There was a time not so long ago when divorce was whispered and co-habitation without 'benefit' of marriage was not openly discussed. Then something happened. The sexual revolution? Women's liberation? The 'me' generation? Whatever the cause, it is just as likely a couple marrying today will by 2016 have a divorce as receive a tenth anniversary card.
This transition was aided by legislation and social expectations being amended to ensure that life goes on without penalty to those who choose to divorce or live together outside of marriage. No one can refuse to rent or sell you a home simply because you are not married. You cannot be deemed unworthy of credit after a divorce for that reason alone. We cannot judge or question, we must accept it and go on, barely daring to speak of it in a negative light even to the children we are raising.
If divorce were more difficult to obtain, perhaps we would give more thought to marriage, and more of ourselves to making the relationship work. If open fornication and adultery were penalized, perhaps fewer would partake. No, not everyone would be turned back, but many would, and our nation would not be further down the slippery slope of immorality that so troubles many social conservatives.
This is the way in which some might justify support of laws to make marriage only between one man and one woman. It seems that most of us, by our gender, are designed as women to bear and nurture children, and as men to support and rear them. The two together have done far better historically than either separately or doubled. Legitimatizing yet another alternative lifestyle, providing all benefits and removing all detriments, will result in more families taking a form that has proven less beneficial to our children and society as a whole than the traditional model has been.
Therefore, while it is correct to say that gay marriage will not threaten the validity of marriage for any traditional couple wed, it is not true that such unions being legal and open will not threaten the next generations. It may be that not everyone can attain the optimal, traditional family. I have failed to hold that together myself. Yet, I do not resent that ideal being held before me and have put it before my children with full confession of my failings so that they and their offspring might reach for it.
Continuing to lower the standard will tell them it is o.k. to settle for less, that they deserve no better and should not be motivated to strive for it. That is a message I am not quite ready to send to my children and grandchildren. I will encourage them to save their virtue for the wedding night, both sons and daughters. I will urge them to have traditional families with several children and to cling to the better half through thick and thin. Should they fall short of this ideal, I will love and cherish them no less, but for their best I want them to strive for it because if they do not aim for the absolute best, they will not stand a chance of finding it.
Those who choose to live outside the better framework for whatever reason should accept any hardship that comes of it for the benefit of the majority. I live with my own. As a single parent -- as a single woman -- much was lost by not choosing to remain married. That should not be made easier. There needed to be something for me to consider before taking that step and something to be sensed as lost when sharing the experience with others so that they might be saved the heartbreak and difficulty I have known. Our laws and social interactions should encourage the better choices for our children and grandchildren, not give license and convenience to whatever choice one makes.
