We Refused to Marry Marriage Itself

"Gay Marriage Happened Because We Refused to Marry Marriage Itself" caught my eye because it captured an idea in few words; an important idea. I do not think that the content of the article is clear enough.

Tucker closes the book by posing a question: Will we honor marriage or will we create a “kind of ‘state polygamy’ where women congregate around the major source of wealth — the government — while men slink off into their separate quarters to pursue a fading warrior culture — played out this time on video games”? Will we honor the most noble aspect of human nature — one that doesn’t come “naturally” but requires work and rules to make us flourish?  

In short, will we insist on the ideal of a girl for every boy, a boy for every girl — and a mother and father for every child?  ("The Evolution of Marriage" Ryan T. Anderson, May 17, 2014) 

There are a few norms that marriage has meant in the past but not so much recently.

Permanence. Marriage is intended to be a lifetime commitment.

Monogamy and exclusivity. Marriage means sexual and emotional intimacy commitment to your husband or wife.

Alignment with procreation. Marriage means a public, ceremonial joining of a wife and husband with the idea that they raise the next generation. So that their children will have the best environment to learn compassion and capability in society. Connected with this alignment is the support that comes from grandparents and great grandparents in the raising of children. And the reverse in the care of parents by the children or grandchildren. It is a commitment that spans generations.

If we are to regain the benefits of traditional marriage, we must be willing to marry again to the institution of marriage. That means we uphold the norms that have been so beneficial to so many. We must insist on the ideal of a girl for every boy, a boy for every girl — and a mother and father for every child.