In support of traditional marriage
by Chris Ross
Americans are confused about the true nature of marriage “because we live in an era of big government,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, an economist who studies love and marriage and the founder of The Ruth Institute.
“Big government did not create marriage,” said Morse, who recently spoke to students at The King’s College in New York City, as part of the school’s Distinguished Visitors Series. “Government does not create marriage. Marriage is a natural reality that preexists the state.”
Morse has spent her career actively speaking against a declining understanding of lifelong, committed marriages in America. “The human is wired for community with others,” she said. “Christianity teaches us that man is not made to be alone. The human is made for love.”
Through her work, Morse strives to show Americans that civil society requires a traditional understanding of marriage. In fact, she said, “Statistically, the most dangerous situation for the child is to live with a cohabitating, single parent.”
Morse stressed that same-sex relationships are likewise unsuited to proper parenting, adding that different sexes are not interchangeable in a relationship. “A two-male couple is different from a two-female couple is different from a man-and-woman couple,” she said, pointing out that each mix has different properties, a fact that must be taken into account from the child’s perspective.
Expressing concern that a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is “a step too far,” Morse said, “For the state to make a proclamation that mothers and fathers are intrinsically interchangeable and that nobody’s allowed to say otherwise, that’s not really true.”
According to Morse, marriage is a natural reality, which “every society has known.” To believe that government can give or take away marriage, she said, is “statist hubris.”
“Libertarian theory and conservative theory,” Morse said, “generally has been very weak in its understanding of civil society.” She added that though the proponents of these philosophies can speak about the free market or constitutional division of powers, “What we don’t understand is how the civil society functions on its own.”
Marriage creates a structure for civil society, Morse told students, because “when a man and a woman have a child together, what you’re asking is that they invest a long period of time cooperating in order to bring that child up into adulthood.”
Chris Ross is a student at The King’s College.
Loading ...
Is there any audio of the presentation available?
dunno yet. keep an eye on the podcast page….
Audio can be found here: http://www.tkc.edu/media/audio/default.html
“‘A two-male couple is different from a two-female couple is different from a man-and-woman couple,’ she said, pointing out that each mix has different properties, a fact that must be taken into account from the child’s perspective.”
I submit that unless you live in a world of gender stereotypes, EVERY couple has its own “mix.” Children do best when the adults in their lives love, support and protect them. In a utopia, maybe it’s true that every child should be raised by his or her biological parents. But guess what? We don’t live in that world. We live in a world where fathers abandon their children, where mothers are drug addicts, where people have constitutional rights to procreate regardless of their sexual orientations, and where children are raised in foster care systems because there are not enough people willing to adopt. My friend who works for child protective services in my state tells me that gay foster and adoptive parents make the best ones because they really understand the gift of being allowed to raise a child. The only thing that hurts children is attitudes that tell them that their families aren’t “good enough” because they don’t fit the “perfect” model. My goodness, when will people learn to take care of their own children and leave other people’s families and children alone?!? How long will it take before people realize that LOVE, not gender, makes a family?
Heidi: You make a valid point that is irrelevant. The fact that some families are flawed, or that the majority of families are flawed does not respond to the argument. The BEST family is Mom and Dad, faithful, committed, devoted, compassionate and involved with each other and their children for life. It is hard, demanding work. We do not have to tell children in non-traditional relationships that their families are not “good enough.” They can see it for themselves. My Mom and her girlfriend, boyfriend, mother or whomever she lives with are not the ideal family. My friend with her Mom and Dad who love each other is. The problem is the State and Mass Media blaring, “Traditional Family Relationships are too hard, are unrealistic and when exalted as they should be, trample the feelings of people who are in different relationships.” What has tolerance of non-traditional relationships accomplished in the last 40 years: Increased poverty, disease, child abuse, crime, sexual disorders, demands on special education, social services, welfare, drug abuse and addiction? The LOSS OF LOVE demonstrated by tolerance of living together, free sex, open “marriage”, same sex relationships and other non-traditional “families” justified in the name of “Love” is a huge social disease. George Harrison of the Beatles traveled to Haight-Ashbury during the Summer of Love. He intended to stay for two weeks. After two hours, he returned to the airport and flew home to London explaining that he did not see “love” only the intoxication and perversion common in the poorest slums in Soho. The nuclear family has been systematically destroyed by people who champion “love” and brand anyone who disagrees a “hater.” History will decisively prove that Planned Parenthood and the Gay-Lesbian Lobby hate and that those who champion traditional marriage really love each other and everyone else. They only hate the fraud perpetrated on children and “adults” mislead into thinking that all that matters is “love” masquerading as sex, illegitimacy, poverty, crime and ignorance.
Ron, come off it. Plenty of traditional family’s hide their problems behind closed doors. The only thing the last 40 years did was bring the family’s skeleton out in the open. People are different, some people function best and like the traditional family structure, some people prefer other ways. But a loving parent in a non-traditional setting is far better then a traditional setting with non-loving parents. Love comes in many forms, maybe not so much drunken sex as some people claim, but just because it isn’t love to you doesn’t mean it’s any less potent or real to someone else.
Nerdygirl, you make the same logical error. The fact that some “traditional families” hide problems does not negate the fact that the best, most supportable family situation is lifelong, committed marriage. It is not always safe to go the speed limit, but it is a general rule, the best government can make. The best family relationship government can support is lifelong, committed marriage. “Statistically, the most dangerous situation for the child is to live with a cohabitating, single parent.” It is irrelevant what is potent or real to someone else, it matters what is best for the community and society as a whole. I work with, mentor and contribute time, money and lots of energy to kids who come from non-traditional families. Mom might have thought it was love when she conceived, but now 12 years later and God knows how many boyfriends later, her son struggles socially, is in special ed, doesn’t have money to play baseball. You are flat wrong to assert the only thing the last 40 years did was bring the family’s skeletons out of the closet. Look at the explosion STD’s, illegitimate children, special ed, the poverty of single mothers, the connection between drug and child abuse and the prison population. The late Democratic Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out in the 80′s that more than half of Black children were born out of wedlock, a national disaster, and he predicted that when half of white children were born out of wedlock and maybe America would see the crisis and do something about it. We are there.
And yet again, Ron, LOVE makes a family. My biological teenage daughter is perfectly healthy, happy and normal and her father and I split when she was eight. The reason that she is well-adjusted is because neither one of us stopped parenting her just because we weren’t together. We didn’t hate each other, disparage one another, or fight over our daughter. My adopted toddler daughter is also healthy, happy and well-loved by her two moms. Our family is NOT flawed. We may be different than your ideal, but we are a real family. Our family could be strengthened by marriage, but since when do people with your attitudes care about families like mine? We want desperately to be married–for our children, for us–but our inability to be legally married will not stop us from loving one another and raising our children to know that although some people are ignorant, love is what really matters.
The problems that you reference are not about same-sex marriage. They are about fathers abandoning their children, or children living through the horrors of divorce between two people who hate each other and don’t understand what it means to act in the best interests of their children, even if they can’t do that while together. It is not single parenthood, divorce, same-sex marriage, out of wedlock births (I never married my daughter’s father–and she turned out just fine, thank you), or any other issues that are per se negative. It is all of the abandonment, conflict, hatred, immaturity, and discrimination that often surround those things. Teach people how to be adults, how to put kids first, how to step up and take responsibility for the children they bring into this world, how to manage conflict to protect children, and you will find that the vast majority of children would be just fine. Marriage does not guarantee healthy or happy children. Parents who nurture, love and protect their children is what matters. Surprisingly perhaps to you, it is not the gender of the parent that matters, nor is it their marital status. Instead, it is the quality of the attachment and of the parenting. But hey, stick to your ideal if it suits you. The rest of us will go on living in the real world, and maybe by the time my children are fully grown, their generation will do what it takes to ensure equality for all people.
Gee, Heidi, if “love” were all it’s about, then men would be able to marry several women – or men – they ‘love’ at once and even marry the little boys or little girls they ‘love’. Give me a break! It’s not only about what passes for ‘love’ in this culture (hooking up), but about what’s best for the success of our society. It’s about making decisions about what we will and will not support as a society, what we determine is going to benefit us in the long run or what will hurt us as a society. I’m sorry, but the voters of this country KNOW deep down that supporting gay marriage isn’t what’s best, and that protecting and nurturing traditional marriage is. Like it or not, we just know this on a gut level. There’s just something wrong about saying that two women or two men who want to hook up and call it ‘marriage’ is the same as a man and woman beginning their life together as a family. They’re simply not ‘equal’. They never will be.
“Statistically, the most dangerous situation for the child is to live with a cohabitating, single parent.”
I would just like to point out that Dr. Morse is working assiduously to keep some kids’ parents single and cohabitating.
Jeff is right! We should all use semantics to make irrelevant points like he does. It really advances the dialogue.
We all want to feel that we are doing the right thing, and this is especially strong when it comes to the raising of our own kids. So there is a powerful motivation to rationalize: “I am not in a traditional parenting situation, so it can’t be wrong.”
Self justification is natural. “Gay” is not. With all due respect to those who consider themselves “gay,” and to the psych establishment—currently motivated more by the bottom line than by science (after all, a substantial proportion of their clients believe themselves to be “gay”), and political correctness (after all, we know what happens to anyone who publicly implies that “gay” s*x is wrong—there is no such thing as a “gay” person: There are only people who have trained themselves to enjoy unnatural behaviors.
Do a thought experiment: Will not a child who grows up among cannibals, in a place where alternative foods are hard to come by, not be certain to be less repelled by the smell of roasting human flesh than you or I? This does not mean that on an objective level—irrespective of revealed Truth—it is not repellent. (Consider the Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease found in New Guinea.) I doubt anyone will find it hard to think of objective reasons to avoid “gay” s*x.
God loves us. And his love is true love—agape. His ordinances are for our benefit. Lead not the children astray, I beg you.
All you have are bigoted religious beliefs. Please watch this and try to refute why gay marriage should be illegal. All you can say is ‘well, I just don’t like it, for no other reason than not liking gay people’. And we all know moral disapproval doesn’t a case make for stripping people of their rights. Sorry.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/david-boies-on-how-the-prop-8-witnesses-fell-apart/59554/
I am surprised at the choice of name for The Ruth Institute. After all, the story of Ruth in the Bible is rather homosexual.
It is a story of love between two women, Ruth and Naomi. The story centers on the life journey of two women in desperate straits in a male-dominated society. I won’t tell the whole story here, but when Naomi tells Ruth to leave and go to her home lands, Ruth says, “Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me.”
Ruth’s famous words, “For wherever you go, I will go …,” are used in Catholic and some Protestant marriage services, underscoring the similarity of marriage.
Therefore, it appears that Ruth and Naomi were the first LBGT couple to marry.
Peter: Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law. Where do you get the idea that they were married? Your argument is flawed…