Marriage, for people who read
This month, Cato Unbound asks, Can marriage be saved? True, true, the idea of that word, marriage, is in peril. Not that people will stop getting married, and not that my marriage, or your marriage, is suffering, but the idea of marriage, well. When the culture can’t agree on what a word means, the thing it represents will suffer. That’s just the truth. If Christians are going to have any reasonable input into this cultural discussion, we need to read essays like these, that follow.
The Cato symposium starts with The Future of Marriage, the lead essay by Stephanie Coontz, who starts us off with a history of marriage, and she suggests that, “Instead of trying to resurrect a bygone ideal of marriage, those of us interested in encouraging healthy families now need to focus on what makes unmarried co-parents, single parents, cohabiting couples, as well as contemporary marriages successful on their own terms.”
In The Marriage Gap, Kay S. Hymnowitz writes about the class differences in the marriage issue and how, “overall, children do better in life if they are raised by their own married parents.” She also says that, “The de-linking of marriage and childrearing is a particular dilemma in the Unites States … [W]hat you have is a recipe for entrenched, trans-generational poverty, inequality, racial disparities …, reduced social and economic mobility, and – libertarians take note! – demands for government taxes to fund programs to correct the mess.”
In Marriage and the Market, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers are economists who argue that marriage used to be about production and is now about consumption. We tend to focus on spiritual and romantic ideas when we consider marriage, so it’s good to think about the practical realities of what used to necessitate marriage, versus what necessitates it now. It is unwise to impose older economic practicalities of marriage on marriage today. But this doesn’t mean marriages can’t still be good and theologically sound.
In Against Family Fatalism, Norval D. Glenn says there’s nothing wrong with wanting to reclaim some traditional idea of marriage, so long as we discard the bad and keep the good.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top44 Comments to “Marriage, for people who read”
Here are a couple good reads as well:
“The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and better off Financially”, by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher.
“The Broken Hearth,” by William J. Bennett.
Quotes to feature:
* “Marriage is a union between a man and a woman such that the children born to the woman are recognized as legitimate offspring of both partners.” William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, 1996, p. 177.
* “Married life brings to the surface your worst attributes: irritability and impatience, defensiveness and self-justification, insensitivity and manipulativeness, and, above all, selfishness. Marriage does not create these traits in us; it exposes them.” William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, 1996, p. 185.
* “As marriage weakens, the costs are borne not only be individual children or families but by all of us taxpayers, citizens, and neighbors. We all incur the cost of higher crime, welfare, education and health-care expenditures, and in reduced security for our own marriage investments.” Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage; Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and better off Financially, 2000, p. 186.
* “Because marriage is not merely a private, emotional relationship, strengthening marriage requires more than private, emotional efforts.” Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage; Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and better off Financially, 2000, p. 187.
Report comment to moderator
People need to realize that marriage is a hard road. It is a wonderful thing when the two people love one another and take their commitments seriously, but the fact remains that over the course of life people change in significant, profound and often unpredictable ways.
No marriage exists that doesn’t include a share of disappointments, obstacles, setbacks and hard times. One partner can become crippled through illness or injury, putting the “in sickness and in health” to a severe test. You love her now when she’s 25 and beautiful and sweet. Will you still love her when she is 50 and plain and not so sweet? Or when he’s injured in an accident and paralyzed and you’re called on to tend to his care day in and day out? When he loses his job and can’t get another one at anywhere near the old salary you’ve gotten used to? When your child dies and she becomes wracked with grief and depression that stretches on for years?
I believe in marriage but I also believe people can get married far too easily. There should a mandatory two-year period between forming a relationship and marrying. There should be a required period of counseling in which the people are presented with the real ramifications of pledging to love and stay with someone for decades. People get caught in the rush of young love and don’t think realistically about the long term future.
Marriage is wonderful when it works, but it may not be for everyone. It takes a great deal of moral character and strength. I believe the divorce rate would plunge if marriage were harder to get into in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with the following quote by Stephanie Coontz (in the original post):
“Instead of trying to resurrect a bygone ideal of marriage, those of us interested in encouraging healthy families now need to focus on what makes unmarried co-parents, single parents, cohabiting couples, as well as contemporary marriages successful on their own terms.”
Ideals do not necessarily have to be “bygone.”
Also, I think we should focus on what makes traditional couples, unmarried co-parents, single parents, cohabiting couples, as well as contemporary marriages successful primarily on God’s terms, not our own.
Marriage is sacred. Take God’s hand together. If you don’t believe in God, all you have left are “your own terms.”
Report comment to moderator
Let me correct (re-word) one of my paragraphs above (in which I was drawing excessively from the Coontz quote):
Reworded paragraph:
Also, I think we should focus on what makes traditional couples, unmarried co-parents who are not living together, single parents, as well as contemporary marriages successful primarily on God’s terms, not our own.
I took out “cohabitating couples” because that is imcompatible with the standard of “God’s terms.”
And by “contemporary marriages”, I don’t mean groupings or pairing that clearly depart from God’s loving and trustworthy terms.
Report comment to moderator
successful primarily on God’s terms
Whatever that is?
My feeling is that there needs to be education about the methods of achieving a successful marriage.
Things such as:
Discussion instead of confrontation.
Listening is part of communication.
Looking at things from your partners point of view.
Sex.
Recognizing that men and women are different and celebrating those differences instead of supressing them or seeing them as obsticles to overcome.
Make major decisions together.
Trust.
Too many times, people get married when they are very young and the blood is hot and the hormones active. Then, after the heat cools down, they discover they have nothing in common. I see nothing wrong with making “Marraige” an elective just like other subjects. There are classes on cooking and child rearing, but how many on making a good marriage? Saying “follow God” is a recipe for divorce.
Report comment to moderator
#2
SteveG,
I agree that waiting longer before marriage would be good in many if not most cases, but I have trouble with the idea of making that mandatory. You are right about the rush of “young love,” but not everyone marries young.
My husband and I were 26 when we met, and we both had been engaged before (and had the other person break it off, and in both cases it had been a couple years so we weren’t just “on the rebound”) and had a good idea what we were looking for in a spouse. We were engaged three months after our first date, and married a month later in a small ceremony (so as to stop paying rent on two apartments and start saving money for a larger “renewal of vows” ceremony that we could invite all our relatives and friends to). Like any couple, we’ve had plenty of challenges in our relationship, but we always knew that the solution was to work things out, not give up. (We’re coming up on our 19th anniversary in June.)
There are also couples that haven’t decided yet about their future but find themselves with a child on the way and decide to go ahead and marry to give their child a good home. Those marriages don’t always work out, but forcing them to wait two years is hardly going to improve matters.
Good premarital counseling is important. My husband will not perform a wedding for anyone who has not gone through several sessions (unlike the very brief session we had, which spent more time on what we would like said in the ceremony than in being prepared for life together). If I were to make something mandatory, it would be the counseling (with a range of sources to pick from), rather than an extended waiting period.
Report comment to moderator
I still like George Gilder’s Men and Marriage, although it wasn’t true in a marriage where there was a character defect–lying, unfaithfulness, that went on for many years with no improvement.
Report comment to moderator
And for better understanding how you work with another person in marriage, in other words, how to recognize a good match for yourself, see Neil Warren’s books.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, I know what you’re saying about the waiting period for marriage, but it’s surely impractical. What do you expect people to do, register with the government when they start dating?
Heck, I think better pre-marital counseling (in churches) and a general PR campaign in favor of taking time to make decisions about marriage would be a step in the right direction.
Report comment to moderator
In The Marriage Gap, Kay S. Hymnowitz writes about the class differences in the marriage issue and how, “overall, children do better in life if they are raised by their own married parents.”
Here, here. I hear my parents say that all is well because they are now remarried. They raise their children in a two-parent household. What they fail to realize is that their spouse is not their child’s mother/father, and the other children from the other marriage are not the child’s siblings.
I think these people spent too much time watching The Brady Bunch. Here’s a clue: life on TV is not the same as real life.
Children need a real family: their married parents and siblings. Not a patchwork previously-married step-parents and siblings.
Report comment to moderator
Rob and Pauline: Oh I know the idea isn’t practical, and Pauline makes a good point about more mature and experienced couples perhaps having a more realistic understanding of reality.
I do think that many people marry in haste and repent at leisure, as the saying goes. (Franklin, I think.) More marriages would survive and stay strong if the people took the time to thoroughly test their willingness to honor the commitments no matter what comes their way in the future.
Breaking up a relationship or breaking off an engagement can be painful and difficult, but it pales in comparison to a divorce a few years down the road, especially if there are children involved. Far better to eject early than wait for the crash.
Report comment to moderator
I think too many people choice a mate for shallow reasons. Looks, money, charm. I looked for a good person. I watched how he treated his mother, waitresses, subordinates, children and elders. I watched how he owned up to failure and handled praise. And I saw how he loved God. Of course I think he is charming, cute and brilliant but I also know he is a good person to the core. My next step was to try and be the kind of person who deserves him. I’m not perfect, but so far, so good. Somebody once ask George Burns the secret to a good marriage and he said “Marry Gracie.”
When I was involved in the singles ministry I saw so many people go down the wrong road trying to justify marrying the high earning jerk or the high maintenance hottie while ignoring the less flashy sweetie that had a crush on them. Most of them are paying for it now.
Report comment to moderator
HARRISON: When the culture can’t agree on what a word means, the thing it represents will suffer.
This characterization isn’t precise, like it sounds. The culture actually agrees that marriage is a recognized sexual union between two humans. The culture disagrees over whom should be excluded from that relationship. The marriage vows, responsibilities, and rights are the same, gay or straight.
CATO: “. . .overall, children do better in life if they are raised by their own married parents.”
Even if true, this claim should evaluated the way Olasky evaluates claims about the personal and moral benefits of Christian belief. Christianity makes bad people better, because it’s designed for those who need it, not for the smug, successful, secular humanist. Similarly, children of gay people would do better in life if their parents are married instead of single, regardless of whether they do as well in life as children whose biological parents are married. That being said, I don’t think having homosexual parents is bad for children.
Report comment to moderator
don’t think having homosexual parents is bad for children.
It can be. I watched a movie on HBO of “Rosie’s Family Cruise”. A giant cruise ship filled with gay parents and their children. At one stop, many Christians showed up screaming insults at the families and carrying threatening signs a la Fred Phelps. Many of the children were near hysterical with fright. Seeing babies crying while adult Christians shouted awful and dirty accusations. It was very sad.
Report comment to moderator
I think it is better to be older when you get married for many reasons. You tend to have a better financial footing, your early years of ignorant stupidity should be over, your personality and wants better rounded, your formal education over, you have some experience, etc.
Llamas have their own set of marriage rules. Actually, we only have two rules rule. Only llamas of opposite sex can get married. Once two llamas of opposite sex get married, it is until death do you part. No divorce is possible. Yes, though thick and thin, good and bad, rich and poor, no divorce is allowed. You need to be a little older to understand what this really means, possibly having experienced some or many of them by age 30 for women and 35 for men. Even llamas know men are a little slower to get things on the uptake than women.
Another great thing that llamas have which humans do not when it comes to marriage is that since only death ends a marriage, it is considered perfectly natural and OK to kill each other, both spouses must die, if you want out of your marriage
Report comment to moderator
IS their book on LLAMA Life? I would like to read it!
Report comment to moderator
#14,
They were actually angry secular homosexual activists who were pretending to be anti-homosexual activists in order to engender sympathy from the public and to generate claims and blog posts like yours at #14.
Nice try.
Actually, I have no idea who they were and neither does RDEAN, who feels no apparent compunction about stereotyping the category “Christian” in visious and unsubstantiated and prejudicial ways.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN mocks Christian belief as mystical yet slurps up transparent shams such as this movie with relish.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think there is a problem with the institution or concept of marriage, as it was or is now in some cases, if the poison of society can be removed or the marriage is inoculated with anti-venom provided by the God who designed the institution in the first place. When societal expectations are forced into a relationship—merely by exposure which usually leads to belief in and practice of what society values—that relationship is on the road to destruction.
It seems we’re left with three choices: either clean up society, ignore societal values and expectations entirely or follow the plan of the One who designed marriage. Guess which is easier.
Report comment to moderator
#17: Actually, I have no idea who they were and neither does RDEAN
Except they carried Bibles and Roseries and held them out for all to see. I think that’s a pretty good clue. If they were Muslims, they would be carrying Korans. I’m pretty sure they weren’t Jews since they said Jesus hates gays. Yep, it was probably Christians. Why do you guys deny it? Don’t many of you feel the same way?
#19: by the God who designed the institution
Is that what you think? You might want to study some real history. Then again, knowledge is dangerous. Better to just quote nonsensical rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
“Actually, I have no idea who they were and neither does RDEAN, who feels no apparent compunction about stereotyping the category “Christian” in visious and unsubstantiated and prejudicial ways.”
Wouldn’t it be great if we all got together for a summer retreat somewhere and really solved the world’s (or the WORLD’s problems)?
Report comment to moderator
no
Report comment to moderator
My point!
Report comment to moderator
All I can imagine is Anlir giggling all night while Night train tells racist jokes and SteveG goes “Bwahahaha!”
No thank you!
Report comment to moderator
…which is why the internet is such a bizarre place for theological and political discussion. We wouldn’t dare be rude in the ways we are online if we knew one another in person.
Report comment to moderator
Good point, Rob. I’ve already told Frank (who I disagree with vehemently on several issues) that I’d love to sit down for a beer with him next time I’m in Phoenix. And he accepted.
However, I am NOT interested in going on a retreat with any of the trolls on this blog who detest and mock Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
history = His Story
And I do.
Report comment to moderator
I’d have a beer with just about anybody from this blog who swings through Houston, provided that they don’t order Budweiser. Otherwise I’m leaving them with the tab quicker than you can say “Best Light American-Style Lager 2004-2007″.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – 24
The thought of that bunch, the mental picture you paint is enough to make everyone lock themselves in their hotel rooms!
That was a good one!
Report comment to moderator
# 16 Reg,
Yes, there is a book on llama life. It is called the ‘Tales From (or of) Llamadom.’ There are several hundred pages of stuff compiled and being added to nearly every day. One day, probably upon my passing, it will be published by my editor since I will leave money to do so in my will.
I got the idea from my wife’s great uncle. He immigrated to the US from near Odessa Russia, fleeing the Czar’s pogroms against the Jews. He lived, really lived to the ripe age of 104, lived alone after his partner died at 65 and he lived unassisted in perfect health to the end. He was never married, no kids, was gay and loved to travel and do everything. He wrote a book about his life about 10 years before he died. It was a fascinating read.
Afterwards I forced him to record his remembrances and thoughts on various topics and I asked him many questions. His favorite saying, after a while, was “Don’t you know?” He then told me what I didn’t know. I miss him much – he was a good wise friend who was most generous – the greatest of all character attributes to have and hold dear. He died the way he came into the world – with nothing of value having given everything away.
He said he was born ignorant and spent 100 years trying to remain so. He was in truth a very birght man with the great sense of humor many Jews naturally have for some reason not due to evolution.
Report comment to moderator
#20, “Except they carried Bibles and Roseries and held them out for all to see.”
Ah ha! Proof that they were pretending to be Christians.
Report comment to moderator
#26: However, I am NOT interested in going on a retreat with any of the trolls on this blog who detest and mock Jesus Christ.
If Jesus existed, he was some carpenter in a primitive and poor area in the Middle East. He didn’t speak English. He probably looked way more like Sadam than he looked like you.
The Jesus Christ you imagine glowed with Godpower and magically performed miracles of healing and multiplying fish, wore clean white Gandolf type robes, probably had blue eyes and because of his mystical connections could speak English and would give the appearance that he had some interest in your well being as well as being on par with a modern Einstein.
If only he could be “plucked” out of the goat pasture from thousands of years ago and dropped into the nearest Starbucks for a Latte and a blueberry muffin for an intense and deep discussion on the evidence of “Noah’s Ark”.
The truth is that no one is “mocking Jesus”. Rather, the belief that this ancient religion created by primitive slaves from a country, not only thousands of miles away, but from thousands of years ago has relevance. Take a look at a goat herder in Iraq or Iran living without electricity or running water and you will see the true lifestyle of Jesus Christ. Would you believe it if one of them said they were the “Son of God”?
Report comment to moderator
So what do you think of Jesus, RDean?
Report comment to moderator
(the historical figure, that is)
Report comment to moderator
I suspect whoever lived and had the name Jesus is in no way related to the scrubbed and polished “Son of God” that stands in most churches today in the form of pretty painted statues. Jesus wan’t born in Kansas.
More evidence exists today for evolution than for Jesus. Being a carpenter, it’s a shame that not a single piece of anything he ever made exists today. Being educated, after all, he was the son of God, he had to know everything, but wasn’t able to write a single letter or note?
The primary in every religion never leaves physical evidence. It’s all based on faith. Faith – believing in something without any rational reason.
Report comment to moderator
So you think Jesus was just a carpenter, Donato?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast at #24: All I can imagine is Anlir giggling all night while Night train tells racist jokes and SteveG goes “Bwahahaha!”
… and Outkast reading aloud every item on the breakfast menu and then insisting the restaurant doesn’t serve breakfast.
Report comment to moderator
Well, if the breakfast menu included no traditional breakfast foods, SteveG, then I guess I probably would in fact complain.
Report comment to moderator
#36: So you think Jesus was just a carpenter,
I have zero belief in any type of mysticism. I don’t believe in ghosts or the supernatural. Religous beliefs are on par with astrology. Praying and wishing have equal “power” and I suspect that can be proven with statistics. No angels no devils. All religions were created by people. Some religous stories may be based on someone that existed in a kind of vague way, but no one has or has ever had “powers”. No one has come back from the dead.
Report comment to moderator
But Jesus Christ was in fact a historical figure, Donato. He really did exist. He wasn’t a ghost, even according to secular literature, and he made some pretty wild claims. He had quite a following too. Why do you suppose that was?
Report comment to moderator
Good PR?
Report comment to moderator
So you’re saying Jesus was a liar?
Report comment to moderator
#42: So you’re saying Jesus was a liar?
No, his followers were inventors.
Report comment to moderator
So you’re admitting that Jesus Christ really did exist?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!