So I was thinking about this whole marriage thing again . . . here’s the thing: maybe, instead of pushing for people to value marriage more, we should do the opposite.
A couple weeks ago, I was playing around with the idea that “marriage” as it exists in law isn’t really marriage as it’s historically been defined, at least in Catholicism and, in the past, in Protestantism. Permanence? Nope. Openness to children? Not if Ask Amy and Dear Prudence are any indicator. And, for that matter, also in Ask Amy/Dear Prudence are multiple tales of couples who not only keep finances separate but maintain different living standards, with the higher-earning spouse enjoying golfing and vacations while the spouse stays home.
At the same time, a part, at least, of the reason why single-parenthood is increasing is that marriage has become idealized and is seen as unreachable — something, maybe, for when all your finances are in order, when you can pay for a traditional wedding and reception, when you know where you are in life and you know that your fiance has already made something of himself and has proven himself to be a good provider. And if this doesn’t happen, so be it.
Maybe we need to lower standards, at least for civil marriage, and differentiate it from what Catholics would call sacramental marriage. (Protestants can’t use that term because they limit the term “sacrament” to baptism and communion.) Civil marriage is next-of-kinship and a standardized process for ending the legal status; sacramental marriage is permanent (or at least with religious roadblocks to divorce).
Maybe if it’s not that big a step, there’s more of a chance that, at least at the margin, some expectant parents might take this step?
Just a thought.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In