Before I explain, don't get me wrong - I'm totally for equal rights for women, I'm totally for separation of church and state (that's a right here in the US recognized by the very first clause of the 1st Amendment) & I'm opposed to having either any other way.
Here it is: marriage in the United States fails because it's an institution that isn't compatible with equal rights, along with separation of church and state.
This also applies in other countries that recognize equal rights for women and have separation of church and state.
I think it's rather well known that around half of marriages end in divorce, but there doesn't seem to be much discussion about what percentage of marriages are struggling or are happy marriages. At least 1/3 of marriages are struggling, and the reason I say that is because only 1/3 of marriages are happy, meaning that there's another 1/3 that aren't happy. This means that less than 17% of marriages are doing well and another 17% are probably doing ok but aren't in very good shape.
I think the underlying reason for why equal rights produces a 50% - 84% failure or lack of success rate for marriage is because it has to have a single head of the family or household (i.e., a patriarchy or matriarchy), and equal rights clashes with that. In a society with equal rights, both members of a marriage are heads of a household. The actual collapse of a marriage is the result of disagreements between the couple about what direction to take their marriage and household that they can't resolve.
Marriage exists the way it does today because of religion. I'm not calling for a ban on marriage; I am just as supportive of the second clause of the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion) as I am of the 1st clause, but I think the state/government ought to stay out of marriage completely. No issuing of marriage licenses, no divorce laws & divorce court, no tax benefits or advantages for being married, etc.
If religious individuals want to be in a marriage, that's between them and their church (or whatever religious institution they're affiliated with); in that case a married couple can turn to their church or religious institution for guidance on how to resolve disputes. Might as well anyways, since their religious institution is really the one in control of their marriages.
I'm not saying that I'm for anarchism when it comes to households, families, having children, living together, etc; there can still be civil unions, contracts and agreements specifying what direction a household is to be taken in, who the head of the household is, how children will be raised, etc, just like any other type of contract (e.g. for business & corporations). If the state/government is to be involved in making laws, rules, or policies regarding civil unions, parental rights, etc., that's fine to me, as long as they're not designed to respect an establishment of religion.
In the US, it's also not uncommon for mothers and fathers to have children with more than one spouse or partner. I also sometimes hear religious people (specifically those on the right of the US's dominant political spectrum) claim that children are better off in a 2-parent family than single-parent family. Assuming that this is basically true, I think the reason for that is because the dominance of religion gearing society to be like that plays a role, especially in the way that the state/government accommodates and helps to perpetuate religious dominance. I think society ought to be designed and geared towards being more accommodating for mothers and fathers who have children with more than one spouse or partner, as well as for single mothers, mainly in how the legal system plays a role in that.
Here it is: marriage in the United States fails because it's an institution that isn't compatible with equal rights, along with separation of church and state.
This also applies in other countries that recognize equal rights for women and have separation of church and state.
I think it's rather well known that around half of marriages end in divorce, but there doesn't seem to be much discussion about what percentage of marriages are struggling or are happy marriages. At least 1/3 of marriages are struggling, and the reason I say that is because only 1/3 of marriages are happy, meaning that there's another 1/3 that aren't happy. This means that less than 17% of marriages are doing well and another 17% are probably doing ok but aren't in very good shape.
I think the underlying reason for why equal rights produces a 50% - 84% failure or lack of success rate for marriage is because it has to have a single head of the family or household (i.e., a patriarchy or matriarchy), and equal rights clashes with that. In a society with equal rights, both members of a marriage are heads of a household. The actual collapse of a marriage is the result of disagreements between the couple about what direction to take their marriage and household that they can't resolve.
Marriage exists the way it does today because of religion. I'm not calling for a ban on marriage; I am just as supportive of the second clause of the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion) as I am of the 1st clause, but I think the state/government ought to stay out of marriage completely. No issuing of marriage licenses, no divorce laws & divorce court, no tax benefits or advantages for being married, etc.
If religious individuals want to be in a marriage, that's between them and their church (or whatever religious institution they're affiliated with); in that case a married couple can turn to their church or religious institution for guidance on how to resolve disputes. Might as well anyways, since their religious institution is really the one in control of their marriages.
I'm not saying that I'm for anarchism when it comes to households, families, having children, living together, etc; there can still be civil unions, contracts and agreements specifying what direction a household is to be taken in, who the head of the household is, how children will be raised, etc, just like any other type of contract (e.g. for business & corporations). If the state/government is to be involved in making laws, rules, or policies regarding civil unions, parental rights, etc., that's fine to me, as long as they're not designed to respect an establishment of religion.
In the US, it's also not uncommon for mothers and fathers to have children with more than one spouse or partner. I also sometimes hear religious people (specifically those on the right of the US's dominant political spectrum) claim that children are better off in a 2-parent family than single-parent family. Assuming that this is basically true, I think the reason for that is because the dominance of religion gearing society to be like that plays a role, especially in the way that the state/government accommodates and helps to perpetuate religious dominance. I think society ought to be designed and geared towards being more accommodating for mothers and fathers who have children with more than one spouse or partner, as well as for single mothers, mainly in how the legal system plays a role in that.
