Skip to content

Is Marriage America’s Next Walking Fish?

October 17, 2006

People are living longer and enjoying each other less. This trend has put marriage on the skids. In other words, some observers say, marriage is “evolving.”Newly released census data reveal that slightly more households termed “families” now consist of unmarried cohabitants, both homosexual and heterosexual. Since hardly anyone bucks just one tradition, both adults in these households typically work–which often leaves children with fewer family ties than children of traditional families to define the consequences of marriageless households.

As usual, children can wait to have parents.

Increased longevity Americans have gained since WW2 is a factor behind the trend toward marriageless living arrangements, because, according to Stephanie Coontz of the Council on Contemporary Families, couples have more time together after the last child leaves home, and are thus “less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women’s economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so.” (“For first time, unmarried households reign in US,” Maxim Kniazkov, AFP, Sun. Oct. 15, 2006.)

Evidently, “economic independence” overrides any commitment a couple made to sustain their marriage. The subjection, obedience, honor, and tenderheartedness to which the Spirit of God refers at 1 Peter 3:1-9 are sacrificed on the altar of personal happiness. Marriage was just a trend all along, and now the pendulum has simply swung the other way.

American Enterprise Institute sociologist Douglas Besharov observes, “the only question” is whether the trend away from marriage is “catastrophic or just evolutionary” (Ibid.). “Evolutionary” implies a foregone progressive prognosis, whereas “trends” can leave orbit and return. I’m concerned that either Mr. Besharov’s language is imprecise, and that he actually means “trend,” and not “evolutionary,” or that he actually thinks marriage is leaving America’s spiritual, social, and cultural orbit for good.

The trend is problematic for political party platform engineers, who have to recalibrate their spin on “family values” and repackage politics to appeal to unmarried couples. My husband preserved this news vignette in his “The End of the World As We Know It File”: As First Lady Laura Bush looked on, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice swore in a homosexual man as the nation’s new “global AIDS coordinator.” Secretary Rice also introduced the coordinator’s “partner,” and his partner’s mother, to whom Rice referred as the coordinator’s “mother-in-law” (from a story in by Kathy Kiely, Oct. 12, 2006). This touching ceremony came in the immediate wake of Congressman Mark Foley’s exposure as a homosexual harrasser of Congressional pages.

Cut to scene of women weeping for Tammuz….

“Hast thou seen this, O son of man? thou shalt again see yet greater abominations than these.” Ezekiel 8:14-15

It isn’t hard to date the origin of marriage: It began with the creation of the second person on earth, as detailed at Genesis 2:18-24. God made the woman because “it was not good for the man to be alone” (v. 18). God “brought her unto the man” (v. 22). There was never any question of whether it was good for the woman to be alone. She came into a world already made and a husband already provided for her. They were to be “one flesh” (v. 24), and the man was to “cleave unto his wife” (v. 24). Woman was not meant to be alone, and she was meant to have a husband. Man was not meant to be alone, and he was meant to have a wife. There is no such thing as an alternative lifestyle. A lifestyle inconsistent with the Word of God is not alternative–it is defiant. Slightly more than one-half of American households are living in defiance of God.

God blessed the man and woman (Genesis 1:28) and gave them dominion over all the rest of the earth. If marriage brings about God’s blessing over the man and the woman and the land, what will its refutation bring?

Posted by Mrs. B at 6:54 AM

Victorbravo said…
Until you found this, I had no idea that married households were in the minority (if only barely). For some self-deceived reason, I would have guessed that they were still around 70% of what used to be called family households.

I was thinking of Ezekiel 8 just yesterday. For me it is one of the most chilling passages in scripture. The only difference for our time is that what the rulers then did in secret, the population now does in public.

8:06 AM
Mrs. B said…
Exactly. Tammuz is in. The Civil Magistrate no longer exists to glorify God through exemplary administration of the law, but to sanction depravity. It is neutral as to right and wrong as long as it collects taxes on both.

8:17 AM

Comments are closed.