Comment Policy

Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.

Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Pseudogamy

Posted by The Playful Walrus
Anthony Esolen at Mere Comments has posted a blog entry on "Pseudogamy".
Our problem is pseudogamy, false marriage, and it assumes many forms. Same-sex pseudogamy is but the latest and most flagrantly absurd, but it is not the first. We find the most fundamental form, from which other corruptions rise up like diseases, when a man and woman go through the ceremony and utter the traditional words "as long as you both shall live," while harboring the mental reservation, "as long, that is, as I am happy," or "as long as the marriage 'works,'" whatever that is supposed to mean.
Click through to read the whole thing. It is mostly about divorce and harboring reservations when marrying. I disagree with him where he knocks pre-nups as either the bride, the groom, or both planning for divorce, and thus negating the spiritual aspect of the marriage. As long as divorce, especially no-fault divorce, is a legal reality (and I don't expect it this will change prior to the return of Christ), the laws and courts already amount to a de facto pre-nup. Why should a bride and groom let strangers decide for them when they can decide as a couple while on good terms?
Reactions: 
Labels: , , , , ,

4 comments,:

  1. "no-fault divorce, is a legal reality (and I don't expect it this will change prior to the return of Christ),"

    Whether you expect to or not, would you support repealing it, if it were on the table?

    I would.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Yes, I would support repealing it. When someone enters into a legal marriage, they are essentially forming a public corporation. If they behave contrary to the interests of that corporation, then they should not be able to walk away with half of the corporation.

    People enter into legal marriage voluntarily. If they don't want to get married if no-fault divorce isn't an option, than they don't have to. They can draw up some other contract or arrangement to deal with property issues, beneficiary, power of attorney, child custody, etc.

    ReplyDelete

  3. It would be interesting to find out if first marriages (with pre-nup) actually have a divorce rate that is substantially different from first marriages that did not include a pre-nup.

    A pre-nup may actually serve to dissuade a spouse from seeking a divorce, as the consequences spelled out in the pre-nup may be less favorable than had there been no pre-nup.

    Playful Walrus notes correctly that there is a default pre-nup for everyone who does not enter marriage with a pre-nup.

    It's the culture, not the law, that matters most.

    Bill Doherty put it much better when he talked about the consumer approach to marriage, which IMHO, is a bigger deal than the option of pre-nuptual agreements.

    http://www.smartmarriages.com/hazardous.html

    While some hard-eyed grown ups make calculated decisions about the possible division of assets, I'm more concerned about the young people who, when considering marriage, say things like "we can always divorce if it doesn't work out."

    ReplyDelete

  4. As a legally binding contract, marriage (under no-fault) is about the weakest thing you can imagine. Married couples with children are legally treated the same as unmarried parents who separate. Childless couples are barely treated as if they were married at all -- no-fault is just a formality. (there's a lesson here, regarding children and marriage...)

    But morally, "til death do us part" is a blood oath. It should be taken as such.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)