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.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

The contempt for marriage as our own self-governance and humanity

The first in a series of quotes which explores how marriage is an act of our own self-government, and how annoying that is to the newly minted "ruling class".

The ruling class is keener to reform the American people's family and spiritual lives than their economic and civic ones. In no other areas is the ruling class's self-definition so definite, its contempt for opposition so patent, its Kulturkampf so open. It believes that the Christian family (and the Orthodox Jewish one too) is rooted in and perpetuates the ignorance commonly called religion, divisive social prejudices, and repressive gender roles, that it is the greatest barrier to human progress because it looks to its very particular interest -- often defined as mere coherence against outsiders who most often know better. Thus the family prevents its members from playing their proper roles in social reform. Worst of all, it reproduces itself.

Since marriage is the family's fertile seed, government at all levels, along with "mainstream" academics and media, have waged war on it. They legislate, regulate, and exhort in support not of "the family" -- meaning married parents raising children -- but rather of "families," meaning mostly households based on something other than marriage. The institution of no-fault divorce diminished the distinction between cohabitation and marriage -- except that husbands are held financially responsible for the children they father, while out-of-wedlock fathers are not. The tax code penalizes marriage and forces those married couples who raise their own children to subsidize "child care" for those who do not. Top Republicans and Democrats have also led society away from the very notion of marital fidelity by precept as well as by parading their affairs. For example, in 1997 the Democratic administration's secretary of defense and the Republican Senate's majority leader (joined by the New York Times et al.) condemned the military's practice of punishing officers who had extramarital affairs. While the military had assumed that honoring marital vows is as fundamental to the integrity of its units as it is to that of society, consensus at the top declared that insistence on fidelity is "contrary to societal norms." Not surprisingly, rates of marriage in America have decreased as out-of-wedlock births have increased. The biggest demographic consequence has been that about one in five of all households are women alone or with children, in which case they have about a four in 10 chance of living in poverty. Since unmarried mothers often are or expect to be clients of government services, it is not surprising that they are among the Democratic Party's most faithful voters.

17 comments,:

  1. Kulturkampf was put in place to take ruling power away from the Catholic Church in Germany in the 19th century. Do you think they should still be a ruling body?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Terry's comment above exemplifies the problem with the cultural Left: a belief that it's either one extreme or the other, and an inability to see that you need to find the balance in between.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You might want to ask people what they think rather than assume.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, are you thus acknowledging that Renee, and the rest of us here, want not a return to the absolute power of the church, but a balance between the church and the secular? Your comment didn't sound like it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aww, St. Ronnie doesn't get any credit for his role in no-fault divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  6. peter, I think even a better reference would be Larry King from CNN who has been married 8 times.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Renee,

    Don't feed the trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  8. op-ed, I know. Still there is nothing wrong with public policy limiting the number of marriage one may have in a life stile. I think a few states do have such a law.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am unaware that any US state has imposed a limit on the number of times a person can get married.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some states used to have laws that limited the marriage rights of adulterers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. peter, I did a quick check. I thought Texas had seven. Not sure what was the public policy behind seven though?

    I understand why we have public policy for fault divorces, but while one is currently free to remarry multiple times should we really promote that lifestyle in public policy?

    I know the term is can be classified as 'serial monogamy', but is it really a form of polygamy?

    ReplyDelete
  12. As best I can tell, the only impediment to remarriage in Texas is a 30 day waiting period following a divorce. However, that can be waived in some cases.

    Again, I may be wrong, but the only state without a no-fault divorce law is New York, so I don't think it's accurate to suggest that we have a public policy for fault divorces.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have a problem with something else that's been said here:

    "...husbands are held financially responsible for the children they father, while out-of-wedlock fathers are not."

    Fathers (married or otherwise) are financially responsible for their children, whether they decide to pay or not doesn't change that fact.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Terry, what is interesting is that in an upcoming post regarding fatherhood, is that we want dads to be socially there for their children even though it may not be possible to be fully financially care for them. Especially in neighborhoods with low-income and high unemployment, we don't want any father to feel 'worthless' because there are no jobs out there.

    What is assumed by public policy though is that if a father lives with the mother of his child, he is financially being responsible for his children. I guess the example would be if my husband wasted away his paycheck at the local casino, I couldn't file for child support unless we're clearly separated our residences (kicked him out or move out). If both parents live under the same roof, the government assumes you don't need a court order to financially support your children and won't grant one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Renee, since you are a lawyer you know that government assistance for unwed mothers (or fathers) is partly determined by the living situation and how much support is expected from the non-custodial parent. If the two live together and do not report that fact so the assistance is higher then both parties are committing fraud, which does often happen in poor communities.

    I agree that fathers (and mothers) should be there for their children as part of their lives regardless of their financial situations. All too often the custodial parent uses the financial ineptitude of the non-custodial parent to prevent them from seeing the children, which ultimately only serves to hurt the children.

    My point that I was addressing was the the writer of this post made the mistake of saying that unwed fathers are not held financially responsible for the children, which is untrue. Ever hear of the "dead-beat dad" list? Not all of them were once wed, yet they are held accountable for their support.

    I like your posts Renee, thanks for replying!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Terry, Because we don't want to force marriage, is it really fraud if our public policy penalizes those who do marry by getting less services/benefits? For an unmarried couple with a baby/children, why get married if you end up losing a lot from the state? In a free society we want to promote marriage, but yet we don't want to penalize/stigmatize a single parent to the point it's just strictly punitive in nature.

    When people need help it seems impossible even with the most objective factors to figure out if a parent has been truly stranded, or if the parents realize it doesn't pay to be a family. I still believe in helping out, but with local non-profit charities rather then federal programs you can get people to go to the homes and figure out what that person's particular needs are. Our federal/state/local government can't do it alone and driving a wedge with religious communities that do a lot of the leg work because of 'gay marriage'. Think about the Boy Scouts taking heat losing recognition for their works by government?

    It's just not a gay marriage issue, I recently read a law journal article suggesting that Catholic Charities should be banned from assisting refugees into the United State solely because they won't offer them abortions. Ironically enough I'm volunteering for a campaign for a man, who came here as a child through Catholic Charities in the 80s. Catholic Charities didn't even try to convert him, because to this day he is still a practicing Buddhist.

    ReplyDelete