JAMES N. writes:

I recently made a comment on an Internet discussion about “traditional” marriage. The use of the term “traditional marriage” by defenders of what actually exists now rubs me the wrong way. I wonder what you think of my comment:

Traditional marriage (aka real marriage, actual marriage, marriage by definition, etc.) has three elements:

1) It is permanent and effectively indissoluble (remarriage when a prior spouse is alive is not legal)

2) It is sexually exclusive, with civil and criminal sanctions for adultery

3) Any offspring during the marriage, regardless of genetic paternity, belong to and are the responsibility of their father, and bastardy has legal and moral consequences, including no support from a putative father.

Under this proper understanding of traditional marriage, the notion of two men or two women living together under its constraints in order to gain social recognition would be absurd.

However, “traditional marriage” today, when used in polemic, means:

1) A “contract” terminable by one of the parties at will without damages to the counterparty, regardless of circumstance

2) Violation of sexual exclusivity is free of any legal or social consequences

3) Offspring, regardless of paternity or a marriage , belong to the mother and may be used, again without regard to paternity, as hostages to require payment of cash and prizes from their putative father at discretion of their mother

4) Cash and other tax benefits awarded to a man and a woman living together under the above-described arrangements.

This current state of affairs is not “traditional marriage,” but is more properly considered “gay marriage for heterosexuals”.

Advocates for marriage should stop referring to “gay marriage for heterosexuals” as “traditional.” The ONLY thing of traditional marriage that remains is that one party is a man and the other is a woman.

Laura writes:

The only thing I would add to your formulation is that the primary purpose of “traditional” marriage, or Christian marriage, is to bear and raise children. A marriage entered into with the intention to delay or refuse children is not full marriage.

 James N. replies:

Yes, that’s an excellent point. I wasn’t so much concerned with a complete definition of “trad” marriage as I was to point out that, if marriage laws as they always existed were still in effect, the notion of homosexuals attempting to “marry” would never arise. It is only Marriage 2.0 that they are seeking, and traditionalists should not confuse Marriage 2.0 with traditional marriage, since by doing so, they are vesting Marriage 2.0 with an historic lineage which it should not carry.

 Laura writes:

I agree. Legalized divorce led to same-sex “marriage.” If marriage is primarily about the satisfaction of adults, then there is no reason why people of the same sex should not “marry.” The marketing of contraception also led to same-sex “marriage” for the same reason.  Both divorce and the marketing of contraception are attacks on the foundations of the family and civil order.

This is a hard reality, completely alien to the sensibilities of the modern world. It’s sort of like saying the moon is made of blue cheese or that people should go back to riding horses. It was hard for me to come to this conclusion too. However, as remote as laws prohibiting divorce and the sale of artificial contraception now seem, this form of marriage existed before for many hundreds of years. And therefore it can exist again. Justice and political freedom depend on marriage. Christian marriage is the most perfect ever conceived.

It will take great heroism and holiness to get there again.

— Comments —

Terry Morris writes:

Well, what James N. describes as the antithesis of real marriage is simply faux marriage, whether between one man and one woman, two women or two men, or a man (or woman), his cat and the partridge nesting in his pear tree. I don’t think I would describe the heterosexual sham-marriage version as “gay marriage for heterosexuals.” It is, afterall, that sham heterosexual marriage led to so called “gay marriage,” not the other way around.

Please follow and like us: