A Mormon’s Case for Traditional Marriage In their recent ruling to give homosexuals-sexualls the right to marry, the Supreme Court has essentially redefined marriage to mean, “a two-person union.”1 .Many may wonder why it is that, of those who do get married, more than half get divorced, for both LDS and non-LDS couples. 2 In marriage, which is the “most important association you will ever have in time and eternity,”,, why is it that, more often than not, it ends in divorce?3 It is because, in the eyes of the law and otherwise, there has been a fragmentation of marriage. This fragmented view of marriage has fundamentally altered the way that couples approach their marriage relationship, which in turn has degraded the quality and duration of marriage. Therefore, rather than accepting the ever-changing definiiniftion of marriage as definied by society, it is essential that we return to the traditional definition of marriage which we have seen historically. Traditionally, marriage was looked at as something that was “more than something personal—it [was] a status, an office.” 4 In it’stheir recent ruling, the Supreme Court said itself that marriage has a certain “status and dignity” and has, “no doubt...been thought of by most people as essential to…civilization.” They went on to say that, “nNo union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”5 Historically, marriage was the social norm, and people got married knowing that there would be no going back. In his first American dictionary, Webster went so far as to define marriage as, “the legal union of a man and woman for life.”6 There was no separate bank account, no personal storage unit, and no “safety net”. Indeed, until recently, the concept of a prenuptiual agreement did not exist, but it has become a reality as couples plan and prepare for divorce before marriage. Whereas traditionally there was total union, today there are contingency plans. Traditional marriage is a life-timelifetime committment where the couple promises that, come what may, they are a team. Yet the practice of premarital cohabitation has slowly been increasing in popularity and prevalence. “11% of marriages between 1965 and 1974 were preceded by cohabitation, between 1980 and 1984, 44% of all marriages involved at least one spouse who had cohabited,” with a different partner. 7 The reason that cohabitation has increased in prevalence is beyond the scope of this paper, but the 1 Obergefell v. Hodges. 13. Supreme Court. 26 June 2015. PDF. 2 Marriage and Divorce. (2014, June 19). Retrieved September 25, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce.htm 3 Holland, J. (2000, February 15). How do I love thee? Lecture presented at BYU Devotional in Marriott Center, Provo. 4 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge (1953), 42–43. 5 570 U. S. pg 13 United States v. Windsor 2013 6 Webster, Noah. "Marriage." Def. 1. Websters Dictionary 1828. 1828 ed. N.d. American Dictionary of the English Language. Web. 31 Oct. 2015. <http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Marriage>. 7 Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 668-678.
results are becoming more clearer. With the increase in cohabitation, a redefinition of marriage has followed. In fact, some research has determined that cohabitation is simply a different type of marriage. At times, the results from studies about marriage conflict with each -other and contradict themselves. A study entitled Cohabitatoin versus Marriage says that, “the relationships in which most cohabiteors are involved are qualitatively similar to marriages [and] provides further evidence of their viability” and therefore “cohabitation is very much another form of marriage.” 8 Yet, the very same study also reports that, “we find that cohabiteors in general report poorer relationship quality than their married counterparts.” Data from both Sweden (Bennett, Blanc, and Bloom, 1988) and Canada (Balakrishnan et al., 1987) suggest that “marriages preceded by cohabitation are more likely, rather than less likely, to end in divorce” 9 So, in this the age of cohabitation, casual sex, broken homes, and broken vows, marriage as it has been known traditionally have has been completely fragmented. People now choose the parts of marriage that are the most convenient to them, or those that are the easiest to abandon should troubles come along. However, Elder Holland taught that No …marriage is worth the name if we do not fully invest all that we have in it and in so doing trust ourselves totally to the one we love. You cannot succeed in love if you keep one foot out on the bank for safety’s sake. The very nature of the endeavor requires that you hold on to each other as tightly as you can and jump in the pool together.10 Yet people are hesitant to do this. Why bother with “a piece of paper” (a piece of paper that can prove to be very inconvenient should things go wrong) when you can receive the benefits of marriage, sex, and companionship without the hassle of a legal agreement? A “legal union” has not been and ought not to be the basis of a marriage. A legal union is a contract—something, that is to be maintained as long as both sides are mutually benefitted. This definition is the root of our societal problems. “When troubles come, the parties to a contractual marriage seek happiness by walking away.” 11 Thus, in order to save marriage as an institution, we need to view marriage as the institution that it was meant to be. It needs to be a complete and total union of two people. This kind of union, a covenant marriage, is not entered into without significant planning and preparation. Then, as Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said, “Ifi we do it right, we end up sharing everything—all our hopes, all our fears, all our dreams, all our weaknesses, and all our joys—with another person.” 12 8Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 668-678. 9 Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 26(4), 615-625. 10 Holland, J. (2000, February 15). How do I love thee? Lecture presented at BYU Devotional in Marriott Center, Provo. 11 Hafen, B. (1996, October 1). Covenant Marriage. Lecture presented at General Conference.
This union is represented in a parable that was illustrated by Elder Bruce C. Hafen called The Hireling. In it, he also illustrates the opposite, the “legal union.” Jesus taught about contractual attitudes when he described the “hireling,” who performs his conditional promise of care only when he receives something in return. When the hireling “seeth the wolf coming,” he “leaveth the sheep, and fleeth … because he … careth not for the sheep.” By contrast, the Savior said, “I am the good shepherd, … and I lay down my life for the sheep.” Many people today marry as hirelings, a. And when the wolf comes, they flee…. When troubles come, the parties to a contractual marriage seek happiness by walking away. They marry to obtain benefits and will stay only as long as they’re receiving what they bargained for. But when troubles come to a covenant marriage, the husband and wife work them through.13 Here, we get a greater sense of what is really happening when people cohabitate in lieu of marriage. A person in a contractual relationship, or one acting as a “hireling,” will remain as long as there is good (e.g. pleasurable companionship, sex, etc.) coming from the relationship. However, as soon as the wolf comes (e.g. frequent arguing, sickness, financial problems, etc.) they leave to fiind somewhere, or someone, else, because the benefits are no longer worth the cost. However, once the price has been paid in a long-term committed relationship, there is a stunning pay-off. As many other things do, marriages tend to go through a natural trend of satisfaction and appreciation, like a child with a new toy. At first, the child is thrilled and wants only to play with that toy. As time goes on, the initial excitement fades away, until the child rediscovers the toy and gains a greater and more lasting appreciation for it. This idea and phenomena has been demonstrated in a number of studies which state that marital satisfaction, “ start[s] high, dropp[s] sharply after the birth of children, reach[es] an all-time low when children are adolescents, and then increas[es] as children leave home and couples retire (Dougherty & Jacobson, 1982).”14 This article, which is a longitudinal study with studing specifically middle-aged and old couples who have been together for most of their adult lives, goes on to conclude that there is, “reduced potential for conflict in old marriages... [and that] the potential for pleasure was greater in old couples than in middle-aged couples.” Or to summarize, “there will be less conflict and more pleasure in old marriages than in middle-aged marriages.” 15 Unfortunately, couples generally do not realize that, after a certain point, their marriage satisfaction reverses its downward trend and moves continuously upward. Apart from the fact that many couples rob themselves of the chance to experience true happiness with their spouse, the contractual view of relationships 12 Holland, J. (2000, February 15). How do I love thee? Lecture presented at BYU Devotional in Marriott Center, Provo. 13 Hafen, B. (1996, October 1). Covenant Marriage. Lecture presented at General Conference. 14 Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and aging, 8(2), 301. 15 Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and aging, 8(2), 301.
has a number of other difficulties. A skewed idea of physical intimacy is one of the greater ones. Elder Holland warns specifically against the dangers of this problem in his talk Personal Purity. In his original talk, Elder Holland’s intention is to help youth understand why physical intimacy should be reserved for after marriage. He stresses that human intimacy is reserved for a married couple “because it is the ultimate symbol of total union, a totality and a union ordained and defined by God.”16 This symbol ought to be proportionate to the level of commitment displayed by the couple, such as a commitment of marriage where they promise their lives to their spouse. He then goes on to say, “Can you see the moral schizophrenia that comes from pretending you are one, pretending you have made solemn promises before God, sharing the physical symbols and the physical intimacy of your counterfeit union but then fleeing, retreating, severing all such other aspects of what was meant to be a total obligation?”17 When people fail to make that commitment, they prohibit themselves from experiencing greater fulfillment and joy. Sadly, people generally fail to see that the truest happiness in marriage has a price. No relationship will ever be perfect; there will be periods where there is greater happiness and feelings of contentment, and periods where the “feeling” just isn’t as strong. This is a natural part of marriage, but as author Judith Viorst said, “One advantage of marriage is that when you fall out of love with him, or he falls out of love with you, it keeps you together until you fall in love again.” Marriage will not always be easy. In those times, it is crucial that couples remember that they have chosen this person, and that they choose to love each other even when it is not easy. A contractual marriage will remain intact as long as the feelings of love remain. Then, when the strong passionate feelings inevitably fade, the marriage ends. On the other hand, in a committed marriage, when those initial feelings fade, the couple will continually choose to show and express love. They allow their feelings to transform into a more sustainable and enduring type of love thatwhich will carry them through. These marriages will endure. A successful marriage comes with a price; it costs a willingness to stick to their commitment, and willingness to overcome conflict. Then, once the price has been paid, there will be greater joy and satisfaction. Interestingly enough, elderly couples, who are engaged in long-term committed relationships, generally report greater levels of satisfaction in their marriage. Perhaps this is, in part, due to the fact thatey they were raised in the age of traditional marriage, and their parents modeled for them a committed relationship for them. Regardless of the reason, “cCompared with an equivalent group of middle-aged marriages, old marriages have reduced potential for conflict and greater potential for pleasure in a number of areas”.18 Why is it that they are happier? It is because they have paid the price. Couples in long-term, committed relationships know almost everything that there is to know about their spouse: how to make them happy, how to make them feel 16 Holland, J. (1998, October 1). Personal Purity. Lecture. 17 Holland, J. (1998, October 1). Personal Purity. Lecture. 18 Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and aging, 8(2), 301.
loved, and how to make them feel special. Furthermore, they have a lifetime of commitment behind them. They have complete trust in the other person because they know that no matter what, they are on the same teamthey are on the same team no matter what. They are husband and wife, and in their relationship, they have discoveredfound that the surest way to true happiness is founded on principals of trust, committmentcommitment, and, above all, love.
**Also, just a thing about Judith Viorst, so I actually heard this quote quite a while ago and had it in my notes, but I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know the original source. I looked on the library website and read one of her books (the only one of her books the library had) hoping to find the quote. I was unsuccessful. So. I am not certain what to do about that. Thoughts?