At the risk of placing myself on the “wrong side of history,”
I find I agree with Robert George when he says that: “the
conjugal conception [of marriage] has historically been embodied in our
marriage laws, and explains their content (not just the requirement of spousal
sexual complementarity, but also rules concerning consummation and
annulability, norms of monogamy and sexual exclusivity, and the pledge of
permanence of commitment) in ways that the sexual-romantic domestic partnership
conception simply cannot. Still, having adopted the sexual-romantic domestic
partnership idea, and seeing no alternative possible conception of marriage,
they assume—and it is just that, an assumption, and a gratuitous one—that no
actual reason exists for regarding sexual reproductive complementarity as
integral to marriage.”
I am not ignorant of the fact that many people-friends and family alike will not agree with this understanding. When considering whether this concept that marriage is just about emotional attachments and sexual attraction I find I do not believe it is one of permanence nor do I see it as a positive force for our society. As someone who comes from a family with a long history of divorce or “serial monogamy,” and having suffered through –or chosen divorce myself rather than the alternative actions that could have been taken I fully understand this emotional need to be loved and to love-and the need to “feel” that certain something. But guess what, I think I was wrong. I think I got it wrong and that unless we as a country rethink these ‘norms’ we are going to be revisiting a continuum of emotional/societal problems that develop out of this new understanding of what is acceptable.
If it is always up to the individual to decide how they “feel”
then situations are always going to be up for grabs. ‘I don’t feel like it’ is
reason enough to do whatever we wish. When children are told to go to bed to
get enough sleep, to eat their vegetables, to grow up healthy and strong-if
they don’t feel like it-then what can our response be; Oh, ok, sorry to have
imposed our will upon you? Patients who are aged and infirm and at risk of
falling out of bed or injuring themselves cannot be placed in beds with four
sides-in the off-chance that they do not wish to stay safely in bed-we cannot
impose our will upon them either. If someone gets tired of going to work-if
someone gets tired of getting out of bed? What of these? They just don’t feel
like it. Are we going to reduce our society to one that only addresses
feelings? Will ‘you hurt my feelings’ be an offense punishable by law? You may
not see these examples as related, but I am afraid they are. When feelings are
elevated to the highest order of consciousness we put reason and thinking and
working and striving in the background of all relationships. And there are two
examples in the Bible that are brought to mind in this case.
The first is from Judges 21:25: In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right
in his own eyes.
If we all do what is right in our own eyes then no one else
matters-only ourselves-and our feelings. We are very dangerously close to this,
in my opinion; not one of us wishes to give over any of our control-not one of
us wishes to have a King over our lives. The 70’s understanding of “if it feels
right-do it” rules everyone and everywhere. I overheard a conversation and the
parting remark between the two people was “she had to do what was right for her”
this was not questioned –it seemed to make perfect sense –but my assertion is
that it is just more of the same attitude that individuality trumps everything else.
Yes, obviously we are all individuals with different wants and even different
needs-but total anarchy of individual obsession and self-satisfaction is not a
healthy direction for a society. In community we all need each other, and we
need to have disagreements and work through things, we cannot always have it
our own way. We all need to be able to distinguish between needs and wants;
sure I want a brand new fast car, or not to get up and go to work-or to have a
flashy famous job or …you name it there are wants we all would like to have
fulfilled; wants for more money or to be taller or to be slimmer or to…you get
the picture.
The second verse is Psalm 106:15: And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.
When is enough not enough? If we have whatever we desire-what more is there?
Many times I have seen people who get depressed after striving for something
because they no longer have to work to attain it. People who lived together for
years-decades even get divorced shortly after getting married because it didn’t
feel right. The papers are full of stories of people who have won the lottery,
and go broke afterward-this comes from getting everything they desire-having the
ability to fill their endless list of “I wants,” they are not able to reach a
point where they can say I have enough, I am satisfied. I have said it is good
to have dreams and desires-to want something that is out of reach and that
needs to be worked for-the striving is in itself a good thing-the result is not
the end-the striving is the point.
What these two verses may have to do with a redefined concept
of marriage is that I see it as another way in which we elevate feelings to a
higher level than anything else-and a way in which we put no lord over our
life-other than those feelings-and in the end if God gives us our request-we
may find what we receive is a leanness in our souls. The old adage is “be
careful what you wish for…you may get it,” is I think applicable in this case.
References
George, Robert, (July 19, 2012) Marriage, Religious Liberty,
and the “Grand Bargain” http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5884
No comments:
Post a Comment