Marriage Protects Kids' Rights...Not Selfish Adult Desires
The Washington Post, like most major newspapers, isn’t known for being friendly to people of faith, much less for having “family friendly values.” Unsurprisingly when Carolyn Hax, author of Advice from Carolyn Hax, was asked for advice in a messy romantic situation, the advice she gave was confusing and unclear.
The lady asking advice (we’ll call her Wondering in Washington) has been living with her fiancée of several years, and says he is normally a fine fiancée, but he recently dropped a bombshell on her that he might want to father kids with another woman, while staying married to the Wondering in Washington. The real gut punch, she feels, is that they agreed to not have children when they started out together. What should she do?
She and her fiancée are suddenly finding out that they really want two incompatible things: not having children and having children. She has the choice to leave or to stay and be a part of some new age step-parenting situation, but without the fidelity, commitment, and honor of a traditional marriage.
Thanks to the Sexual Revolution Wondering in Washington seems to have forgotten what marriage is all about (maybe she never learned). Our society has accepted the false preaching of the Sexual Revolution: you can have the fulfillment of married life without any of the encumbrances.
Surprisingly enough, people eventually realize they actually want the encumbrances; men have a desire to be fathers, to protect, to provide for, and to help a child grow. Women want to mother, nurture, teach, and help a child grow. Marriage exists to bind the man to the woman he marries and the offspring they create. That, in turn, helps societies grow and become strong; regardless of the time, religion, or ethos of a culture. Individuals and societies that reject those truths find themselves in difficult situations.
Wondering in Washington’s situation, then, should come as no surprise. By living with her fiancée before marriage, she has shown him that commitment and fidelity aren’t important, leaving him free to look for the next best thing. By proclaiming her desire for no children, she demonstrated to him that his innermost needs for fulfillment aren’t important to her. She is in the relationship for her own pleasure and comfort. She has victimized him by emasculating him.
She too, is a victim of her ideology. She desperately wants to have a stable, lifelong, exclusive union with this man. And the idea that he might purposefully louse it up gives her massive anxiety, especially with potential non-related children in the mix. If they had been married, he would have been taken off the market, so to speak, and wouldn’t have created additional children outside of his own marriage.
Creating children outside of his own marriage creates huge problems for those children (who never consented to anything, thank you #MeToo), starting with their birth weight. Those children are much more likely to have higher birth weights if their mother and father are married. Boys who are born to married parents are much less likely to commit violence against women or be sexually active before marriage. Girls who are born to married parents are much less likely to be single mothers or be sexually active before marriage. (We’ve even got a whole playlist on YouTube about the importance of married parents. You can see it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lg6zWpX_OI&list=PLSi2OoPf_APssJuC0KQhgOfBwSv28iTVE)
Carolyn Hax glosses over this by saying, “Kids don't "get" adult arrangements. Child will see you as a parent. Rebuff that role and this little person on a technicality, and you will likely do permanent emotional harm.” She’s right of course, but almost ignores the needs and rights of the children.
How could any child born into that relationship figure out how to interact with people of the opposite gender when they are a grown up? Who will be the primary emotional contact for that child? Who will comfort her when things go wrong? In many ways, this child will experience all the harms of divorce without actually having had a functional marriage to look back on.
Wondering in Washington obviously should end the relationship she’s in. It is headed toward disaster for her, her fiancée, the other woman, and the future children. She should let her fiancée know about the damages he’ll inflict on his future children and even explain why that is unfair to them. But mostly, she needs to reevaluate her life and repent. She’ll be happier, she’ll be able to treat a future husband appropriately, and, importantly, she’ll be better able to put kids needs above petty adult desires.
Take the poll below on what you think Wondering in Washington should do?
