The word “deconstruction” was not in the vocabulary of G. K. Chesterton. When he observed how easier divorce was eroding the bond of matrimony in his time, his language was more poetic. He noted that “the marble had turned to ice, and the ice has melted with most amazing rapidity”. He could have not been more prophetic, for he understood how the wedge of divorce would continue its work and reduce marriage to shreds. “They ought to know,” he wrote, referring to the advocates of divorce, “that the foe now on the frontiers offers no terms of compromise; but threatens a complete destruction.” “Deconstruction” may be more trendy in today’s world, but “destruction” has retained its accuracy.
In a landmark decision, to inaugurate the brave new world of 2014, a Manhattan judge has given a couple, who are merely friends, the green light to become legal co-parents of an adopted child. This decision may be precedent-setting and allow the floodgates to open for no end of unmarried “friends” to adopt children. This decision, however, may represent society’s growing disregard for the nature and significance of marriage. If a couple disdains marriage and the commitment that that institution demands, is it reasonable to expect that they will remain committed to a child? Moreover, if there is a growing pool of “friends” who are legally permitted to adopt, inevitably, the pool of
adoptable children for married couples seeking adoption will diminish. Surely the interest of the child must be taken more seriously.
Marriage has continued to unravel since G. K. Chesterton made his stark observation. Contraception separated husband from wife procreatively. Divorce, and ultimately “no-fault” divorce, separated them legally. “No-responsibility” divorce separated them morally. Abortion separated the married couple from offspring. The so-called “open-marriage” dispensed with fidelity. Same-sex” marriages” meant that the complementarity between husband and wife meant nothing. What is now left of marriage? Has it become virtually obsolete? One Canadian philosopher thinks so by asserting that “Marriage is an archaic institution that has lost its moral force. But if we wish to provide a healthy, loving environment in which to reproduce our species, we’d better think up something quick to replace it.” His disqualification of a loving married couple as providing a suitable environment for raising children may be a bit precipitous.
Mary Ann Glendon’s study, Abortion and Divorce in Western Law shows how divorce and abortion can erode marriage. But she is particularly concerned about how the “rights” of the couple take precedence over the interests of the child. American divorce law in practice,” she writes, “seems to be saying to parents, especially mothers, that it is not safe to devote oneself primarily or exclusively to raising children.” For Professor Glendon, the American story about marriage, as told in law, suggests that marriage exists primarily for the fulfillment of the individual spouses. American law has weighed in heavily on the side of individual self-fulfillment and, correspondingly, neglected the best interest of the child. Dr. Glendon urges that when minor children are involved, “A ‘children first’ principle should govern all such divorces.”
“Like” Truth and Charity Forum on Facebook!
The disregard for the child was made spectacularly evident in England a few years ago when a homosexual health worker was artificially inseminated with the sperm of a homosexual friend. She and her lesbian partner planned to share parental duties with the sperm donor and his homosexual friend. Thus, the child would be raised by four co-parents with the benefit of the stability that a good marriage would afford. Cornelia Oddie, deputy director of Family Youth Concern sharply criticized this arrangement: “The child should not be used to make a political point. The child’s rights must
come first. The child has the right to two parents, a mother and a father. They both make a different contribution to the life of a child and to deliberately deny the child those benefits is wrong.”
It will not be easy, on a societal level, to return the melting ice to its former status as solid marble. Marriage has undergone radical deconstruction not because the institution is inherently deficient, but because people have come to view it largely in terms of self-fulfillment and personal convenience. Children do not always fit into this context. In fact, in certain circles, they seem to be not only unwanted, but an aberration. As Ellen Peck, author of The Baby Trap, has stated, with a thoroughly up-to-date male in mind, “I married a lovely, sexy girl – then she turned into someone’s mother.” We need to return to a vision in which marriage and the family are unitary.
Dr. Donald DeMarco is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, CT, and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His latest works, How to Remain Sane in a World That is Going Mad and Poetry That Enters the Mind and Warms the Heart are available through Amazon.com.
Articles by Don:
- From Debate to Mockery
- Clarity in a Time of Chaos
- In Defense of Duty
- Plan One From Outer Space
- Who Are the Barbarians?
