Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Blog Response to: The Institution of Marriage
Blog Post Source: http://gabrielsteinmeyer.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-institution-of-marriage/
Response:
The overwhelming use of “irreconcilable differences" is a problem, partially due to the ironic attempt of Ronald Reagan and his "No-Fault" Divorce legislation while he was the Governor of California. He wanted to make divorce less painful, but, well, that didn't work.
On the topic of "gay marriage" and its effects on the institution of marriage, I believe that if creates a problem by detracting from marriage, not necessarily destroying the current state of marriage. Politically speaking, marriage is a legally recognized union between a man and a women that is supported by the state (by means of tax breaks, etc) for the purpose of providing for the conservative state interest of children. The prolonged future of the state is based on the continuation of its population. A legal marriage is a contract between two people, by which they agree to be together and operate as one, and as such it is the legal assumption that procreation is more than probable.
(As a note on the legal assumption of pro-creation, in divorce court, infidelity can be proven by a man or a women spending prolonged time alone behind the closed doors of a private residence. Thus, a man and a women living together, it is usually assumed that they are sleeping together.)
The national legalization of "gay marriage" or the legal recognition of same-sex marriage removes the state's legal interest. Often times the argument for "gay marriage" is that they love each other, but love is not the legal purpose of recognizing and supporting a marital union. As related to Reagan's "No-Fault" Divorce legislation, the legal qualification of love (which is sometimes lost in a relationship) can lead to the dissolve of a marriage.
This is not to say that love is not an important part of marriage, because it is. Rather, love is not the legal bases for marriage. Love is a strong adhesive in a union and makes a relationship very desirable.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Senior Thesis
Thanks to Dr. Peter A. Lawler for helping me through this process and guiding my research with additional sources.
Thanks to Sarah Thomas for her editing and discussions that helped to develop this paper.
At last, it is done.
Senior Thesis: Marriage and Society in Modern Political Philosophy
Thanks to Sarah Thomas for her editing and discussions that helped to develop this paper.
At last, it is done.
Senior Thesis: Marriage and Society in Modern Political Philosophy
Eve and Adam's need for a "fit" helper
[Continued from "The Garden of Eden: The Original Society of Adam and Eve"]
Now, I do not mean to overly emphasize the point of Eve’s punishment. For Eve is a very important part of this Genesis story. Was she tempted by Satan? Yes. Did she convince Adam to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Well, yes, but this all leaves out a very important part of Eve’s role in the Creation. In Genesis 2:18, the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” From here, God brings all the creatures of the Earth to Adam so that he may name them and that one may be his helper, but none would suffice. Genesis 2:20 states that “for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” Enter Eve. God put Adam to sleep, and “while he slept took one of his ribs” (Genesis 2:21) and “the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into women” (Genesis 2:22). From man’s rib God make woman. But why did God not make woman from the earth as God had made man? Man was made from the dust of the ground and filled with life from the breath of God, and then man was good. But woman is derived from what was already said to be good. What does it mean that no creature made from the ground was a helper fit for man (Genesis 2:19-20)? Even Adam, made from the ground was not good enough and needed a helper. But woman is not made from the ground, but from a rib of Adam, God’s hand on earth. Surely there must be something good here.
Amy and Leon Kass, in their book Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar, raise another interesting question of woman’s creation. Not only was she not made from the ground, but she was made from a rib of Adam specifically. They write, “What does it mean that she comes from a rib, from a place close to the heart?” This seems to be a very important question. Yes Eve was made from Adam and he says that “this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23), but not just any bone. The purpose of the ribs are to protect the heart and the lungs, as they are vital organs directly related to life. God made Adam and “put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it,” (Genesis 2:15), but what about Eve? Of the creation of Eve, we know that she was made of the bone of Adam, specifically a rib, and that she was a fit helper for him where none else were. Here, Amy and Leon Kass ask another good question, “Why might God have seen fit to remedy the problem of Man’s aloneness by sending him a counter-part, an “other”?” Though here, the Kasses use the term “Counter-Part,” as opposed to helper. It seems important that woman was created to complete man. That no other creature made from the ground was fit, but that another must be created from the “good” that was man and the world, before sin.
Now, I do not mean to overly emphasize the point of Eve’s punishment. For Eve is a very important part of this Genesis story. Was she tempted by Satan? Yes. Did she convince Adam to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Well, yes, but this all leaves out a very important part of Eve’s role in the Creation. In Genesis 2:18, the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” From here, God brings all the creatures of the Earth to Adam so that he may name them and that one may be his helper, but none would suffice. Genesis 2:20 states that “for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” Enter Eve. God put Adam to sleep, and “while he slept took one of his ribs” (Genesis 2:21) and “the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into women” (Genesis 2:22). From man’s rib God make woman. But why did God not make woman from the earth as God had made man? Man was made from the dust of the ground and filled with life from the breath of God, and then man was good. But woman is derived from what was already said to be good. What does it mean that no creature made from the ground was a helper fit for man (Genesis 2:19-20)? Even Adam, made from the ground was not good enough and needed a helper. But woman is not made from the ground, but from a rib of Adam, God’s hand on earth. Surely there must be something good here.
Amy and Leon Kass, in their book Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar, raise another interesting question of woman’s creation. Not only was she not made from the ground, but she was made from a rib of Adam specifically. They write, “What does it mean that she comes from a rib, from a place close to the heart?” This seems to be a very important question. Yes Eve was made from Adam and he says that “this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23), but not just any bone. The purpose of the ribs are to protect the heart and the lungs, as they are vital organs directly related to life. God made Adam and “put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it,” (Genesis 2:15), but what about Eve? Of the creation of Eve, we know that she was made of the bone of Adam, specifically a rib, and that she was a fit helper for him where none else were. Here, Amy and Leon Kass ask another good question, “Why might God have seen fit to remedy the problem of Man’s aloneness by sending him a counter-part, an “other”?” Though here, the Kasses use the term “Counter-Part,” as opposed to helper. It seems important that woman was created to complete man. That no other creature made from the ground was fit, but that another must be created from the “good” that was man and the world, before sin.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Ronald Reagan and No-Fault Divorce
In an attempt to reduce the pain of divorce, Ronald Reagan (as governor) passed legislation in the State of California that was the nation’s first No-Fault Divorce. Because he was recently divorced, his hope was to “the divorce process less acrimonious, less contentious, and less expensive.” Regardless of his hopes, he later told his son Michael that the No-Fault Legislation was “one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office.” The idea behind No-Fault divorce was that a married couple would be able to get a divorce without blaming fault on one of the individuals. Ideally this would lead to easier divorce. Yes and No. Passed in 1969, this legislation was passed in a decade where divorce rates hiked 80 in the United States. And this legislature, if anything, assisted in hiking the divorce rate. In the eleven years after Reagan’s No-Fault Divorce legislature, the divorce rate hiked another 86 percent. Micheal McManus of the Family in America Journal notes that “for every two marriages established since 1975, about one existing marriage was dissolved.” The divorce rate is not that about 50% of marriages end in divorce, but rather that one couple divorces for every two couples get married each year. This figure is still not settling. Divorce is still devastating to both individuals and the rates are still rising. McManus also comments that the suicide among divorced women is “triple that of married women” and “five times higher [among divorced men] than among married men.”
The effect of divorce on children is also devastating. Going back to Ronald Reagan and the example of his divorce, his son Michael, in his book Twice Adopted, writes about his experience as a child in the middle of a divorce. Michael Reagan writes that “divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child—the child’s home, family, security, and sense of being loved and protected—and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess.” This image he creates here is devastating. Divorce may be “action or an instance of legally dissolving a marriage,” but what it is really dissolving is the family. In the cases where divorced individuals are parents, the children are also a part of what is being dissolved, and the No-Fault Divorce laws do not consider this. To show, statistically, the effects of divorce on children, McManus references a study by the Heritage Foundation. He writes that “children of divorced parents are three times more likely than their peers from intact homes to be expelled from school or to have a baby out of wedlock as a teenager, six times as apt to live in poverty, and are twelve times more likely to be incarcerated.” Surely governer Reagan did not expect this when he passed the No-Fault Divorce legislation in the United State and I can see why it was “one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office”.
The effect of divorce on children is also devastating. Going back to Ronald Reagan and the example of his divorce, his son Michael, in his book Twice Adopted, writes about his experience as a child in the middle of a divorce. Michael Reagan writes that “divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child—the child’s home, family, security, and sense of being loved and protected—and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess.” This image he creates here is devastating. Divorce may be “action or an instance of legally dissolving a marriage,” but what it is really dissolving is the family. In the cases where divorced individuals are parents, the children are also a part of what is being dissolved, and the No-Fault Divorce laws do not consider this. To show, statistically, the effects of divorce on children, McManus references a study by the Heritage Foundation. He writes that “children of divorced parents are three times more likely than their peers from intact homes to be expelled from school or to have a baby out of wedlock as a teenager, six times as apt to live in poverty, and are twelve times more likely to be incarcerated.” Surely governer Reagan did not expect this when he passed the No-Fault Divorce legislation in the United State and I can see why it was “one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office”.
Monday, November 21, 2011
American Individualism and the Prestige of Marriage
In his book, The Marriage-Go-Round, Andrew Cherlin discusses the state of marriage and the family in America today. Part of his examination revolves around the contradictory nature of America’s prestigious views of marriage and the strong cultural emphasis on individualism. These two strong views are contradictory in nature. While marriage is a value for the family, the individualism of American Culture makes it difficult to place sufficient focus on the family. Americans’ attempts at balancing those two cultural poles are what Cherlin finds so interesting. The values of family and individualism are two distinct and string values, but in America, they find themselves being entwined.
One way in which Andrew Cherlin sees this is marriage as a capstone. He notes that 90 percent of people in America do get married, despite its differences from the traditional. He comments that “at a time of great public concern about the supposed decline of marriage, it’s remarkably high.” This is a very interesting point. There does seem to be a societal idea that marriage is on a decline, but then why are so many people still getting married? I will say that the nearly 50 percent divorce rate is alarming and detrimental to marriage as an institution, but why are the marriage rates still so high? Cherlin believes that it is due to a mixture of American individualism and the prestige of marriage. He writes that “the rewards of marriage are more individualized now. Being married is less of a social role and more of an individual achievement – a symbol of successful self-development.”
More and more often people want to get ready for marriage, as if it is an end (or goal) of living and not a means of living. One indicator of this for Cherlin is economic stability. At one point in time, American marriage was structured as a provider-caregiver model, in which one would financially support the family, thus leaving the other free to perform duties necessary for a household. However now, Cherline writes, “couples are deferring until they have a firm economic base,” before they get married. Cherlin cites some research to back this up, namely a 2002 Toledo study of in-depth interviews. The research found that “many of them [the interviewees] did not want to marry until they had an economic package in place that often included homeownership, being out of debt, and having a stable, adequate family income.” This is strange, again because of the traditional provider-caregiver model, which was a means for financial stability. One person secured the finances while the other secured the household. But now it seems that individuals want to secure themselves on their own, or feel as if they must do so as a pre-requisite before getting married. I would think that more people would see marriage as means for achieving this financial stability, especially with the dual incomes that many modern American families now have. But rather, many people see marriage as an end of financial stability, a marker of success for their individual lives.
Another way in which Cherlin identifies the prestige of marriage in American culture is in the wedding ceremony. Traditionally, the respective parents of the Bride and the Groom would pay for the ceremony costs and the reception costs respectively. But now, more and more individuals opt to provide for their own wedding ceremony. This many because as people get married older and older and delay the age at which they get married, their parents are less and less involved in their personal lives. At that point in time, the individuals are also able to better support themselves, especially financially. But as a manner of prestige, Cherlin writes that “Through wedding ceremonies, individuals hoped to display their attainment of prestigious, comfortable, stable style of life.” This seems more like a retirement plan, as people fear to die alone, but it is interesting to note the way in which the view point of marriage has changed, from a means to an end.
One way in which Andrew Cherlin sees this is marriage as a capstone. He notes that 90 percent of people in America do get married, despite its differences from the traditional. He comments that “at a time of great public concern about the supposed decline of marriage, it’s remarkably high.” This is a very interesting point. There does seem to be a societal idea that marriage is on a decline, but then why are so many people still getting married? I will say that the nearly 50 percent divorce rate is alarming and detrimental to marriage as an institution, but why are the marriage rates still so high? Cherlin believes that it is due to a mixture of American individualism and the prestige of marriage. He writes that “the rewards of marriage are more individualized now. Being married is less of a social role and more of an individual achievement – a symbol of successful self-development.”
More and more often people want to get ready for marriage, as if it is an end (or goal) of living and not a means of living. One indicator of this for Cherlin is economic stability. At one point in time, American marriage was structured as a provider-caregiver model, in which one would financially support the family, thus leaving the other free to perform duties necessary for a household. However now, Cherline writes, “couples are deferring until they have a firm economic base,” before they get married. Cherlin cites some research to back this up, namely a 2002 Toledo study of in-depth interviews. The research found that “many of them [the interviewees] did not want to marry until they had an economic package in place that often included homeownership, being out of debt, and having a stable, adequate family income.” This is strange, again because of the traditional provider-caregiver model, which was a means for financial stability. One person secured the finances while the other secured the household. But now it seems that individuals want to secure themselves on their own, or feel as if they must do so as a pre-requisite before getting married. I would think that more people would see marriage as means for achieving this financial stability, especially with the dual incomes that many modern American families now have. But rather, many people see marriage as an end of financial stability, a marker of success for their individual lives.
Another way in which Cherlin identifies the prestige of marriage in American culture is in the wedding ceremony. Traditionally, the respective parents of the Bride and the Groom would pay for the ceremony costs and the reception costs respectively. But now, more and more individuals opt to provide for their own wedding ceremony. This many because as people get married older and older and delay the age at which they get married, their parents are less and less involved in their personal lives. At that point in time, the individuals are also able to better support themselves, especially financially. But as a manner of prestige, Cherlin writes that “Through wedding ceremonies, individuals hoped to display their attainment of prestigious, comfortable, stable style of life.” This seems more like a retirement plan, as people fear to die alone, but it is interesting to note the way in which the view point of marriage has changed, from a means to an end.
The Garden of Eden: The Original Society of Adam and Eve
Locke describes original humanity as savage, broken and scavenging in the state of nature where we are left alone. However, the Christian origin story describes a much different beginning. Instead of being created alone, God created Eve to be with Adam, a partner, another half to make Adam whole. (Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.") And instead of being left to scavenge for what they need to survive, they are provided with everything they need in Paradise. Paradise is originally defined as a plentiful garden, and the Garden of Eden was just that. (Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.)
However, Adam and Eve give up this Paradise; they defy their God and creator, and thus become broken and alone in this world left to scavenge for their own needs (Genesis 3:23 therefor the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken). This savage state of nature is a result of our own sin and not what we were created for. Man was created as a complete whole for the purpose of reflecting that of God's image (Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him), on earth as it is in Heaven. Man was to multiple, creating new life, and fill the earth so as to live abundantly. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were of one flesh (Genesis 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh) and a reflection of God designed to birth new life in God's image.
One interesting point to mention about the union of Adam and Eve, a point that is often omitted from many wedding ceremonies, is the responsibilities that God gives to each of them (man and woman). In Genesis 3:16 reads: “To the women he [God] said, ‘I will surly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for you husband, and he shall rule over you.” It is very interesting that this is omitted from many Christian weddings. It is very plainly stated in the book of Genesis that a women’s husband shall rule over her. One of two things has happened here: either people have forgotten this passage, or people are purposefully ignoring this passage. The passage is very plain, but it is being ignored. In the Western world it seems obvious that it is ignored because people do want to submit to another, as it insinuates a type of bondage and control over them. It is interesting to note that this charge by God is given to Eve after the deception of the serpent. It does not seem that this charge was to be given to Eve otherwise. Based on the events listed in Genesis, it seems that this charge is given in response to Eve being deceived by the serpent. Genesis 3:13 writes: “‘Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’“ Taken in context of events, it seems that this charge of rule is a punishment for Eve, but does it apply to all women, that they shall be ruled by men? First, let me say that it is written that in this passage God gave rule to the Husband figure, not the man, but rather the husband.
Being that this charge is a punishment to Eve for being deceived, and that a punishment without a purpose of correction is useless, I believe that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that this charge is for placing the husband in a protection role for the woman. This is not to say that the woman becomes a slave to the man, but rather that he is charged with her care. An example of an instance in which one is put in charge of another’s care without being over them is the example of a body guard. The bodyguard’s authority is paramount for the purpose of protection. The bodyguard is not in a place of complete power, but is rather charged with a responsibility. With that responsibility, authority is needed.
It is also important to note the manner in which God lays out the punishment to Eve. Preceding the punishment of desiring her husband and being ruled by him, God says that he will “surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring fourth children” (Genesis 3:16). If this charge is to be taken in order, in which the structure of the charge is important for the individual parts of the charge, then it seems that the pain of childbearing would be important to the charge of desire and being ruled. Let us consider what Jean-Jacques Rousseau says on the reason for which men rule. In his Discourse on Political Economy he writes, “however lightly we may regard the disadvantages peculiar to women, yet, as they necessarily occasion intervals of inaction, this is a sufficient reason for excluding them from this supreme authority: for when the balance is perfectly even, a straw is enough to turn the scale.” If women are to be pregnant for nine months a time, they cannot at that time rule. It is not that women are incapable of ruling, or that they are to be slaves of men or their husbands. But it is rather that man is not subject to a natural (and temporary) incapacitation of pregnancy.
Going back to the original charge to Eve, it seems reasonable to say that the second part of the charge, to desire and to be ruled, is directly related to and stemming from the first part, painful childbearing. If childbearing were not to be painful, then it would not produce any inaction. This is not to say that man is a superior creature because of women’s temporary inaction, but rather it is important to understand the basis for which man has been placed in this position. Husband as head of the household is not a position of power, but a position of responsibility. And with such responsibility is required sufficient authority to carry out such responsibilities.
[Continue to "Eve and Adam's need for a "fit" helper"]
However, Adam and Eve give up this Paradise; they defy their God and creator, and thus become broken and alone in this world left to scavenge for their own needs (Genesis 3:23 therefor the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken). This savage state of nature is a result of our own sin and not what we were created for. Man was created as a complete whole for the purpose of reflecting that of God's image (Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him), on earth as it is in Heaven. Man was to multiple, creating new life, and fill the earth so as to live abundantly. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were of one flesh (Genesis 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh) and a reflection of God designed to birth new life in God's image.
One interesting point to mention about the union of Adam and Eve, a point that is often omitted from many wedding ceremonies, is the responsibilities that God gives to each of them (man and woman). In Genesis 3:16 reads: “To the women he [God] said, ‘I will surly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for you husband, and he shall rule over you.” It is very interesting that this is omitted from many Christian weddings. It is very plainly stated in the book of Genesis that a women’s husband shall rule over her. One of two things has happened here: either people have forgotten this passage, or people are purposefully ignoring this passage. The passage is very plain, but it is being ignored. In the Western world it seems obvious that it is ignored because people do want to submit to another, as it insinuates a type of bondage and control over them. It is interesting to note that this charge by God is given to Eve after the deception of the serpent. It does not seem that this charge was to be given to Eve otherwise. Based on the events listed in Genesis, it seems that this charge is given in response to Eve being deceived by the serpent. Genesis 3:13 writes: “‘Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’“ Taken in context of events, it seems that this charge of rule is a punishment for Eve, but does it apply to all women, that they shall be ruled by men? First, let me say that it is written that in this passage God gave rule to the Husband figure, not the man, but rather the husband.
Being that this charge is a punishment to Eve for being deceived, and that a punishment without a purpose of correction is useless, I believe that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that this charge is for placing the husband in a protection role for the woman. This is not to say that the woman becomes a slave to the man, but rather that he is charged with her care. An example of an instance in which one is put in charge of another’s care without being over them is the example of a body guard. The bodyguard’s authority is paramount for the purpose of protection. The bodyguard is not in a place of complete power, but is rather charged with a responsibility. With that responsibility, authority is needed.
It is also important to note the manner in which God lays out the punishment to Eve. Preceding the punishment of desiring her husband and being ruled by him, God says that he will “surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring fourth children” (Genesis 3:16). If this charge is to be taken in order, in which the structure of the charge is important for the individual parts of the charge, then it seems that the pain of childbearing would be important to the charge of desire and being ruled. Let us consider what Jean-Jacques Rousseau says on the reason for which men rule. In his Discourse on Political Economy he writes, “however lightly we may regard the disadvantages peculiar to women, yet, as they necessarily occasion intervals of inaction, this is a sufficient reason for excluding them from this supreme authority: for when the balance is perfectly even, a straw is enough to turn the scale.” If women are to be pregnant for nine months a time, they cannot at that time rule. It is not that women are incapable of ruling, or that they are to be slaves of men or their husbands. But it is rather that man is not subject to a natural (and temporary) incapacitation of pregnancy.
Going back to the original charge to Eve, it seems reasonable to say that the second part of the charge, to desire and to be ruled, is directly related to and stemming from the first part, painful childbearing. If childbearing were not to be painful, then it would not produce any inaction. This is not to say that man is a superior creature because of women’s temporary inaction, but rather it is important to understand the basis for which man has been placed in this position. Husband as head of the household is not a position of power, but a position of responsibility. And with such responsibility is required sufficient authority to carry out such responsibilities.
[Continue to "Eve and Adam's need for a "fit" helper"]
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Divorce in "The Closing of the American Mind", by Allan Bloom
In his section on Divorce, Allan Bloom states that "in the past, such breaking away [Divorce] was sometimes necessary but always morally problematic" (119), and he continues with saying that "today [divorce] is normal" (119). Noting the normalcy of Divorce, or rather I would say frequency, Bloom questions what it means for the children, as they are the effected third party of Divorce. Bloom writes that “children may be told over and over again that their parents have a right to their own lives, that they will enjoy quality time instead of quantity time, that they are really loved by their parents even after the divorce, but children do not believe any of this” (119). In such a situation, children are having a reality altering experience; divorce will surely change the way they view family. Bloom writes that “the important lesson that the family taught was the existence of the only unbreakable bond, for better or for worse, between human beings” (119). With this view no longer valid, what will the children believe? What was once the inly unbreakable bond is now broken. Bloom comments that “the decomposition of this bond is surely America's most urgent social problem” (119). With a fifty percent divorce rate, this must surely be true. Especially if the children are to be the future, how is this present time affecting them? In the case that divorce is a subject of freeing one's will from the others, Bloom comments that “children learn a fear of enslavement to the wills of others” (119). This surely cannot be good for society; the irrational fear of enslavement if will puts us back into a fear like that of the state of nature, no longer part of society, but lost and fending for ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)