The slogan on the white t-shirts for kids is short and bittersweet.<\/p>\n\n
The simple blue letters declare, \u201cMy daddy\u2019s name is Donor.\u201d You can buy a baby bib with the same proclamation.<\/p>\n\n
For a self-proclaimed \u201cmarriage nut\u201d like David Blankenhorn, it\u2019s hard to see this consumer product as a positive statement about modern family life. <\/p>\n\n
Of course, America has been evolving for several decades after the cultural revolutions that changed how millions of people live together, break up, get married, get divorced, have children or some combination of all the above.<\/p>\n\n
Thus, the president of the Institute for American Values keeps hearing this big question: \u201cWhat is the future of marriage?\u201d It\u2019s a logical question, since his most recent book is called \u201cThe Future of Marriage.\u201d There is no easy answer, however, other than stating the fact that elite opinion makers and academics are convinced that old-fashioned, especially religious, traditions about marriage are fading.<\/p>\n\n
\u201cThe smart money says, \u2018Down the tubes,\u2019 \u201d said Blankenhorn, speaking recently at Gordon College, an evangelical Protestant campus near Boston. \u201cThe big word is \u2018deinstitutionalization.\u2019 \u2026 It\u2019s this notion of redefining marriage into just being a kind of Hallmark greeting card that says, \u2018We\u2019re in love, we have a commitment, oh special us.\u2019 That\u2019s what marriage is.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
This trend can be seen in current definitions of \u201cmarriage\u201d \u2014 legal and otherwise. During his two years of research on the question, he ran into several breezy answers to the question, \u201cWhat is marriage?\u201d <\/p>\n\n
For some people, it is a \u201cunique expression of a private bond and profound love,\u201d while others prefer a \u201dprivate arrangement between parties committed to love.\u201d If that doesn\u2019t work, try a \u201dspecific relationship of love and dedication to another person\u201d or even \u201dcommitted, interdependent partnerships between consenting adults.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
The highest court in Massachusetts, in its majority opinion in 2003 backing gay marriage, strategically called marriage the \u201cexclusive commitment of two individuals to each other\u201d offering \u201clove and mutual support.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
This last variation on the theme is crucial, because debates about the future of marriage are now \u2014 like it or not \u2014 part of our culture\u2019s bitter conflicts about the legal rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Meanwhile, divorce rates remain high and millions of children are being raised in single-parent homes.<\/p>\n\n
Blankenhorn consistently identifies himself as a Christian and as a political liberal who supports what he calls the \u201cequal dignity of homosexual love\u201d and of gay relationships. In an interview with the conservative magazine World, he bluntly said: \u201cI know that many Christians believe that any sex other than sex between married spouses is wrong. I respect that view, but I do not share it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
However, Blankenhorn also argues that all attempts to define marriage as a vague, private, self-defined relationship will inevitably weaken an institution that \u2014 across a wide range of cultures and faiths \u2014 has emphasized the importance of children being raised by their natural fathers and mothers. Thus, he stressed, marriage has always had a civic and even legal dimension.<\/p>\n\n
Contemporary definitions of \u201cmarriage\u201d also strive to avoid two crucial words.<\/p>\n\n
The first, Blankenhorn noted, is \u201cS-E-X. Heat. Lust. Passion. Bodies entangled. Sex, behind closed doors in the bedroom. You know, because in the whole history of the world everybody \u2014 up until about three minutes ago \u2014 has always acknowledged that marriage is the social recognition of a sexual relationship that involves sex.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
The second missing word is \u201cchildren.\u201d Anyone who studies history and anthropology, he said, would quickly conclude that discussing marriage without mentioning children would be like having a \u201clong discussion about General Motors and nobody mentioning cars.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
But today, individual adults are convinced that marriage is all about them and that this means that they should be able to make their own rules. Thus, the key question is whether Americans believe that the individual couple is bigger than the institution of marriage or that \u201cthe marriage is bigger than the couple,\u201d said Blankenhorn. <\/p>\n\n
\u201cWe have completely forgotten this idea that maybe there is something transcendent, maybe there is something bigger than us that shapes us,\u201d he said. \u201cMaybe the vow shapes us. Maybe we don\u2019t simply come up with the vow ourselves and say, \u2018Here\u2019s our marriage \u2014 wonderful sexy us.\u2019 No, there is something bigger than us that tells us what to be and that big something else is marriage.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The slogan on the white t-shirts for kids is short and bittersweet. The simple blue letters declare, \u201cMy daddy\u2019s name is Donor.\u201d You can buy a baby bib with the same proclamation. For a self-proclaimed \u201cmarriage nut\u201d like David Blankenhorn, it\u2019s hard to see this consumer product as a positive statement about modern family life. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":610,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[182,439,1540,766,1548,874],"class_list":["post-1459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-children","tag-homosexuality","tag-marriage","tag-same-sex-marriage","tag-social-issues","tag-tradition"],"yoast_head":"\n