Nancy Pelosi asks: Why would anybody get married? And you know, as much as I would like to roll my eyes and jump on the "Look what Pelosi said this time" bandwagon, I think this may be one of the better questions that the former Speaker of the House has ever produced. I should like to endeavor to answer her in my own non-linear way if I may.
Interestingly, Ms. Pelosi provokes our responses mostly to further the feminist meme which maintains that marriage is an institution of enslavement that was rendered obsolete when women finally gained control of their biology and became men. Nevertheless, I think we should take the time to sincerely reflect on Pelosi's inquiry by reviewing what the antiquated construct of marriage actually hopes to achieve versus what progressivism wishes it achieved. Consider…Why does marriage exist?
For your own personal reference, the quote from Nancy Pelosi that I'm finding everywhere is:
"Why would you get married? Why would anybody get married? In that the person that they love so much, that was irresistible, that they had to get married? I'm not a one for rushing people into marriage as wonderful and happy as mine was. You get married to have children? But just make sure that the person you are madly in love with is on board with the program."
I don't know how you feel about it. For my part and in spite of the stereotypes people hold for religious conservatives who champion traditional marriage, I'm not for hurrying people into a state of matrimony any more than Nancy Pelosi is. Regardless of her intended message, we can all agree that before you commit to marriage, you ought to take the time to get to know your significant other. Take your time getting to know yourself, establish what values are important to you and don't be afraid to walk away from a person who doesn't share your values or vision for the future before you take the plunge. The pretty dress is worn for a day. The marriage is worn for a lifetime…or so the theory goes.
And contrary to Ms. Pelosi's suggestion, I don't believe marriage has anything to do with how irresistible someone seems to be...not at all. That's – it think – a very Hollywoodized image of what love and commitment really are. A well-considered marriage will take into account many different facets of relational interaction. Common interests, shared beliefs, religious and political compatibility…these are all possible topics for discussion and are far better suited to long-term commitments then say, "Aren't his eyes just dreamy."
But in light of Nancy Pelosi's views on government sponsored abortion, government sponsored contraception, government sponsored sterilization, it would seem that she might disagree with my assessment of what love and marriage are really all about anyway. She may talk a good game about her commitments to happily-ever-after, but her actions speak louder than words. In fact, through her own legislative entanglements, the only thing Nancy Pelosi seems to advocate rushing into is chlamydia.
Let government pay for your IUDs, your condoms, your Plan B and even your late term abortions when all else fails. You needn't worry that the person you are madly in love with is "on board" as Pelosi so eloquently defines commitment because when all you're worrying about is who's going to pay for your abortifacients; the only noteworthy program is meaningless, casual sex.
Pelosi postulates that perhaps one gets married to have children, but we know that nearly half of America's children are born out of wedlock. Illegitimacy was at a record 43.7 percent in 2012 in the US. We could suggest that all this nonchalant promiscuity leaves America's twenty to thirty somethings in a suspended state of infantilization, but I suppose it's worse than even that. In actuality…it's not just the freedom to detach meaning from sex but the preponderance of the detachment that abrades and erodes the importance of human interaction.
Because feminist leaders insist that one need not buy the cow when one can get the milk for free and the government reinforces that state of social retardation with programs that inspire social isolation, the message comes through loud and clear. Have sex. Have children. Kill children. Have more sex. But whatever you do, do not – under any circumstances – get married because it will only keep you from living a fulfilled life.
In the beginning there was God to keep traditions and values in line. God made man. Man made the State and then the State replaced God with itself. One of the ways that the State perpetuates the fallacy of its supremacy over the Supreme is by redesigning the institutions that God gave Man so that traditions like marriage cannot be achieved but through the State's blessing.
When you look at the way our government and our representatives view marriage, treat marriage, redefine marriage, you may well understand how Nancy Pelosi can ask the question…why in the world would you marry when there's no earthly requirement that you do so? You have choice. Why would you choose what your enslaved grandmother chose when you can have the complete opposite if you want? All of the social mores that have been in place since the moment mankind became self-aware have been lifted. You are free of any moral obligation to get married, to stay married, to stay faithful.
Unfortunately, regardless of what we've been told, redefining marriage into any configuration that the State can imagine will not conjure fulfillment in the hearts and minds of people. The fog of hopelessness is permeating our culture from all sides and that all starts with the deconstruction of the dependable institutions that bind societies and peoples together.
Per the government, individuals might marry and divorce. And marry. And divorce. Soon enough, the State will confer the right of individuals to marry. And marry. And marry. And marry and divorce. As such, civil marriage has already ceased to have any meaning. The State exemplifies this lack of importance to commitment by emphasizing the importance of the marriage transaction as if it was no more or less significant than a renewal of one's driver's license. Marriage blessed by a bureaucracy is anathema to truth because the truth of men can change on the whim of an executive order. Because the State is incapable of constancy, it does not – cannot confer grace. Separate from natural law, the State therefore establishes civil marriage as farce.
So back to Pelosi's original thesis: Why would anybody marry? (The more I read that statement, the more I recognize the sheer despair it intends to infuse.) Regardless of how the State treats legal definitions, marriage is still a religious vocation. It confers grace because it sacramentally joins man and woman by their reciprocal rights to form one principle of generation. It is effected by their mutual consent to "give and accept each other for the purpose of propagating the human race, of educating their offspring, of sharing life in common and of supporting each other in undivided conjugal affection by a lasting union."
People marry because sanctified matrimony connects man and woman to the past, the present and the future. It has nothing to do with women's rights, gay marriage laws, free post-birth abortion or no fault divorce. It may not be logical to choose the life that your so-called enslaved grandmother chose, but it connects you to her nonetheless. And I submit that people crave that connection and are made whole through it. Marriage exudes mutual trust just as trust is anathematic to the superficiality that civil marriage perpetuates. Hope lives at the core of sacramental marriage and hope is defined as the belief in God and the surrender to God's plan.