Marriage Devolution

Devolution. It is perhaps a reference to a sovereign power granting authority to a lower level or it is a reference to a decline. You know, like the opposite of evolution.

It is rather hard, in my estimation, to trace through the decline of marriage that we see today. The New York Times reported that "The divorce surge is over, but the myth lives on." Turns out that divorce rates are dropping but no one is buying it. We still cling to myths like "50% of marriages end up in divorce." Then Kay Hymowitz of Time followed that with "Divorce rates are falling, but marriage is still on the rocks." Why? "When divorce rates skyrocketed in the 1970s, Americans were not simply suddenly looking at their spouses and deciding en masse that they couldn't take it anymore. They were reacting to a changing understanding about what marriage meant." Wow! That's quite an insight. "Instead of an arrangement largely centered around providing for and rearing the next generation, it was becoming an adult-centric union based on love and shared happiness, which as an upper middle class grew in size, became closely linked to granite countered kitchens, European and spa vacations, and weddings with 200 guests."

I think Kay has something there. Note her view. The initial breakdown occurred when marriage was no longer essentially defined as "providing for and rearing the next generation." What replaced it? "Love and shared happiness." Real insight.

Trace this, then. In earlier times marriages were determined by families, not by individuals so much. "Arranged marriages" was the term, the one that sends shudders down the spines of most modern folk. Even today some cultures indulge this barbaric practice. The Puritans argued that love and marriage went together, but not that the first preceded the second. When you thought you could love, then you married. And you loved after you were married. Kind of turns the whole "married for love" concept on its ear, doesn't it? But by the 20th century we were all pretty sure that the only good basis for marriage was one based on warm, sappy feelings that everyone knows never last because that makes the most sense. Not that whole "love by choice" concept ... you know, like the one presented in Scripture. (You can't command husbands to love their wives if it cannot be something chosen any more than you can command someone to like Brussels sprouts.)

Well, then, enter contraceptives, thoroughly disdained up until the mid 20th century, and not just by Roman Catholics. Any well-brought-up individual knew that marriage was for reproduction and it just wouldn't be natural to aim to do something else. But contraception was "in" by the 60's. A chink in the armor of that protected marital sex appeared.

Soon thereafter, we had "free love". By which they meant "have sex with whomever you wanted". Not that love had anything to do with it. A confusion of tongues is all. "Love" and "sex" were regarded as synonyms even though they meant different things and everyone knew it. That's okay. Don't bother us with facts; we know we're right. I mean, as long as you have contraceptives and can avoid pregnancy, you are less likely be found out and bear the stigma of sex outside marriage, so, why not? It's only bad if you get caught, right? In 1973 the famous Roe v Wade ruling legalized the murder of babies in the womb. This was contraception taken to the next logical stage. If you can't get the contraception thing right and you are still insisting on decoupling sex from marriage and reproduction, then this is the perfect means of doing so.

Another chink appeared. At the end of the 60's California passed its "no fault divorce" law. Other states followed suit. In 1980 for every woman that filed for divorce from her husband 600 men filed for divorce from their wives. "No fault" coupled with radical feminism meant that in a single decade the ratio was 12:1 ... in reverse. For every man who filed 12 women did. Today two-thirds of all divorces are filed by wives.

Okay so where are we? Marriage was designed to be a union for life of a man and a woman for the purposes of mutual assistance and fellowship, for godly offspring, and for defense against sin. Now we've disconnected ... well ... everything. It isn't about mutual assistance or fellowship. It isn't about offspring, godly or otherwise. It isn't about sin. What's that? It isn't even about love. What's that? It's about my happiness and your success or failure to provide it. Nothing more. We reinforce this stereotype with the media that pops up almost daily it feels like with another dysfunctional actor or musician or entertainment figure proving that divorce is, once again, the answer. The most common question about Hollywood marriages is, "What? They're still together?" Divorce is statistically in decline, but more kids have single parents because more parents don't marry. Cohabitation is the norm. And kids pay the price. But that's okay, because marriage and family isn't about them, right?

So there is no surprise as we step off into this brave new world that marriage seems to have very little in the way of definition, purpose, or form. Homosexual marriage? Why not? The word doesn't mean much. I suppose you can use it to mean "marriage", or "dinner", or "my favorite movie." I mean, why not? We're not really keen on defining things anymore as long as we get what we want ... whatever that is.

There are two things in all this that strike me. First, if this is an accurate representation of the spiral of marriage, then it would be wrong--ridiculous--to say, "Homosexuals are ruining marriage." Actually, they're just grabbing on to the tattered rags of a wonderful tapestry no longer maintained or even understood and finally getting ready to throw it away. They didn't thrash it; we did. The other interesting thing, again if this is an accurate representation, is that the beginning of this unraveling of marriage ... was the notion that we marry for love. Now, understand that this "love" and, say, "Husbands, love your wife" are not the same "love". The former is a warm feeling that makes me feel good; the other is a settled decision to provide what is best to another. Clearly not the same. So if marriage is correctly defined as a lifelong union of a man and a woman for the purposes of mutual assistance and fellowship, for godly offspring, and for defense against sin, the first step that makes it about me instead of "you" and "us" and "them"--your spouse, the union that is this marriage, and the offspring of this union--is clearly the first step away from the meaning of marriage. Ironic that it's a warm feeling that starts this snowball rolling. Devolution. The right term.