Here's today's Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:
When asked, most Americans would put cows before vows. Marriage vows to be exact. According to a new Gallup poll, a majority of people think that animal testing is more unethical than divorce. Divorce topped gambling, cloning, and premarital sex as the most tolerable act. Sixty-five percent said divorce was “morally acceptable” while only 58 percent said the same about buying fur. In other words, dissolving your marriage is less important than what you wear to divorce court. Of course, if the country can’t understand the importance of marriage, how can we fight to preserve it? For years, there’s been resistance to legislation that helps couples keep their commitments. Last week, when Texas passed a law that doubled the price of a marriage license to $60 for couples who don’t have premarital counseling, some people were outraged. “It’s none of the government’s business,” said one. Well, frankly, it is the government’s business—particularly when the cultural and social cost of divorce far outweighs the licensing fee. Taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for family breakdown by fighting poverty and juvenile delinquency. The bottom line: marriage matters.
To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. For an e-mail subscription to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.
Comments (1)
"For years, there’s been resistance to legislation that helps couples keep their commitments."
If they are committed, legislation is unneeded - they will stay together.
If they are not committed, trying to use legislation to keep them together is probably not going to turn out very well.
Possibly the average duration of marriage could be increased and the breakup rate decreased by raising the barrier to entry to ensure that only the really committed marry - filter out all the spur-of-the-moment decisions and any flash-in-the-pan relationships. Perhaps put in a six-month waiting period between application and licence? If the relationship cant last six months, its not going to be worth marriage.
But this would have the side-effect of creating vastly more unmarried couples, and I think the FRC would have similar objections to that.
Gay marriage would have the effect of... hmm. Nothing, I think. I find it very unlikely that the number of homosexual married couples could be a large enough proportion of total marriages to be statisticly significent. Nor do I see how allowing gay marriage could have any effect on heterosexual marriages. So its really a non-issue, when discussing statistical trends.
June 13, 2007 2:34 PM | Comment Permalink