The Right Formula?

Russ Ramsey wrote a moving and powerful piece entitled "Scowling at the Angel", an article about his wife and his open-heart surgery. I would encourage you to read it because it is quite good, but I urge you to keep tissues nearby because it will likely stir up some dust or allergies or something.

I'll let you read (or not) his article, but there was something that he wrote that I nwanted to address.

The Puritans used to say you got married in order to fall in love.

Now that has to be a shock to the 21st century American mind, doesn't it? I mean, we are all certain that marriage is first and foremost the result of love, that to marry for any other reason is foolish at best and more likely an actual form of evil. Whatever we know about marriage, we all know the simple formula "You marry for love" and nothing else will do. As it turns out, while this may be the current standard, it hasn't always been so. I suspect that it has been rarely the case.

Ramsey goes on to explain further:

They reasoned: How can a man and woman possibly hope to know the wonder, joy, and depth of real love — the kind where you are truly known and truly loved at the same time — without making those two lives into one thing?

I'm reminded of Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof asking his wife, Golde, "Do you love me?" She's miffed by the question. Why would he ask? It's irrelevant! She lists all that she does for him, so it doesn't matter. And still he asks, "Do you love me?" Golde realizes, after years of marriage, five daughters, and all that went into it that she did love him. It was a revelation to both of them. Because, you see, they didn't marry because they were in love. But they did fall in love.

These days marriage rates are down¹, single-parent families are up², births to unwed mothers are at an all time highs³ ... marriage is not in its heyday. Now, how is that possible? I mean, haven't we figured out the best possible formula -- marry for love? Doesn't that constitute our "marching orders"? So if we have the best possible structure for marriage, why are there so many divorces and why is marriage on the decline? What's up with that?

Could it be that our formula is wrong? Could it be that the Puritans (and so many cultures before our own "superior" one) might have had an idea worth considering? Could it be?

________
¹ A study published this year says that current marriage rates dropped to 31 per 1,000 unmarried women. Compare with 92.3 per 1,000 in 1920. In the same story, "the Pew Research Center found that 51 percent of Americans were married, compared to 72 percent in 1960."

² In 1981, single-parent families had doubled from 3.3 million in 1970 to 6.6 million. In 2010 the number was nearly doubled again at almost 12 million.

³ In the U.S., 18% of all live births in 1980 were to unmarried women. In 2008 the number was 41%.