Challenges to Marriage

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my thoughts and beliefs are unavoidably shaped by my understanding of God and morality, as taught in my religion, and I believe that the teachings of the LDS church are completely true. That being said, I cannot address challenges to marriage without sharing my understanding of what marriage really means.

In the first chapter of Genesis, an account is given of the creation of the world. Verses 27-28 talk about the creation of man and woman: “So God created man in his own image… male and female created he them. / … God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…”

In Genesis 2:18, Eve is created as “an help meet for [Adam]”. The connection between husband and wife is further clarified in verse 27: “Therefore shall a man… cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

What do these scriptures tell us about the nature of mankind? We are created after God’s image. Men and women are distinct. Men and women are created to help one another, in ways that only the different sexes can. One of those experiences that can only be brought about by a man and a woman is the creation of life through procreation. The marriage of a man and a woman is sanctified by God.

The leaders of the LDS church added further insight in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” when they said, “Marriage between man and woman is essential to [God’s] eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” Because we know that men and women are distinct in their design, and that marriage between a man and a woman is the pattern set by God Himself, it stands to reason that children brought into this world deserve every possibility of being raised in a stable home by a loving father and mother.

However, this understanding of marriage, now called “traditional marriage”, is under attack by societies that are quite literally products of such marriages. On June 26, 2015, following several decades of debate and strong public opinions both in favor of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage and of changing it to include same-sex couples, the Supreme Court decided by a bare majority to change the definition of marriage, despite the fact that the people of 32 out of 35 states had voted to retain the original definition of marriage. 

Chief Justice John Roberts was disturbed by the dramatic change enacted by a handful of men: “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.” The public sentiment of granting same-sex couples “dignity” through marriage (although dignity and value are intrinsic, not given) overlooks the basic premise and purpose of marriage, which John Roberts explained: “[Marriage] arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court (dissenting) explained, “The long-term consequences of this change are not now known and are unlikely to be ascertainable for some time to come.” Perhaps more ominous than the acceptance of a lifestyle that, until 15 years ago, was condemned in every society, is the harm the decision may do to the  freedom of religion. John Roberts noted, “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

In summary, the decision of the Supreme Court robbed the American people of the right to choose for themselves through democratic process, flies in the face of millennia of society, is at best, a hasty decision, and at worst, could prove to infringe upon the freedom of religion and the very fabric of family and society. 

While I in no way condone any injustice committed against those who experience same-sex attraction, neither can I condone changing the definition of marriage so abruptly, and without true democratic process. 

Sources:

Hinckley, G. B. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng.

The Holy Bible, King James Version

Obergefell v Hodges (June 6, 2015).

Divorce and Children

The research on divorce, both its prevalence and the effect it has on children, is as plentiful as it is emotionally charged. Paul Amato addresses these issues in The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-being of the Next Generation, saying, “Children are the innocent victims of their parents’ inability to maintain harmonious and stable homes” (90). My husband and I are coming up on our third anniversary, so by no means do I profess to be an expert on either marriage or divorce, but I can say that I have a strong belief that marriage is sacred, not only as a means of joining a loving man and wife together, but as the basis of a safe, nurturing place to raise children.

Hard logic and extensive research highlights the negative effects of divorce on children. Amato used meta-analysis to sift through decades of data and research to shed light on the impact of divorce. He found that children of divorced parents are at increased risk of behavioral, emotional, and academic problems (76). He also found that these children are also at increased risk of divorce, noting the modest, positive correlation between divorced parents and children who struggle with self-esteem, peer relationships, and demonstrate weaker bonds with their parents (77-78). Although children who lose a parent through death are more likely than children of divorced parents to experience depression into adulthood, they were also more likely to score higher on other outcomes (79-80). 

Does this mean that divorce is never more positive than a conflictual marriage? In high-conflict marriages, children seem to fare about the same as children from divorced families: however, the majority of marriages ending in divorce are low-conflict (80). In such cases, divorce is likely more harmful than remaining in a low-conflict marriage. This concept is reinforced by Elder James E. Faust’s counsel on what does and does not constitute grounds for divorce. According to his talk, “Father Come Home”, it should be “nothing less serious than a prolonged and irredeemable relationship which is destructive to the person’s dignity as a human being.” Faust said that differences in personality, drifting apart, or falling out of love are not justifiable reasons for divorce. In a similar strain, Elder Dallin H. Oaks conceded that for irreparable marriages, it is important to have a way to end it. However, he admonished in the same talk, “Divorce”, “I strongly urge you and those who advise you to face up to the reality that for most marriage problems, the remedy is not divorce but repentance.” Sadly, the creators of “The State of Our Unions” estimate that 40-50% of marriages today will end in divorce (Marquardt, et. al, pg. 1).

With all of the negative impacts divorce brings upon innocent children, great care should be taken to nurture marriages so children can grow up in happy, safe, and stable homes. Elder Oaks said, “Because divorce separates the interests of children from the interests of their parents, children are its first victims.” Unfortunately, modern society has become less child-centric, with interests of children moving from the spotlight onto the sidelines (Marquardt, et. al, pg. 84, 86). In fact, the “presence of a child only slightly inhibits likelihood of divorce” (88).

There is overwhelming evidence that divorce and broken homes are detrimental to the development of the children affected by them. Marriages are not meant to be entered into and left on a whim, but to be protected and nurtured, not only for the couple, but for the children they raise; children who are the future.

Amato, P. (2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional
well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15(2), 75-96.

Faust, J. E. (May 1993). "Father, Come Home," Ensign.

Marquardt E., Blankenhorn D., Lerman R.I., Malone-Colón L., and Wilcox W.B., “The
President’s Marriage Agenda for the Forgotten Sixty Percent,” The State of Our Unions(Charlottesville, VA: National Marriage Project and Institute for American Values, 2012).
Oaks, D.H. (May 2007). “Divorce.” Ensign.

Introductions

Hello, I'm Kirsten, and I'm passionate about marriage and families. I am the youngest of nine children, and now a wife, and a mother to a beautiful daughter. I cannot claim to be an expert, or to have more experience than most, but I am dedicated to share what I learn about marriage and family here, and I hope it will be helpful to some. I will be sharing quotes from scripture and from leaders of The Chrch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because my beliefs are inescapably connected to the doctrine of the "Mormon" church. I believe there is wisdom in their words, and trust you will find it whether you share my beliefs or not. Let's get started!