The advice columns of newspapers are good windows into the conscience of a culture. There you will find a field guide to what is considered socially acceptable and unacceptable. One of the advice columnists for the Washington Post, Carolyn Hax, is consistently sensible and solid in her suggestions. Straightening out busybodies, drug abusers, interfering in-laws, and ungrateful children with equal aplomb, she’s usually a pleasant read with the morning coffee.
But not always. A recent response to a letter from “Grandmother-to-be” provides an example of the collapse of social wisdom on the subject of marriage and childbearing. “My 26-year-old son’s girlfriend — of four months — is pregnant,” wrote Grandma. “I have very mixed emotions about this, mainly because he just met her, and I do not know her. They work and live across the country. I am disappointed in their behavior. How do I tell my friends the news? I am embarrassed.”
Advertisement
If I were an advice columnist, I would start with the reminder that telling one’s friends is a low priority at the moment, while acknowledging that feeling ashamed of her son (not the young woman, as the grandmother-to-be has no relationship with her and thus cannot justifiably feel disappointed in her) is understandable under the circumstances.
Next, I would have pointed out that since the couple are going to be parents, the very highest priority should be to encourage them to marry as soon as possible. A shotgun wedding? Obviously not. Those days are gone. But for all concerned — most particularly for the unborn child — a stable family is now essential.
Ms. Hax indeed began by dismissing the friend worry — but with a very different emphasis. “There’s a child on the way, and this is your big concern? . . . American adults overwhelmingly choose premarital sex . . . Plus birth control isn’t perfect so you have statistical permission not to single this couple out for shaming.”
Well, if shame was still attached to getting pregnant outside of marriage, it would be no bad thing. But fine, Hax seemed to be going in the right direction with the next sentence. “Any big concern belongs with the stability of the home that will welcome this baby . . .” But then, instead of recommending an immediate and tasteful elopement, she wrote, “If they plan to raise the baby as a couple . . .”
If? For so many 21st century Americans, that’s the way it’s done. A child on the way will not affect the couple’s decision about marriage. They may move in together. They may not. She may move into her mother’s house. He may visit every day — for a while. She may try to raise the child by herself. It may not be her first, or his. The fate of the relationship is regarded as utterly separate from the fact of the child’s existence.
Many, many young adults who already have babies and toddlers will explain that they “aren’t ready” for the commitment of marriage or that they haven’t found the right person. How have we managed to get so confused?
The most stable married couple I know (aside from my parents and not including my own in the comparison) is gay. They're devoted to each other, they're involved in the community, and they're in the process of adopting a child. As far as I can tell, theirs is an excellent example of a marriage, and I cannot see how their relationship does anything but strengthen marriage as an institution.
Odd - I've seen the exact opposite. Gay "couples" I know are rarely stable. One family friend left his wife and two kids to come out of the closet and marry "his true love." He contested his wife for custody of the kids with his new partner, but that "relationship" lasted less than one year. He's now on partner number five, by my count.
I see a lot of substance abuse and addiction among homosexuals, particularly men. Then of course there are the undeniable statistics regarding disease and cancer.
Homosexual marriage only starts to look "good" when bring the state of traditional marriage down into the gutter - which America is in the process of doing now.
The couple I mentioned is the only gay couple I know that is actually married. They went to Massachusetts and got married even though it's not yet recognized in this state. I don't know, of course, how indicative they are of other gay couples, but I can't see a flaw in their example. I accept that not all gay couples are so stable and wonderful. But I can't help but note that heterosexuals haven't done much for the institution of marriage. Maybe it's time to let some people who really value marriage to give it a try.
Maybe it's time to let some people who really value marriage to give it a try.
Your single example would hardly be persuasive evidence that homosexuals are such people, even if pairs of homosexuals could get married. But they can't, regardless of what the state of Massachusetts has to say about it.
Agreed that "heterosexuals haven't done much for the institution of marriage," but now there are at least some attempts to change that. You and the homosexual activists aren't helping, except as you bring added attention to the problem. For that you have our thanks.
70% of people in my generation are having trouble finding a good reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. We grew up in a world where it wasn't considered an abomination. We nearly all have friends who are gay/lesbian, and we want to see them have the same opportunity to form lifelong partnerships that we have.
I just wish as Republicans we would say that marriage is important, and committed relationships are important. Personal freedom to choose one's own spouse is also important. And I wish we'd welcome and encourage everyone who wants to make marriage the valuable thing that it is and the default building block for a family. I think gay marriage is not only inevitable, but also that there's much to admire about the gay push for marriage rights. I haven't heard heterosexuals make such a persuasive case for the benefits of marriage in a very long time.
70% of people in my generation are having trouble finding a good reason to deny marriage to same sex couples.
That’s what we keep hearing. Maybe you’re right. We won’t know till the event, so I can’t really see the point of continuing to talk about inevitability. You’ll see and we’ll see. Meanwhile, the supporters of marriage win every referendum.
I saw things closer to the way you see them when I was younger, although the “marriage” business hadn’t come up, and I can’t see myself ever having gone for that. It is an absurdity. Homosexuals can “form lifelong partnerships” all they want already. Those “partnerships” aren’t marriage, though. And "partnerships” that are by their nature unable to provide a mother and a father for a child are none of our business.
By the way, I have never heard this “persuasive case” you refer to. They want it, and that is about it. Oh, and they promise to be less promiscuous if they get it. If they had it, they wouldn’t be satisfied. If you're right about inevitability, you'll see. I think you're wrong about inevitability; maybe you'll see anyway that this is a group that (as a group) will always want something more.
Edmund Burke undoubtedly spins in his grave with your logic. There is not and never can be such a thing as gay marriage. Insisting that unicorns are interesting animals does not make them real. Pretending that gay marriage can exist is an intrinsic evil. A refusal to recognize the right of children to have as close as possible a natural family structure, not one based on lies, is in and of itself an intrinsic evil.
2. No one is proposing to take children away. Using them as an argument for redefinition of marriage to cover two men or two women is another thing entirely.
1. Marriage contributes to a stable society through procreation and providing the optimal environment in which children can thrive (one mom, one dad). That is why the state shoud encourage it and even stick to the original, unmolested definition of marriage. Why should society pretend that by enabling two people's mental disorder that that helps society (or that that is anything close to a proper environment in which to raise children).
2. I guess you haven't heard any young person ask "Why should I even get married, it's meaningless?" If marriage doesn't mean anything, if we make up a fake definition of it that it has never had in thousands and thousands of years, then what does it become in the eyes of many?
Further, if you make up a fake and flexible definition of marriage, then why can't I have two wives? I really love both of them and who are you to judge? Don't give me that stuff about that not being the definition of marriage, that's what the bigots used to say about same sex "marriage." You polygaphobe! Hate monger!
At various times, we've had two different gay couples living on our street. Living in Virginia, none of them could have gotten married.
Good thing, too, because if they had, I would have come home and asked my wife how we could save our marriage in the face of a couple of guys getting married.
Why should I (and my wife) care if gays get married, as long as they don't panic the horses in the streets?
Follow
