After looking at a sample of the criticism of the godly-ordained family where there is so much antipathy towards this institution, let us now look at those who contend earnestly with the opposite view – that of preserving what God has designed although many approach this from a human point of view, resorting to human reasoning, and, often, without any references to God’s instructions on the matter.
In the Daily Mail newspaper in May 2022, excerpts were published from the new book “The Case Against The Sexual Revolution” by feminist Louise Perry. We will quote, selectively, what she has to say about marriage.
“Monogamous marriage is by far the most stable and reliable foundation on which to build a family.
“But while the monogamous marriage model may be unusual, it is also spectacularly successful. When monogamy is [adopted by] a society it tends to become richer and more stable, with lower rates of both child abuse and domestic violence. Birth rates and crime rates both fall, which encourages economic development, and wealthy men, denied the opportunity to devote their resources to acquiring more wives, instead invest in property, businesses, employees and other productive endeavours.
“A monogamous marriage system is successful in part because it pushes men away from cad mode, particularly when pre-marital sex is also prohibited. If a man wants to have sex in a way that’s socially acceptable, he has to make himself marriageable. That means holding down a good job and setting up a household suitable for the raising of children. In other words, he has to tame himself. [The need to “tame” oneself applies of course also to a woman, not just to a man.]
“The monogamous marriage model is also the best solution yet discovered to the problems presented by child-rearing.
“There was a wisdom to the traditional model in which the father was primarily responsible for earning money while the mother was primarily responsible for caring for children at home. Such a model allows mothers and children to be physically together and at the same time financially supported. In an age of labour-saving domestic devices it has become more feasible for mothers of young children to do paid work outside of the home, as most of us do and take pleasure from. But not during the early months of a baby’s life.
“I know full well that I was irreplaceable as mother to my new born child – not only because I was the only person who could breastfeed, but also because children have a relationship with their mother that cannot be handed over without distress to both mother and baby. If we want to keep that maternal bond intact, the only solution is for another person to step in during these times of vulnerability and do the tasks needed to keep a household warm and fed.
“Perhaps we could call that person a spouse. Perhaps we could call their legal and emotional bond a marriage.
“Which is why – as a feminist – the most important piece of advice I can offer to the young women of today is this: get married and do your best to stay married. Particularly if you have children. And if you do find yourself in the position of being a single mother, wait until your children are older before you bring a stepfather into their home [We would not necessarily agree with this advice at all].
“These directives are hard to follow because we no longer live in a culture that incentivises perseverance in marriage. But it is still possible for individuals to go against the grain and do the harder, less-fashionable thing.
“The critics of marriage are right to say that it has historically been used for the control of women by men, and they’re right to point out that most marriages do not live up to a romantic ideal. The marriage system that prevailed in the West until recently was not perfect, nor was it easy to conform to, since it demanded high levels of tolerance and self control. Where the critics go wrong is in arguing that there is any better system. There isn’t.”
As we pointed out in part 1 of this series, we realize, of course, that the comments above by a “feminist” are extremely “optimistic” and “idealistic” and are in many cases impossible to carry out today. This is especially true for the idea that the man alone can be the breadwinner today while the wife can stay at home. That would be somewhat ideal, but almost far from being doable in today’s societies. Still, the comments above can serve as guidelines to do what we can do under the best of circumstances.
On dailycaller, dated 27th November 2022, Liz Wheeler wrote an article headed “Twelve Republican Senators Betrayed The Institution Of Marriage,” and below are just a few comments from a long article:
“On November 16, all 50 Democratic senators and 12 of their Republican counterparts voted to advance the Respect for Marriage Act, circumventing the filibuster and paving the way for the bill’s imminent passage.
“In what should come as a surprise to no one familiar with the insidious tactics utilized by the Marxists currently in control of our government, the goals of this bill are being completely misrepresented. It’s time we cleared up exactly what this bill means and break down the sinister ramifications of its potential passage.
“At its core, this legislation would force the federal government to recognize any marriage that was performed according to a state law. If a same-sex couple gets married in a particular state— California, for example — then the federal government would be required to recognize that union.
“There are at least three major problems that would necessarily result from this. First, the bill amounts to a direct assault upon religious liberty. The anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-religion, anti-God, secular mob will undoubtedly use this law to target people of faith. They will target non-profit organizations. They will target churches. They will target religious schools. You won’t be able to conduct business under the premise of the biblical definition of marriage or you will likely come under fire.
“Which leads us to the second problem: this bill gives government the power to redefine words. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation or sexual attraction. It’s about the definition of the word marriage, and whether government at the federal or state level has the right to redefine what marriage is, and has always been, since before the inception of our country.
“After all, if the federal government can be forced to recognize a same-sex union, what would the limitation be upon recognizing polygamous marriage? What about a marriage between an adult and a child? Once definitions become malleable and subject to political whimsy, they cease to have any meaning, and can be wielded against society at will. There are no limitations.
“Our government does not have the right to redefine words. That is a core tenet of authoritarian rule.”
“Third — and perhaps most importantly — the bill will inherently become a legal catch-all for the Democratic Party’s radical progressive agenda, which hinges upon the deliberate Marxist goal of destroying the nuclear family and ultimately deconstructing our society’s moral fiber.
“Ultimately, this bill is not about equal rights or codifying gay marriage into law. This is a radical leftist agenda that assaults the rights of religious people and institutions, grants government virtually unlimited power to define truth and morality, and provides protection for perverted, anti-American individuals and organizations.”
There are others who have written eloquently about the value of marriage.
Michael Ayling wrote in the Australian Spectator in June 2017: “The Left needs to destroy the family unit to succeed in the long-term. Over the last few years, we have seen numerous attempts to make the meaning of the word ‘family’ whatever anyone wants it to be, to strip it of any collective meaning. The Left needs to attack and to destroy the family as the basic building block of society in order to progress its goals.”
Mr Ayling then goes on to give an account of his schooling and how his school was taken over in 1980 by a highly ideological left-wing couple, calling themselves co-principals where he, and the other students, were exposed to their teaching which was based on their political leanings. Today, in so many areas of education, that same approach continues apace.
Without the protective influence of the family, we are left with “all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” as Benito Mussolini once said. The radicals seek to own the idea of the family, by redefining it out of existence.
(To be continued)
Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)