Homosexual Marriage: Only Ourselves to Blame

by Bryce J. Christenson on March 14, 2012 · 3 comments

Still, for all of its monitory clarity about what could happen, Sorokin’s parking-space metaphor need have been nothing more than hyperbole. The average American family of the 50s and 60s resisted in significant ways the economic pressures undermining the home economy that had traditionally reinforced marriage. Though it had surrendered much, the American family still retained a significant core of its traditional autonomy and self-reliance.

Lamentably, America’s cultural and political elite—none of whom were activists promoting homosexual marriage—chose to subvert rather than renew marriage, not by advocating new rights for gays and lesbians, but simply by acquiescing to the economic processes tearing apart the traditional home economy.

After decades of such acquiescence, poet Wendell Berry could in 1990 fairly characterize the “typical modern household” created by a married heterosexual couple as something very like the “mere incidental parking place” which Sorokin had worriedly anticipated decades before—with exceedingly malign consequences for marriage.

“The modern household, [Berry writes] is the place where [a] consumptive couple do their consuming. Nothing productive is done there. Such work as is done there is done at the expense of the resident couple or family, and to the profit of suppliers of energy and household technology. For entertainment, the inmates consume television or purchase other consumable diversion elsewhere.”

The religious slide

But the assault on wedlock during the 60s and 70s reflected cultural forces deeper than economics, cultural forces at work long before homosexuals began their strange parade to the wedding altar. Although its immediate effects remained confined to a relatively small elite, the intellectual atheism which historian James Turner sees emerging for the first time in the United States in the late 19th century had become by the mid-20th century a relatively potent force, one that “dis-integrated” our national culture by denying religious belief its traditional function as “a unifying and defining element of that culture.”

Even among Americans who continued to go to church, sociologists witnessed the emergence of dubious new religious attitudes in the post-60s (but pre-homosexual-marriage) world. Pollster George Gallup reported in the 80s that many Americans who professed religious beliefs were beginning to “dodge the responsibilities and obligations” traditionally associated with such beliefs. Post-60s sociological inquiry indeed revealed that those still filling the pews were increasingly inclined to interpret “their religious commitments and beliefs in individualistic terms and less in terms of institutional loyalty and obligation”. Even American Catholics—previously distinctive for their deference to hierarchy and tradition—became “more personally autonomous and less subject to traditional mechanisms of social control.”

Because so much of the traditional understanding of marriage rested upon religious doctrines, eroding popular commitments to those doctrines could only undermine marriage and family life. Sociologists predictably see a close linkage between declining church attendance among young Americans and a rising willingness to engage in premarital sex.

Young women eagerly availed themselves of the Pill in the 60s and 70s largely because they were simultaneously letting go of the New Testament. Whereas only 29 percent of college age females reported having had premarital intercourse in 1965, that percentage had skyrocketed to 63 percent by 1985. In the post-60s world, young Americans were clearly taking their behavioural cues from someone other than St Paul.

Thus many heterosexual couples had made a bad cultural joke of the traditional symbolism of the white wedding dress long before homosexuals tried to make optional a wedding dress of any sort.

Even when heterosexual couples did wed, an increasing number did so unencumbered by the scriptural prohibition against adultery: in a 1983 survey of over 3500 couples, 15-26 percent allowed for “non-monogamy under some circumstances,” while a parallel 1989 British study of married adults found that “of those surveyed under age 35, over one fifth (22 percent) entered their first marriage with no belief in sexual fidelity.”

In 1991, British sociologist Paul Mullen warned that adultery was fast becoming “a participation sport indulged in by the masses,” as “citizens increasingly assume the right to change and vary their erotic attachments.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

  • Hey

    You can applaud the changes, you can go with the changes and even benefit from them, or you can sit and cry and lament them, but you will never essentially reverse them. The river always flows just in one direction, whether you like it or not. Marriage is one of the institutions, and like all others, it is changing and will continue to change. The problem with America is that while it once was the champion of progress and positive change, it has not take a backseat, and sometimes looks like it’s paddling against the current.

  • Harold Fickett

    This is one of the strongest pieces of analysis we’ve published here at Catholic Exchange.  Unlike the commentator, “Hey,” I believe that if we understand the several forces redefining marriage long before the advent of homosexual marriage, we can reclaim marriage in its true character.  This will certainly mean more and more Catholic couples choosing to live in a deliberately counter-cultural way, and that’s happening through the comeback of large families and home schooling.  Two of our bloggers, Cari Donaldson and Dwija Borobia, are part of this movement, as they live (and write) in dramatic opposition to marriage-as-a-benefits-package. 

    The author’s emphasis on the economic forces that have torn traditional marriage apart is crucial; it’s also something that even the conservative Catholic press shies away from because of its reluctance to advance any criticism against a free-market system.  Sadly, the practical necessity–or what appears to be the necessity–for  most of having two outside-the-home incomes does more damage, I imagine, to traditional marriage than any other factor, and railing against the behavior this promotes while leaving unaddressed the root cause vitiates the authority of traditional marriage’s defenders.  People think, “How are we ever going to live like that?” Since there are so few good options, they ignore the biblical charge “to be fruitful and multiply” and budget their commitment to the family, as all of life becomes a cost-benefit analysis. 

    Let’s do something really interesting here at Catholic Exchange and think how young Catholic couples and the rest of us can participate in the invention of a new family-friendly economy that will allow traditional marriages to flourish.  We ought to have special editions devoted to ways in which Catholic couples can have a home-centered economy, particularly in non-agrarian settings.  The family farm makes home-centered economies natural, but only so many can go back to the country, albeit I’ve seen this done successfully and in a heroic way, especially around Clear Creek Monastery in northeastern Oklahoma.  In order for Catholics to supply the counter-cultural witness that’s needed (and which they themselves would benefit from), many more non-agrarian options need to be invented and replicated. 

  • Sueshaw17

    This entire article would have made more sense if “homosexuality” was left out. It’s as if  the author is trying to get two points across at the same time and it gets a little confusing for my simple mind. No we do not live in the times of Ozzie and Harriet, things are getting crazy in this world. I am not a homosexual but have many friends who are and are married. Although that lifestyle is not my own, I try with my heart to understand what they must be going through. I do not believe that true homosexuality is a choice. Although I have met many educated, professional people that do. This thinking, in my opinion, immediately removes all intelligence from them. None of us are God, and if God is love, then He loves them as well. It is not our job to try and figure out what God thinks about good loving people. Most of the homosexual people I am in touch with are professional, upstanding citizens. This article makes me feel as if “these people” are worthless souls and are damned to hell. As a christian, I don’t buy it. People pick and choose what they want the Bible to say to make it work for them. It’s sickening. Marriage in itself, I agree, is not what it should be, I think about that fact a lot. People are not willing to make the commitments it takes to keep a marriage together. All these values come from the home. So sad most homes are in a state of chaos. Thanks for listening, Sue.