Is it really all about the kids?

In an interview last summer, marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher was asked why marriage mattered. She answered, “Marriage protects children.” I was struck by the reductionism of her perspective.

At the same time Mrs. Gallagher’s response is an easy sell. People will contort themselves in astounding ways if someone asserts that it’s good for the children. That’s why car companies, pharmaceutical companies and even junk food conglomerates will try to present us all with the choice of buying their product or leaving our children less safe or happy. It works because we love our kids.

But you know, no lofty claim should be above scrutiny. Is marriage as an institution less than significant if there are no children in the house? That might imply that most wedding dresses should be sized for pregnant women or that empty nesters are free to follow whatever irresponsible whim they like. If there are no children to protect, such behavior is value neutral.

More to the point, can marriage focused primarily on the kids even protect them? In my experience people who divorce overwhelmingly love their kids. It’s a paradox, though. The kids hold the marriage together for a while until Mom decides that the environment could only be improved by divorce. The ensuing legal snarl is focused mainly on financial provision for the children. And ultimately the divorced couple spars and grumbles at one another for years as they are shackled together ? by the kids. And every step along the way is another level of Hell for the kids.

When rain drips through your ceiling your first instinct is to put buckets down so the carpet doesn’t ruin. The answer though is to focus on the integrity of the roof. I think the marriage is the roof and the kids are the carpet.

And carpet is not the only thing under the roof. So let me offer some other significanct points for the institution God created first.

Marriage is the acceptable and positive outlet for human sexual behavior?Paul said that it’s better to marry than burn (1 Corinthians 7:9). We also have ample reason to believe that free- form sexual
behavior causes all kinds of turmoil.

Marriage provides stability and security for individuals?It’s beneficial for all around us that we have someone who keeps us rooted in reality?a trusted one who tells us the truth. We are also safer because there is someone who has committed to watch over us.

Marriage is a source of comfort and nurture for individuals?I’m a better employee and citizen and church member because my wife has committed to be the one who is nice to me. It changes my whole outlook. We also benefit from the fact that someone has committed to make us take our pills and wear socks. “Also, if two lie down together, they can keep warm” (Ecclesiastes 4:11).

Marriage is the stable foundation of communities?While families are the basic unit of our society, I’d say that applies more specifically to married couples. Married people have found something most people look for and are thus more rooted in jobs and communities than when they were single.

Marriage is the essential institution for producing and raising children?This matters a lot and Maggie Gallagher is correct that marriage protects children. This role is important to society as well as to the kids themselves. And traditional, one-man and one-woman-for-life marriages fulfill this role like no other institution can.

It is in the best interest of our nation and of our communities that marriages do the things listed above. No institution can fulfill these roles as well, although we are sometimes forced to put some other entity in the gap. Our society needs strong marriages for reasons we often only see when they fail. The best answer is not to change our expectations or even to shore up stop-gap measures; it is to do no harm to the institution of marriage in our laws, perhaps even to provide positive support.

An example of harmful, though well-intended legislative efforts is no-fault divorce whereby one partner can dissolve the relationship without any meaningful reason or the consent of the other partner. Beginning in the 1970s, no-fault divorce became the law in nearly every state since that time. Intended to allow an escape for women in abusive relationships, no-fault divorce has moved way beyond that goal and devalued the institution.

Think of the statement a society makes when the law says that petty annoyance, boredom, and lustful longing are adequate reasons to dissolve a contractual relationship essential to our communities. We may generally want the benefits of stable marriages but we’re unwilling to say so legally. The last 30 years have seen a rise in the divorce rate, the rate of unwed births, and the rate of unmarried cohabitation. Maybe these trends are a coincidence but it’s hard to argue that no-fault divorce has worked.

It’s time to turn back the clock on this law. Advocates for the status quo claim that abuse and suicide rates will go up if we reinstitute “fault” divorce, which allows one partner to contest the divorce and requires a reason to end the marriage. Spousal abuse is already illegal. Increasing divorce rates have (and this is not speculation) increased the legal abuse of children that occurs when Mom and Dad pull them in different directions. No-fault divorce is a response to problem marriages that has too many unintended consequences. Compare it with abortion on demand as an answer to the tiny number of pregnancies that result from rape and incest.

One positive thing states can do is to not only pass but promote covenant marriage laws. These provisions encourage a couple to agree to pre-marital counseling and agree that they will not pursue divorce without actively seeking reconciliation.

The provision in Texas that was signed into law during the last session gives couples that submit to premarital counseling a waiver of the $60 marriage license fee. By highlighting the seriousness of the decision and by asking a couple to agree that their marriage will be more or less insoluble, a state can at least make a more serious claim to believe that marriage is significant.

Yes, divorce devastates children and this is a particularly poignant outcome. Some professionals took too long to understand that children are harmed when their families blow up. Some day we’ll start to realize that a host of other problems also follow when we view marriage as just a piece of paper.

Churches also have an interest in encouraging marriage and discouraging divorce. This statement is not the no-brainer you might suppose. Our churches sometimes walk on eggshells to avoid offending single, divorced, remarried, and never married parents in the community. Let’s face it, we shrink from accusations that “we’re only known for what we’re against” and it stifles our prophetic voice in the face of the ministry murder we call divorce.

God hates divorce and I guess that would make it a sin. It’s not the unforgiveable sin but it’s not the inconsequential sin either. If we’re going to preach against other sins that devastate lives and offend our God, add this one to the list without apology. Few sins, except unbelief, are cutting a wider swath through our churches.

Taking a more positive tact, we can uplift marriage by expecting one another in the fellowship of our local church to keep our marriage vows, in detail. That means neglect, indifference, harshness, abandonment, and other quiet sins that erode a relationship over time will be seen as assaults on the family, and thus the local fellowship of believers, we can address before it’s too late. Churches that uplift and expect us to honor the covenant of marriage will always have more impact than the state enforcing the merely legal aspect of the marriage contract.

I’m a big fan of kids, mine and other people’s. Raising kids is