The Family Institution: Then and Now The purpose and understanding of the family institution has changed drastically since the Founders. The Founders associated marriage, specifically a stable one, with the sustainability of the family. Today marriage is less common, it happens later in life, and more of them end in divorce. Living together outside of wedlock was once prohibited, but now it is almost expected. These changes in views of marriage and the family are for the worse; they negatively affect the family, the children, and the community. The Founders’ view of marriage and the family is considered today as the “traditional” view. The Founders held marriage and family life in high regard for two reasons according to Thomas West. The
…show more content…
The primary function of marriage is to procreate and raise children to be well educated. Public opinion used to be more severe than the laws in place to prohibit polygamy, adultery, and other actions contradictory with
Founders’ view of marriage. The Founders saw a connection between peace and marriage. An example of this view is in the 1810 Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion by Theophilus Parsons which states:
Marriage is unquestionably a civil contract, founded in the social nature of man, and intended to regulate, chasten, and refine the intercourse between the sexes; and to multiply, preserve, and improve the species. … Marriage being essential to the peace and harmony, and to the virtues and improvements, of civil society, it has been, in all well regulated governments, among the first attentions of the civil magistrate to regulate …show more content…
“During the course of the twentieth century, marriage in America was in effect redefined as a relationship for personal self-fulfillment.” “The contemporary view of marriage as an emotional, perhaps lasting bond, between two independent individuals is shaping our law and arguably has become the predominant American opinion on the purpose of marriage.” The feminist movement and, in general, supporters of personal autonomy are two groups behind the redefinition of marriage. Feminists took issue with the consent of women when it comes to marriage. “Feminist critics of marriage believe that the consent of women and the actions of wives and mothers within marriage are subtly shaped by ‘patriarchy’ in what they take to be our male-dominated society.” Some feminists believe the solution to this is more marital independence; by this they mean women should have more options before and during marriage which allegedly creates this independence. Supporters of personal autonomy believe the community should not have a voice regarding the form of marriage and the kinds of unions people desire. Civil government should not be involved in defining the goals of marriage, and one’s decisions must not be accountable to the community or to civil government. “In the early 2000s this redefinition of marriage reached its logical conclusion in the widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage…. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court defined
The primary function of marriage is to procreate and raise children to be well educated. Public opinion used to be more severe than the laws in place to prohibit polygamy, adultery, and other actions contradictory with
Founders’ view of marriage. The Founders saw a connection between peace and marriage. An example of this view is in the 1810 Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion by Theophilus Parsons which states:
Marriage is unquestionably a civil contract, founded in the social nature of man, and intended to regulate, chasten, and refine the intercourse between the sexes; and to multiply, preserve, and improve the species. … Marriage being essential to the peace and harmony, and to the virtues and improvements, of civil society, it has been, in all well regulated governments, among the first attentions of the civil magistrate to regulate …show more content…
“During the course of the twentieth century, marriage in America was in effect redefined as a relationship for personal self-fulfillment.” “The contemporary view of marriage as an emotional, perhaps lasting bond, between two independent individuals is shaping our law and arguably has become the predominant American opinion on the purpose of marriage.” The feminist movement and, in general, supporters of personal autonomy are two groups behind the redefinition of marriage. Feminists took issue with the consent of women when it comes to marriage. “Feminist critics of marriage believe that the consent of women and the actions of wives and mothers within marriage are subtly shaped by ‘patriarchy’ in what they take to be our male-dominated society.” Some feminists believe the solution to this is more marital independence; by this they mean women should have more options before and during marriage which allegedly creates this independence. Supporters of personal autonomy believe the community should not have a voice regarding the form of marriage and the kinds of unions people desire. Civil government should not be involved in defining the goals of marriage, and one’s decisions must not be accountable to the community or to civil government. “In the early 2000s this redefinition of marriage reached its logical conclusion in the widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage…. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court defined