A month or so ago, Jeff Miller introduced me to the article, The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, by Stanley Kurtz. Mr. Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and this article appeared in The Weekly Standard.
I have since recommended this reading to bloggers, here here, here and here and commentators who have questioned why so many conservative, religious people were against the legalization of Same-sex unions. Some of these folks appear to have really believed that the opponents of SSM thought THEIR OWN marriages would start to disintegrate if SSMs were allowed.
Since I think the ideas and trends identified in the article, The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, are very important to an informed discussion on the matter, and since I got the impression that none of my discussion partners had actually read and digested the article, I am going to make the time to do that on my own blog. I also think that my own perspective as a Catholic wife and mother for almost 25 years can be helpful.
One commenter on an other blog here, wondered why one should look at Scandinavia at all, why not just stick with the United States? The answer is, because Scandinavia has allowed SSM for over 10 years and because it is a Western country with similar standards of living and economic conditions, it serves as a good indicator of the long-term effects of SSM on a society.
Just as a reminder, this is a Catholic blog. I am a Catholic blogger, and my perspective is one of orthodoxy. (I know others in St. Blog’s don’t like labels – I’m not one of them. When you have a blog ring that has every shade of the modern Catholic from the orthodox/practicing to the “haven’t seen a monstrance in 40 years and I believe in stopping abortion on the supply side” it’s good to know what perspective you are dealing with.
The beginning of the end of marriage in this article is pretty much where Paul VI said it would be – with contraception.
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, on page 3 states:
In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for “shotgun weddings.” These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce.
This is reminiscent of the warning from Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae.
It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.
It’s no secret that the divorce rate in this country soared after the marketing of the pill. In Scandinavia, “marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to mean.”
” the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can’t divorce without first getting married.”
The article goes on then to discuss how once sex was separated from procreation, people could postpone marriage into later ages. When couples put off childbearing they can divorce easier and this further weakened, “the taboo against divorce.” So if couples put of children, the next step was to postpone marriage until children were desired. “The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we’ve come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?
Tomorrow I’ll blog on the effect of religion on families and the economics of breaking a family apart.
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook). You can chat with me on the tag board to the right!
