To read this provocative account is to think that America’s relationships are in chaos. Even when we live together without marrying, we break up faster than in other places, he says. In one of the book’s surprising findings he says that American children whose parents are married are more likely to experience the turmoil of a parental break-up than Swedish children whose parents live together without being married.
Marriage is nevertheless an American ideal. We are the only Western nation that actually spends government money to support it. The 2005 federal Healthy Marriage Initiative now allocates $100 million a year to promote marriage. It doesn’t seem to be working; marriage rates are declining precipitously, though most Americans are still expected to marry.
Marriage is our battleground. Only in America, Mr. Cherlin says, are gay people campaigning so determinedly for the right to marry. Most gay men and lesbians in Europe, he maintains, view marriage as another oppressive heterosexual institution.
How to explain this peculiar paradox ”” we idealize marriage and yet we’re so bad at it.
That marriage is “an American ideal” does not mean that the institution is free from the all-to-human failures of divorce and discord nor that the failure rate of hetrosexual marriage is somehow an argument for same-sex alliances. Sounds like European homosexuals understand this much better than American activists, including ECUSA, who promote recognition of any “loving realtionship.”
Is there a link to a larger story? If so, I’m missing it.
I’ve been discussing this issue with friends lately. There are lots of things at play. First and perhaps foremost is that marriage is treated as the only real option, even though I have no doubt that there’s a substantial segment of the population that isn’t truly “marriage material” or called to it. There are a whole lot of square pegs being forced into round holes.
Secondly, people have become very insular. They want to nab a spouse, produce their family, and expect that all of their needs are going to be well-met. Deep, long-lasting friendships have become a thing of the past because people don’t want to invest the time (or the spouse is jealous of that time invested), and it’s a shame. Emotionally healthy and well-balanced people make better marriage partners.
Thirdly, people seem to be truly afraid to love one another. The world is soooo in need of love. This is a theme I was picking up a lot during Lent. It struck me how often we read about the “wrong sort” touching Jesus. If I’m recalling correctly, those women of questionable reputation who anointed Jesus and bathed His feet were rendering Him “unclean.” And, yet, He never turned them away; in fact, He exhorted the love that they showed Him as an example.
In our society, we pigeonhole and restrict love so severely. People are VERY afraid to touch others and yet it’s a basic human need. We worry that touching will lead to sex. And sex is only proper in the right conditions. Is it any wonder, then, that some may get married mostly so they can enjoy “proper” intimacy?
The link to the article is really small – it’s just a period on the left side of the page. Perhaps the elves will fix it shortly.
Most gay men and lesbians in Europe, he maintains, view marriage as another oppressive heterosexual institution.
That’s really funny, especially since it seems like a lot of straight people over there feel the same way. It illustrates that surroundings have a big effect on how people view things. If the Jones’ have it, well you have to have it too.
[Apologies – link is now fixed – Elf]
There’s all sort of great evidence that those who bear the brunt of the consequences of divorce are women and children. (Which is not to say that many father’s don’t suffer great injustice in relation to their children too). On average, children do best in a stable married family.
One response to our current predicament is that the States should be more Swedish. In other words, support single mothers and their children and accept that coupling and decoupling is nothing to do with the state or the church. Another response would be to support marriage and argue that there are very good reasons for the state, let alone the church, to to do so.
One factor in the difference may be the de-christianization of Europe. Cultures such as Sweden have a rate of church going so low that it is unparallelled anywhere in the States. Likewise northern European cultures have, on the whole, long histories of entanglements between the state and the predominant church (Church of Sweden, for example) which de jure or de facto tie the church’s decisions to the state’s.
In my anecdotal experience of England it’s not true that gay lobbying organizations have predominantly argued that marriage is heterosexist. On the contrary they have argued that all the rights previously associated with marriage should accrue to legally recognized gay partnerships too. In Sweden same sex marriage will begin 1 May 2009 and the Church of Sweden has declared that it is willing to solemnize such relationships in church.
There was an interesting documentary on tv the other night, on the hippie movement of the ’60’s. One segment dealt with the ‘free love’ movement, and how that ended in disaster due to jealousy by both the men and the women involved. Far from being free from emotional attachment, they found that with sex emotional attachments were magnified. Thus, they found that free love wasn’t free.
Later they discussed the same findings in communes. Which became even more problematic when children were involved.
Jim Elliott
North Florida