Is the Institution of Marriage Dead?

Source:http://wisdomwalking.net/2007/01 ... n-of-marriage-dead/

1.Pat R. Says:
March 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

While marriage itself is not dead, women show themselves to be less willing to be subordinate to obtain the benefits of marriage, and men show themselves less willing to pay for the benefits of marriage – leading to a social impasse, and at least the appearance of marital jeopardy as the anticipated and expected outcome.

That women are having to live on less money than men by virtue of the income imbalance is an issue of critical importance within such a scheme since traditionally, men were paid more in order to support a family. The triggering of the 14th amendment is at least a concern as the fact that marriage, itself, may be at risk.

For society, family formation, not marriage is the issue of concern since highly paid taxpayers are the means by which societies sustain themselves. Without forcing women to get married, family formation cannot be considered an expected outcome; yet, force for either men or women is unacceptable. Hence, it is propaganda that society must rely upon, or economic incentives for marriage and family formation. Advocacy of gay marriage may be an equal opportunity but is not likely to produce the family formation society needs for sustainable longevity.

In addition, while marriage is less expensive for two as for one, having children is incredibly more expensive. Choosing to forgo that expense in an era of marital uncertainty with high divorce rates and no fault marriage greatly increases the odds of failure.

Compounded risk is likely to increase the adversity of marriage, and the complexities of blended families does not ease the burdens. If people gravitate toward what is easiest and most comfortable, they may just choose the single life instead, but is that really good for society?

When collectivism drives the nation and the couple, or single is insignificant, can marriage be expected to survive? Like individual rights, marital couple’s rights are equally challenged in such an atmosphere. Only Mormons who practice polygamy as domestic collectivism seem less concerned – bringing their own brand of sustainable life to the strategy of collectivism as the American choice for survival in a world increasingly willing to use social darwinism as its unrealistic ideal.

If marriage is to survive, it is likely that legitimate efforts toward marital equality, not the subordination of women, will promote marriage. But that will not cure the collectivism problem or expense of having children. Family formation deserves special consideration when society depends upon that status for survival, and it’s likely that the changes required will be in the area of taxes, benefits, and addressing the challenges that such a status requires.

If society is not willing to undertake that inquiry, or address its issues and complexities, marriage is indeed dead, and perhaps rightfully so, if human rights are the measure of what constitutes happiness. Why would not women as well as men be entitled to economic and social equality? By what right shall society commandeer women to produce the fantasy that marriage (and domestic violence, as revealed) constitutes an institution worth defending?