A change for better or for worse?
Fox news reports today that many couples are choosing alternate pledges to the traditional “until death do us part.” I’m wondering… is this a good thing (i.e., people are being honest about the fact they intend to stay married only as long as it suits them) or a terrible thing (no explanation needed!)? I certainly think it’s unacceptable for professing Christians and probably detrimental to society in general, even if it does reflect what is already a reality for many people (for a good “common grace” explanation of why marriage as an institution is important to our society, read The Case for Marriage).
mark tucker said,
July 25, 2005 @ 8:34 am
That is an interesting dilemma because there is a sense where we are tempted to applaud the honesty of not saying ’till death do us part,’ leaving room for the possibilty of things not working out. HOWEVER, ultimately it is still a lie, just disguised in false authenticity. Marriage by design is meant to be for life. When a couple makes the statement about death they are stating their intention to uphold this covenant. Whether they say the words or not, they most likely ARE and should be the intention. By NOT saying the words they are NOT exempting themselves from the pain, hurt, anger, and distrust that divorce brings. AS IF! I mean after years of marriage do they think that one can say “Ok, I’m done here” without repercussions because REMEMBER “I never said those words anyway!” SHEESH! What are they hoping to exempt themselves from by NOT saying the words? Not breaking a promise? Well, now that IS pious (not). The truth is, if the marriage ends in divorce, then one or both of the people have ALREADY broken a busload of promises to each other (public and private, spoken and unspoken). So whether they break the ‘ till death do us part’ statement or not is really superfluous. Its like the child who ate all the candy and cookies in the cupboard, but left alone the ones in cookie jar, because “I never said I wouldn’t eat THOSE!”