Executive Summary In recent years, marriage has weakened, with serious negative consequences for society as a whole. Four developments are especially divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage. The purpose of this document is to make a substantial new contribution to the public debate over marriage. Too often, the rational case for marriage is not made at all or not made very well. As scholars, we are persuaded that the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason. Marriage protects children, men and women, and the common good. The health of marriage is particularly important in a free society, which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives and rear their children responsibly, so as to limit the scope, size, and power of the state. The nation's retreat from marriage has been particularly consequential for our society's most vulnerable minorities and the poor pay a disproportionately heavy price when marriage declines in their communities. Marriage also offers men and women as spouses a good they can have in no other a mutual and complete giving of the self. Thus, marriage understood as the enduring union of husband and wife is both a good in itself and also advances the public interest.
Makes a compelling argument for marriage based on statistical and economic data, but frequently compartmentalizes these trends into a narrow philosophical circle that conveniently affirms the traditional role of the domestic housewife and the abnormal status of the homosexual. This text is the classic example of how social theory eventually comes to change entrenched conservative mindsets (Black people in the text were considered human, though also frequently portrayed as the helpless sacrificial lamb of premarital sexuality and abortion laws), yet immediately the line is drawn by modern right-wing authors to any further speculations of progressiveness.
This text posits itself as a straightforward intellectual exercise in social theory and a measured call to unite like-minded thinkers, but it’s assumed conclusion inevitably invites mass discrimination against “less-than-ideal” forms of marital relations; put another way, you can’t introduce the idea of perfection in the form of a single homogenous unit and then afterward assert that a diversity of representation is also “perfectly” acceptable. I firmly support the advocation of marriage and martial commitment as a conceptual and philosophical bulwark for morality in society, alongside its measurable economic and emotional gains, but not at the expense of minority groups.