Yes, There Is Hope for the American Marriage

A few weeks ago, Caitlin Flanagan wrote a cover story for Time magazine titled "Is There Hope for the American Marriage?" The question seemed to be prompted by recent high-profile acts of infidelity. The article turned out to be somewhat bleak but at the same time refreshingly respectful of marriage and its importance in society.

Take for example this excerpt from the end of the article:

"The fundamental question we must ask ourselves at the beginning of the century is this: What is the purpose of marriage? Is it--given the game-changing realities of birth control, female equality and the fact that motherhood outside of marriage is no longer stigmatized--simply an institution that has the capacity to increase the pleasure of the adults who enter into it? If so, we might as well hold the wake now: there probably aren't many people whose idea of 24-hour-a-day good times consists of being yoked to the same romantic partner, through bouts of stomach flu and depression, financial setbacks and emotional upsets, until after many a long decade, one or the other eventually dies in the harness.

"Or is marriage an institution that still hews to its old intention and function--to raise the next generation, to protect and teach it, to instill in it the habits fo conduct and character that will ensure the generation's own safe passage into adulthood? Think of it this way: the current generation of children, the one watching commitments between adults snap like dry twigs and observing parents who simply can't be bothered to marry each other and who hence drift in and out of their children's lives--that's the generation who will be taking care of us when we are old.

"Who is left to ensure that these kids grow up into estimable people once the Mark Sanfords and other marital frauds and casual sadists have jumped ship? The good among us, the ones who are willing to sacrifice the thrill of a love letter for the betterment of their children."

In other words, do it for the kids!?

Is that answer satisfying to you?

I respect Flanagan's defense of marriage in the name of setting a good example for the next generation, making the world a better place, and so on. And I agree that children are the real victims of divorce. But there's more to it than that!

Do married people really think to themselves, "I'd kind of like to pursue some other romantic interests right now, but I can't stop thinking about the cumulative effect that would have on society for generations to come. And besides, if I leave my family now, who will pay for my assisted living when I'm 80?"

There's a piece missing here. If the betterment of children is the main purpose for marriage, then what about all those couples who can't have children? Or what about the couples whose children have grown? If marriage is just a practical institution for raising children--the best we've come up with so far--then why stay married after it has served that purpose?

Part of the reason, I think, is those "bouts of stomach flu and depression, financial setbacks and emotional upsets." I think if we really understood love, all those things would bind us together rather than drive us to someone else. "Love is what you go through together" (“Thurber,” Life, Mar. 14, 1960, 108), and at least part of the purpose of marriage is to teach us how to love.

Why marry? To learn how to give yourself to someone else. To put your life completely into someone else's hands and take someone's else's life completely into yours. Is that risky? Yeah, but when it works, nothing else in life is so richly rewarding. The alternative is to stay inside your selfish shell forever.

After reading this Time article, I can see what Elder David A. Bednar meant when he said that marriage really makes sense only in the context of God's eternal plan for His children.

Now compare Ms. Flanagan's noble but incomplete case for marriage with this personal story from former BYU president Rex Lee and his wife, Janet:

Rex: "Those of you who have spent any time in a hospital know how much fun it is. During those four months [while battling cancer that eventually took his life], I had no choice. I had to stay there. But day after day, Janet was there also, not just part of the time, not just in the morning or afternoon, but all day. I would tell her, 'Look, I can't leave this place. But you can. I'll be fine without you for a morning, an afternoon, or even a day. Get out of here and preserve your own sanity. Go see your friends. Go sightseeing. Go to the park. Go anywhere. I certainly would if I could.' And friends would call, inviting her to go places. She usually found ways to turn them down. Occasionally she went, at their insistence and mine. When she got back, she would invariably tell me she had felt uncomfortable all the time she was away.
"At first I thought that was positively weird. And then I began to realize: This was no put-on. She wasn't just trying to make me feel good. As astounding as it was to me, Janet really preferred to be there in that miserable hospital with me. My life, and every aspect of my welfare and happiness, were just as important to her as they were to me. And that, my friends, is love. ..."
Janet: "He was completely bald, his face was swollen from medication, and he had lost over twenty-five pounds. He looked like an old man in his feeble attempts to walk. His shoulders slumped, and he shuffled his feet as he slowly pushed his I.V. pole trying to get in a few minutes of daily exercise. ... As I sat by the bedside of someone who barely resembled my husband, I knew that I loved him more completely than I had ever loved before."

Janet Lee gets it. That's why we get married, and that's why we stay married. If we can learn what Janet learned about love, then I believe there is hope for the American marriage.