marriage

A detailed Summary of marriage

"Marriage may be compared to a cage: the birds outside despair to get in and those within

despair to get out."-Michel De Montaigne

The question that stands before us today is as follows, "is marriage a viable institution in the twenty-first century." The answer to this question is an unwavering yes. Marriage has never ceased to be a viable institution. What has changed is the way that people look at this tradition. The Webster's dictionary defines a viable institution as, "workable, and likely to survive or to have real meaning." I think that it is obvious that the institution of marriage has more than survived the test of time, it is a practice that dates back to the beginning of time and will continue to be practiced long after all of us are gone. It also is a custom that has deep significance; unfortunately the meaning has seemed to become lost over the years.

People have lost focus on the real meaning of marriage and look at it more today as a contract than an institution. As a vast generalization, people have come to take marriage less seriously, seeing it as a short-term commitment rather than the life long bond that it is. Entering in and out of marriage on a whim, we are no longer trying to make things work in

Many members of Gen. X are at their peak marriage age-in their twenties and in their early thirties- but have all lived to see their parents and their peers marriages fail; because of this more and more are waiting to get married or forgoing marriage all together and opting to instead live together. Nearly 73 percent of generation Xer's said they were in favor of a return to more traditional standards in family life. Only 56 percent of baby boomers felt the same way when asked the same question 20 years ago.

The so-called marriage penalty, causes the average married couple to pay an estimated $1,720 more in federal taxes annually than they would if they filed separately. Now that's one wedding present I wouldn't mind returning.

Secondly, it is unfair that the government penalizes married couples. As the law currently is, married couples that rent and do not have children, pay more in taxes than their single counterparts in all economic classes. I feel that this is sending out the wrong message. It is almost as though the government is telling us to have children, buy a house and then only after that is done to get married.

A final factor contributing to the need for a change in the definition of marriage is homosexuality. Homosexual couples seek out marriage for the same reasons as straight couples. Most gay couples want their love to be publicly acknowledged, and they want to be part of the social compact of marriage. It is only fair that homosexual couples have the same rights in a long-term relationship as straight couples. Without the option of marriage it is almost as though their love is not equal to that of a straight couple. Gay couples too, long for a traditional family, or at least a variation of the traditional family. We need to realize that families have changed. The U.S. Census Bureau recognized this fact and in 1990, began counting unmarried partners living together. Only by recognizing a broader family range can we hope to stabilize families. I feel that no one person or even group of people is qualified to attest if one family structure is more valid than another.

Despite this overwhelming desire to move back towards the times of Ozzy and Harriet, we seem to be moving farther and farther away. Today more than half of today's newlyweds live together before tying the knot, compared with about 10 percent in 1965. Although, cohabitating couples only make up 7 percent of the total population that still come out to be more than 4 million couples living together. Before 1970, "living in sin," was practically unheard of. In fact it was illegal in every state of the union. Today though, it seems to go almost unquestioned and has inspired virtually no public opinion. Furthermore, I found it impossible to find a single graph or chart tracking people's opinion on the subject.

It is going to take a lot of work to make marriage as strong of a bond as it once was. We need to move in a different direction from the way we currently view marriage and divorce. We as a society must now once again promote marriage and discourage unnecessary divorces.

While researching this paper I happened to stumble across a story in the CQ Researcher that made me stop and think. Mark and Betty are a couple who in 96' were faced with the challenge of a marriage that had hit a rough spot. Mark rather than talking

stead we are using divorce as a quick fix to marital discontent. It's the proverbial Band-Aid on the broken bone. Being committed to marriage as a societal anchor means taking the time and getting your hands dirty with the pain of marital strife.

Finally I feel that we should require divorcing couples with children under sixteen to undergo divorce education programs in an effort to ensure e

Some common words found in the essay are:
Census Bureau, Ozzy Harriet, Marriage Marriage, De Montaigne, Luckily Betty, City Characters, York Times, University Oklahoma, Mark Betty, Barrett Married, viable institution, no-fault divorce, married people, marriage divorce, people married, divorce rate, fewer people getting, gay couples, people getting, straight couples, real meaning, divorce rate jumped, people getting married, marriage viable institution,

Approximate Word count = 2535
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Miscellaneous