the decline of marriage creates a vacuum that will be filled, to some extent, by the State. Moreover, the chicken/egg question arises: government has sponsored economic policies which undermine family formation, exacerbating the social and economic contributors to marriage's decline.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 3:34 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
As you know, I don't see same-sex marriage as evidence of the decline of marriage; instead, it's an affirmation of marriage. Gay people were once thought of as mentally disturbed and incapable of stable relationships. But now I know any number of gay couples in committed, decades-long relationships. And as far as the State gaining power as a result of the decline of marriage, one of the best arguments for recognition of same-sex relationships (as marriage or an equivalent form of civil union) is that it encourages gay people to take care of each other, reducing their dependence on the State.
Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.
That said, I don't see civil unions as having any significant net impact on marriage. And whatever negative impact it might have is easily trumped by the damage marriage has taken over the past few decades-- most notably, from divorce.
>Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.
More precisely: same-sex marriage is not a Christian sacrament (except in certain liberal churches such as the United Church of Christ).
>I don't see civil unions as having any significant net impact on marriage.
Perhaps same-sex unions are not quite the menace to the family that some conservatives make it out to be.
On the former, it's a definition thing, not a sacrament thing.
On the latter, I agree.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home