It is independent of happiness; it is beholden to no emotion. Marriage is a privilege bestowed by society on whomever, and however, it legislates. Ultimately, a marriage serves no greater purpose -- and has no greater measure of success -- than the children it produces.
Think of marriage as a glass bowl. It will hold water. It will hold wine. It will hold acid -- effortlessly. Whether it is filled with convenience, love or desperation, marriage itself remains intact.
The bowl is filled with whatever the parents bring to the marriage -- namely, themselves -- and it is the child who drinks from this bowl who suffers the consequences. Therefore, such a union must be vetted by the wisest of emotional gastronomes (to continue the libation metaphor).
An article published by The Witherspoon Institute and reprinted on the Family Research Council's Web site iterates this sentiment less poetically, albeit, more poignantly: "Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms."
It is these "emotional terms" that complicate and obfuscate the deepest purpose of marriage. That is, creating a safe, secure and emotionally simple environment where a child's needs are fulfilled. (Simplicity being a function of a child's natural predilections.)
Princeton University sociologist Sara McLanahan, in her book "Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps," co-written with Gary Sandefur, addresses the biological foundation: "If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child."
But what are the specific benefits of having two biological parents? According to the Witherspoon article, "mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants.
Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence." This information was taken from research published by psychologist Eleanor MacCoby of Stanford University.
This isn't a treatise against adoption, as it might appear. No, adoption is one of the greatest acts of selfless love a human being can engage in. This is neither meant to decry single-parenthood.
The impetus for addressing the above is California's Proposition Eight: the proposition to amend California's constitution to define marriage as an act between a man and a woman and the frustration of having the democratic process subverted. This proposition, and any others like it, must be passed and they must be passed democratically.
You might be interested in...- Letter: Legal marriage should come separate from religion
- Letter: Marriage has come to be more than merely a religious institution
- Letter: Vote 'No' on Proposition 8
