The Case Against Re-Re-Remarriage

Matt makes it:

I was thinking recently that if you really wanted to do something to shore up the sanctity of marriage then rather than ban gay marriages you ought to ban, say, fourth marriages. It's one thing to say that people who make a mistake ought to get a second chance, but serial nuptuals really do make a mockery of the institution's basic premises in a way that same-sex couples don't. Maybe some people just need to admit to themselves that they have no business making promises of life-long commitment.

Initially, I wanted to ban third marriages, but it seems worth watering the proposal down in order to enhance political feasibility and secure access to the much-vaunted "three strikes and you're out" catchphrase.

In the interests of pushing the envelope, I'll take the the anti-third marriage position - ticking off Rush Limbaugh yet again, no doubt - thereby making Matt's "three strikes and you're out" approach the moderate, bipartisan position on the question. Now all we need is for David Broder to write a column endorsing it ...

Comments

Read your Freakonomics!

The evidence suggests that third marriages are fairly successful ... it is second marriages that are the worst of the bunch. So if you cannot make your third marriage work, it's pretty clear you'll have a hard time making any marriage work. So ban fourth marriages.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 28, 2008 11:16 AM

Hey, what about widows? A woman is likely to live a long time and may go through many husbands, naturally. I suggest the 4th marriage be banned for anyone who has had three divorces.

Posted by jjv | July 28, 2008 12:05 PM

Actually, the Orthodox church does just this...

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

Money Quote: "Orthodox canon law can permit a second and even a third marriage “in economia”, but strictly forbids a fourth."

Looks as if they are one step ahead of the pundits!

Posted by Surabaya Stew | July 28, 2008 12:11 PM

Yeah, I was going to bring up the point about the Eastern Orthodox church, but someone beat me to it.

Another thing that the Orthodox church apparently used to do in pre-1917 Russia was to permit only the "innocent" party in a divorce to remarry. I don't know if they still do this, perhaps someone of the Orthodox Christian communion can enlighten us? Some Anglican clergymen like Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali also permit remarriage only to the innocent party. In this as in other things the Anglicans show a lot of diverse views.

Posted by Hector | July 28, 2008 1:12 PM

The better answer is to ban pre-nups.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 28, 2008 1:38 PM

The evidence suggests that third marriages are fairly successful ... it is second marriages that are the worst of the bunch.

Why don't we just promote what works and get rid of what doesn't? So I propose that 1st and 3rd marriages are legal, but that we ban 2nd marriages.

Of course, I'm my wife's 2nd husband, but she's my first wife. Averaging that out, we stand at 1.5. I guess that as long as we round the average down, we can stay married.

Posted by LFC | July 28, 2008 1:43 PM

Why don't we just ban the things that usually cause marriages to fail? Unemployment, infidelity, emotional unavailability, degradation of physical appearance...ban them all.

Posted by Jeff | July 28, 2008 2:10 PM

As humor, this is fine. And to the extent it takes the focus off of totally harmless gay marriages, that's all to the good.

But the mistake here is assuming that marriage is an "institution" rather than a partnership contract. And the fact is, we don't want people who would ordinarily get married to start raising their children outside of marriage simply because one or both parties have already been married several times. Nor do we want to deny people the right to be visited by the person they care about in the hospital, or the rules of property succession, or all of the rest of the marital benefits simply because the person has been married several times.

One can talk about marriage as an institution within the context of a church. But civil marriage is a contract, which creates a series of legal rights that we think it is reasonable for couples to have if they wish to avail themselves of them. Thus, it isn't correct to talk about civil marriage being threatened or in bad shape. It's just a government benefit program.

As for the religious institution of marriage, nobody's forcing churches to permit divorced or serially divorced congregants to have church marriages.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 28, 2008 2:22 PM

Dilan,

To the extent, marriage is a contract, it is a contract where the third party effects are huge. If kids did not exist, your libertarian utopia would be great, but they do, so it isn't.

Posted by Pithlord | July 28, 2008 2:32 PM

As one person who is now in her fourth marriage I must disagree.

I married in the late 60's at 20....knowing nothing about what I was doing. Had two children and divorced at 27. Remarried at 29, thinking I cannot LIVE with someone since I now have children who might not understand.....bad decision! That marriage was doomed. Divorced soon after finding out my husband was a drug dealer who hid it from me successfully until a slip-up.

On my own for about 8 years, remarried for the LAST time, or so I thought. Years later found out he was messing around and chose to divorce though this time it was very hard. I'd committed to him and one last marriage.

On my own for 18 years before meeting and marrying my FOURTH husband 3 years ago. We are blissfully happy, in our 60's and looking forward to 30+ more years together before we die.

So, despite my own reservations I must say that for some of us it takes time to grow up, make good choices and learn what it takes to have a good and lasting marriage.

If you haven't walked in these or similar shoes it might be best not to judge others. We each have our life lessons. Mine was
learning how to choose wisely and love well. It only took 40 years and I consider myself fortunate.

Judging others is a dangerous position. Compassion is the way.

Posted by jaquelin pearson | July 28, 2008 2:37 PM

As one person who is now in her fourth marriage I must disagree.

I married in the late 60's at 20....knowing nothing about what I was doing. Had two children and divorced at 27. Remarried at 29, thinking I cannot LIVE with someone since I now have children who might not understand.....bad decision! That marriage was doomed. Divorced soon after finding out my husband was a drug dealer who hid it from me successfully until a slip-up.

On my own for about 8 years, remarried for the LAST time, or so I thought. Years later found out he was messing around and chose to divorce though this time it was very hard. I'd committed to him and one last marriage.

On my own for 18 years before meeting and marrying my FOURTH husband 3 years ago. We are blissfully happy, in our 60's and looking forward to 30+ more years together before we die.

So, despite my own reservations I must say that for some of us it takes time to grow up, make good choices and learn what it takes to have a good and lasting marriage.

If you haven't walked in these or similar shoes it might be best not to judge others. We each have our life lessons. Mine was
learning how to choose wisely and love well. It only took 40 years and I consider myself fortunate.

Judging others is a dangerous position. Compassion is the way.

Posted by jaquelin pearson | July 28, 2008 2:38 PM

To the extent, marriage is a contract, it is a contract where the third party effects are huge. If kids did not exist, your libertarian utopia would be great, but they do, so it isn't.

Pith:

I specifically set forth how I thought that a no 4th or no 3rd marriage rule would be BAD for kids (because it would just mean more kids born out of wedlock).

Actually, the libertarian utopia would be to get rid of all the government benefits to married couples. My position is that there should be civil marriage, it should be open to gays and straights, and it should be treated as a civil contract and benefits program. What religions do, in contrast, concerns the "institution" of marriage and is not the government's business.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 28, 2008 3:09 PM

Why not just get rid of divorce period? Yes, compromise is good, but three or four divorces allowed should be recognized for what it is, a compromise. Divorce is profoundly evil and not just by the third time. Better to be recognized as a bastard than to have to pretend to be a family. (mother married twice, father divorced three times.)

Posted by M.Z. Forrest | July 28, 2008 4:22 PM

Dilan,

It should be noted that no one here is trying to prevent a person from _breaking up_ with their spouse and choosing to _live_ with someone else that they like. And no one is denying the friends, family, co-workers, and religious networks of such people to consider them married. To deny that would be indeed to violate people's personal freedom. Rather, we are saying that the state should perhaps exercise more discretion in which of these relationships it decides to extend special recognition and social approbation under the name of marriage.

It's probably true that this would lead to more children born out of wedlock. But if these are the type of couple who would like to get married if it were legal, then it's pretty likely they will stay together anyway, much like unmarried couples in Scandinavia with children usually do.

Posted by Hector | July 28, 2008 4:24 PM

Here's the problem. You'd have to have an exception for widows and widowers, which means you'd have created an incentive for the unwanted spouse to suddenly drop dead.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 28, 2008 5:07 PM

Steve,

But there's a bonus there, too, though -- murder mysteries could always use another novel motive.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | July 28, 2008 5:37 PM

Who can complain about the new censorship when it allows for posts with such class, grace and generosity of spirit as Art Deco's above to really shine.

Posted by James | July 28, 2008 6:31 PM

Steve, can you clarify if you posted this:

Steve Sailer

The Duffy gene is the single best one for guessing African ancestry, right? So, it would likely also correlate well with eating at chicken 'n' waffles restaurants, drinking grape soda pop, and voting Democratic.

Email | Homepage | 07.20.08 - 12:42 am | #

thanks

Posted by James | July 28, 2008 6:38 PM

Ross is a fairly young guy and he's on, I believe, his third religion. Am I mistaken?

Posted by JF | July 28, 2008 7:24 PM

JF,

As far as I know, Mr. Douthat's changes of religion were as a legal minor and don't really count. He's on his first religion, as an adult.

Ms. Pearson, I wish you all the best and hope things work out for you.

Posted by Hector | July 28, 2008 10:06 PM

Art Deco,

The Orthodox regard marriage as a sacrament too, but they don't insist that it be indissoluble. No one can accuse the Orthodox of being liberals, if anything they are more traditionalist than the Roman Catholics.

Anyway, as Cranmer said,

"Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel....[they] are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

Baptism is a sacrament too, yet the state does not (and _should_ not) prevent a baptized Christian from converting to another religion.

Posted by Hector | July 28, 2008 10:13 PM

Hector writes: "As far as I know, Mr. Douthat's changes of religion were as a legal minor and don't really count. He's on his first religion, as an adult."

By tradition Mary was 15 when her uterus was hijacked by the Holy Spook, Hector, so I guess I've been right all these years in your eyes when I refer to the supposed event as at best statutory rape, and at worst aggravated child molestation.

So when does Ross go Moonie, or is he just waiting for the big job offer from the Washington Times?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 28, 2008 10:13 PM

No one can accuse the Orthodox of being liberals, if anything they are more traditionalist than the Roman Catholics.

For whatever reason a lot of folks seem to believe this. The evidence is lacking for the proposition.

Posted by M.Z. Forrest | July 28, 2008 10:34 PM

Re: For whatever reason a lot of folks seem to believe this. The evidence is lacking for the proposition.

Liturgically, I mean. My understanding is the Orthodox are liturgically more conservative than the Catholics.

Moe, the age of menarche tended to be around 16 or 17 in pre-modern societies, except for the better nourished childern of the aristocracy. It's unlikely that a peasant girl in Palestine could have borne a child at the age of 15.

Posted by Hector | July 29, 2008 10:33 AM

Hector,

I'm not sure you can have this both ways. If it's a miracle of God's will, then menarche etc is irrelevant.

It's also unlikely a beam of light so fine it did not break the hymen was able to impregnate a woman with the son of God. Either you believe, or you don't.

We'll never know for sure what age Mary was, but if it wasn't the son of God, then it doesn't matter much anyway. Though given the average agespan, it seems a little off.

It does make your comments in this post a little unfortunate, re prophets and underage wives.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/america_alone.php

Attaching scientific explanations to something like this always ends in a huge cul-de-sac.

Posted by James | July 29, 2008 10:54 AM

James,

Um, no. The miraculous aspect was that Mary was able to conceive without intercourse, not that the Holy Spirit accelerated the development of her reproductive system such that she was able to bear a child. You appear to be postulating two separate miracles (the conception and the preternatural pregnancy itself) whereas church tradition only postulates one (the conception). I see no reason to go beyond what we have reason to believe from the apostles.

Furthermore, sure God would be able to miraculously accelerate the reproductive development of St. Mary (and for that matter Aisha too). However I see no reason why God would do that. Why would He want either St. Mary or Aisha to prematurely end their childhood? With God all things are possible, but not all things are likely.

Finally, the Muslim sources themselves state that Aisha was nine years old, and this (until recently) served as legal precedent for the age of concent in Yemen and Iran. There is no scriptural or (as far as I know) traditional reason to believe that Mary was abnormally young.

Posted by Hector | July 29, 2008 11:37 AM

the 'um' apart Hector, the point I was making is that surely the point of a virgin birth was it's miraculousness - to take one part and say yes, that makes scientific sense, but this bit doesn't is somewhat odd, and leads back to blind salamanders etc.

On a lighter note, I wonder if you had read or would be interested in 'Reformation' by Diarmuid McCullough? It's a fascinating work so far, not least in showing the huge diversity of opinion pre Reformation.

Posted by James | July 30, 2008 11:10 AM