Andy Rooney on Marriage and Divorce
May 15th, 2007 by Dave
Time for a pop quiz on America’s favorite curmudgeon, Andy Rooney. Which of the following quotes are genuinely attributable to him?
A. “There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions.”
B. “I am an atheist. I don’t understand religion at all.”
C. “We’ve got to stop taking divorce and marriage so lightly in our lives, in our literature, and in our entertainment. It should probably be harder to get married and certainly harder to get divorced. The contract is not only between two people but also with the state and all of society.”
You guessed it, he’s actually said all of the above.
In particular, item “C” comes from his column “This country should do more to fight the scourge of divorce” which appeared in this morning’s Connecticut Post. Quite surprising, isn’t it, that a self-described liberal atheist would actually embrace a position that is remarkably similar to what I wrote here in March 2007:
At its heart, civil marriage is a contract between husband, wife, and the government.
Apparently traditional family values are not the exclusive domain of right-wing Christian fundamentalists. I guess the folks on the Left will have to come up with another excuse for why the views of the people should be disregarded!
On the subject of divorce, Mr. Rooney summed it up quite well when he wrote:
The reason the divorce rate is so high, I think, is that couples are looking for some ideal life that doesn’t exist for two people. It ought to be made clear to a man and a woman about to get married that there are going to be problems. They ought to know that and determine early on in the relationship that they’re going to stick at it even with the problems. The idea that two people are always going to get along is unrealistic.
Those are wise words that ought to be taken to heart by the “Me” generation. Like JFK said, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” Or as Julie Baumgardner of FirstThings.org says:
Stop using divorce as a crutch. Instead of throwing in the towel when the going gets tough, consider it a challenge to learn as much as you can about your mate and how you can effectively deal with adversity. Make an intentional decision to love the one you are with.
Perhaps if husbands and wives gave more thought to their wedding vows, when they made a lifelong commitment to endure through good times and bad times, we’d have fewer broken families.
Unlike withholding marriage rights from gay couples and emergency contraception from rape victims, I think this is a reasonable and wholly un-monstrous concept.
Personally I don’t see myself supporting a revocation of no-fault divorce, but I can see that this is motivated from a concern with our societal fabric rather than intolerance or enforcing personal religious beliefs on others.
If you have success with this over time, I’m curious if you’d try to make the same rules apply to civil unions — and if not, if you think more heterosexual couples would sign up first for a civil union before committing to a marriage?
Dave,
As per your usual—EXCELLENT POST!!! You are always so on target with your posts and well-researched and backed-up responses.
I especially LOVED:
“Apparently traditional family values are not the exclusive domain of right-wing Christian fundamentalists. I guess the folks on the Left will have to come up with another excuse for why the views of the people should be disregarded!”
Matt,
Do I correctly understand you to be saying (or at least believe) that most every stand that FIC takes is “[un]reasonable and monstrous?” And that FIC is for “intolerance or enforcing personal religious beliefs on others?”
Also, Matt, note that Mr. Rooney wrote about marriage NOT using the term “two persons,” but rather “a man and a woman about to get married.” Throughout the column he was referring to “the relationship between men and women,” and he began by stating “The theory of marriage is, two people of the opposite sex decide to live together because they love each other and want to spend their lives together.”
Yes, most of the noisier stands.
And Tricia, I was talking about heterosexual marriage too. Since — for now at least — we have two seperate legal institutions, I was wondering what you thought would happen if divorce (from marriage) became more difficult. Or rather, I was wondering what someone who read the comment thought.
Matt,
Your original question seems to be a non sequitur, because you seem to imply that there are separate mechanisms for the dissolution of marriages and civil unions in Connecticut. As I understand it the rules and procedures are the same for both marriages and civil unions. Take a look at this information from the Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries to learn more about it:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/divorce/divorce.htm
If reforms in the area of divorce law were contemplated, wouldn’t it be appropriate to make them apply equally to both marriages and civil unions? After all, as I have heard it said before, why should there be any basis for unequal treatment under the law?
Federal income taxes…
Hospital emergency rooms…
Health insurance…
Though it’s nice to hear that you’ve come around to support civil unions, there are lots of inequalities still remaining.
Matt,
I believe you’ve misread my feelings on civil unions. Acknowledging something as a legal reality does not necessarily imply that it is moral or just. But I won’t belabor that particular point any further in this thread. We are where we are.
And speaking of where we are, I was hoping – in this thread at least – to start moving in a different direction. Must everything be focused entirely on SSM? If you see some universal applicability of these observations, so be it. After all, the causes of divorce ought to be similar regardless of one’s orientation – disagreement about finances, infidelity, addictions, abuse, etc.
With benefits come responsibilities. And if the state has an interest in regulating the solemnization of such relationships, it also has an interest in regulating their dissolution. In view of the disruptive effects upon society that follow in the wake of such dissolutions, the state ought to have an interest in encouraging their continuity and discouraging their failure. We have made it too easy all around for people to walk away from their commitments, without making sufficient attempts at reconciliation.
Matt,
I DID read your entire comment, but the entire TENOR of your post was so **condemnatory** of the work of FIC and those who support it, that that **tone** was what most strongly spoke to me as needing a response.
However, your question “if not, if you think more heterosexual couples would sign up first for a civil union before committing to a marriage?” also calls for a response (that is probably not what you’d expect).
You may have forgotten, or just be uninformed, Matt, that in 2005 our legislature considered amendments which would have made Civil Unions available to heterosexual couples (or other, non-conjugal relationships which could benefit). This was BEFORE taking the final vote which RESTRICTED Civil Unions to ONLY homosexual couples.
Of course, we know why the bill’s proponents did that. It was NOT out of concern for the institution of “Marriage,” but only in their own self-interest to provide fodder for their intended further lawsuits, such as in the current appeal of the Kerrigan case ruling at the Supreme Court.