It will not be easy, on a societal level, to return the melting ice to its former status as solid marble. Marriage has undergone radical deconstruction not because the institution is inherently deficient, but because people have come to view it largely in terms of self-fulfillment and personal convenience.

The Deconstruction of Marriage

By Don DeMarco, Ph. D.

The word “deconstruction” was not in the vocabulary of G. K. Chesterton. When he observed how easier divorce was eroding the bond of matrimony in his time, his language was more poetic. He noted that “the marble had turned to ice, and the ice has melted with most amazing rapidity”. He could have not been more prophetic, for he understood how the wedge of divorce would continue its work and reduce marriage to shreds. ”They ought to know,” he wrote, referring to the advocates of divorce, “that the foe now on the frontiers offers no terms of compromise; but threatens a complete destruction.” “Deconstruction” may be more trendy in today’s world, but “destruction” has retained its accuracy.

In a landmark decision, to inaugurate the brave new world of 2014, a Manhattan judge has given a couple, who are merely friends, the green light to become legal co-parents of an adopted child. This decision may be precedent-setting and allow the floodgates to open for no end of unmarried “friends” to adopt children. This decision, however, may represent society’s growing disregard for the nature and significance of marriage. If a couple disdains marriage and the commitment that that institution demands, is it reasonable to expect that they will remain committed to a child? Moreover, if there is a growing pool of “friends” who are legally permitted to adopt, inevitably, the pool of
adoptable children for married couples seeking adoption will diminish. Surely the interest of the child must be taken more seriously.

Marriage has continued to unravel since G. K. Chesterton made his stark observation. 

• Contraception separated husband from wife procreatively. 
• Divorce, and ultimately “no-fault” divorce, separated them legally. 
• ”No-responsibility” divorce separated them morally. 
• Abortion separated the married couple from offspring. 
• The so-called “open-marriage” dispensed with fidelity. 
• Same-sex” marriages” meant that the complementarity between husband and wife meant nothing. 

What is now left of marriage? Has it become virtually obsolete? 

One Canadian philosopher thinks so by asserting that “Marriage is an archaic institution that has lost its moral force. But if we wish to provide a healthy, loving environment in which to reproduce our species, we’d better think up something quick to replace it.” His disqualification of a loving married couple as providing a suitable environment for raising children may be a bit precipitous.

...........


Read more: www.truthandcharityforum.org