Marriage, as we know it, is worth savingTHE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL
MARRIAGE MAY BE in trouble, as James Lynch bemoans in his May 27 letter “Heterosexuals destroyed marriage.” But marriage isn’t dead yet, nor is it beyond saving. Most children in the United States are still living with their own two married parents. Divorce rates are declining slightly (actually, among Roman Catholics who embrace church teaching on natural family planning, divorce rates are below 5 percent). David Blankenhorn, author of The Future of Marriage, notes that rates of marital happiness have stabilized and may even be increasing. Mr. Lynch’s letter, however, should raise an important question. How will eliminating gender from the definition of marriage affect marriage as an institution? The writings of Judith Stacey, Nan D. Hunter, Maria Bevacqua and David Chambers might offer a clue. While by their own admissions they want the institution of marriage to die, the ey are strong gay-marriage supporters. They argue that if marriage is determined by the sexual inclinations of adults, then any and all combinations of marital unions are defensible. The coexistence of multiple forms of marriage such as polygamy, polyandry, intergenerational and group marriages will eliminate any meaningful shared public definition of marriage. Without a substantial shared public meaning, marriage will cease to exist as an institution. It will die. Sound farfetched? Perhaps not. This very scenario appears to be playing out right now in Scandinavia. During the 1990s, Norway, Sweden and Denmark legalized same-sex marriage. The legalization of polygamy followed within 10 years. Far from a strengthening of marriage as an institution, what has ensued was an unremitting decline in traditional marriage rates, and a surge in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. Not coincidentally, the cost of social programs in these countries has risen sharply. All of these changes, it should be noted, are detrimental to children. America has every interest in exclusively promoting and protecting traditional marriage. Decades of research demonstrate that children fare best physically, emotionally and academically when nurtured by their two biological parents in the context of a loving marriage. Fatherless families are associated with higher rates of violence, poverty, delinquency, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity and teen pregnancy. Clearly, the decline of traditional marriage is very expensive in terms of state and federal dollars that must be poured into social programs. If we want to decrease human suffering in general and the suffering of children in particular — if we want to increase the economic health of our nation — we will do all we can to strengthen traditional marriage. Conversely, we will avoid at all cost enacting legislation that will harm traditional marriage. The defense of marriage is not bigotry. The defense of marriage is about protecting the greater common good. From its inception marriage has had everything to do with the natural family — bonding a man to his children and their mother. The public institution of marriage was never merely “a loving commitment between two adults.” While same-sex marriage is often compared to interracial marriage, the comparison is a non sequitur. Interracial marriage in no way redefined marriage. The ban against interracial marriage was wrong because it kept a man and woman apart on the basis of skin color. Skin color is a genetic trait that is not intrinsic to marriage. Gender complementarity, on the other hand, is integral to the very purpose and meaning of marriage; it always has been and always will be. According to a recent poll in the online gay publication The Advocate, 3 percent of Americans identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Like all Americans, they have the right to live free from harassment and unjust discrimination. They already have recourse to make various legal arrangements with partners. Three percent of the population, however, does not have the right to redefine the public institution of marriage for 100 percent of Americans. No one has the right to redefine the cornerstone of civilization and further threaten the well-being of our children. Michelle A. Cretella, M.D., is a member of the advisory committee of the Rhode Island Chapter of the National Organization for Marriage. |
