FOUR LEGAL PARENTS

We mentioned in a previous blog, that Ontario’s Bill 28 was quietly removing the terms “mother” and “father” from provincial documents. That is only part of the bill. It will also raise the number of legal parents for one child from two to four.

Yes, that’s right—four parents!

The reason we assume, pushed by the gay agenda, is that a child for gay couples requires a third party for fertilization, and even a couple outside the marriage may provide a child for a gay couple—hence four parents.

I was alerted to this further content in the Bill by an article in Convivium Magazine by Cardus, written by Andrea Mrozek and available here. Definitely worth the read.

Four parents? Surely childrearing will be easier with more money, more babysitters, greater support? And for the child: birthday and Christmas presents from four parents instead of the paltry two, bragging rights of “more parents than you”? Choice of living with the most amenable parent?

But there are downsides: more disagreements on raising the child, outside affairs by more than one parent, betrayal between several parents, one parent spoiling or usurping a greater share of a child’s time. And who takes initial responsibility for the child? How does he/she manage up to six interfering in-laws, or cope with the child opting to live with another of three parents?

For the child? Confusion over who to obey, more parents that appear at irregular intervals, a sense that belonging to all, he/she really belongs to no-one. Eventually, identity confusion at their unknown heritage. Who are they really? Adult preferences are the priority; the Bill gives scant attention to the children of many parent families.

I am reminded of a blog I wrote back in April of 2011, excerpts below.

. . .  marriage restricted to two people is based on the natural need for one woman and one man to conceive and parent a child. This was the creation ideal in the Old Testament, despite the acceptance of bigamous marriages.

But if members of the same sex can form a marriage, restriction to two marriage partners loses its original rationale, making it difficult for liberal governments and courts to deny marriage rights for other arrangements.

Furthermore, families with more than two legitimate parents were created by the so-called "two-mother" ruling of the 2007 Ontario Court of Appeal. The court held that the biological mother of a small boy and her same-sex partner are both legally mothers of the child. The boy's biological father is still considered his father.

This family of two female married parents and a legitimate father outside the marriage is an opening parody on polygamy. Furthermore, Ontario recognizes multiple wives if previously married in a consenting jurisdiction. Put that beside the irrelevance of only two in a marriage, and polygamy becomes a reasonable option.

The slide into an eventual definition of marriage with multiple relationships is predictable even though the journey may be bumpy. Tradition, religion and social acceptance are no match for the juggernaut of Canadian Charter rights currently defined by the courts.

The distance between four parents for a child and four in a marriage is a short step. Are polygamous and polyamorous (group) marriages far behind? Andrea concludes in her closing paragraph:

"My prediction is that we will reach a point when a marriage is legally considered any number of people who desire to be in it for any length of time, no questions asked."

A utopian future, or a kid’s quagmire? What do you think?

MARRIAGE IMPROVES YOUR HEALTH

 Established statistics have generally recorded better health for married people. Now Cardus, www.cardus.ca, reports a recent study of 50 published empirical medical studies by Susan Martinuk, a medical researcher and research-based writer. It not only confirms previous studies, but also shows marriage can improve sickness recovery, even cancer survival.

In one large study of 735,000 people, married cancer patients lived 20 per cent longer. In five common cancers, patients survived better when married than resorting to chemotherapy. This is in addition to the better welfare of children to the marriage and happiness for all members of the family.

Martinuk was astonished by the dramatic results of her study, and surprised at how overwhelmingly positive marriage is for personal health and well-being. She says, “I had expected there would be far more contrary reports but when I went through all the reports to provide both sides of the story, there’s really not very much for the other side.”

Here are some health advantages to married people from numerous studies: Higher likelihood of recovering from cancer

Lower risk of suffering a heart attack

Better odds of surviving a heart attack

Quicker recovery from illness

Healthier habits and lifestyles

Better responses to psychological stress

In addition, those in high satisfaction marriages reduce the increased risk of: Blood pressure

Risk of heart disease

Depression

Time needed for healing of physical wounds

Levels of stress hormones

Reduced immune function

So “till death do us part” could well delay death, a positive effect for those in good marriages. However, we should not consider this a disparagement of singleness. Paul reminds us that singleness can provide clearer focus, “An unmarried man (or woman) is concerned about the Lord's affairs,” whereas “a married man (or woman) is also concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife (or husband). 1 Corinthians 7:32.

Marriage is a private choice, but it has public consequences, just as marriage is on public record as the couple who will be responsible for children of the marriage. Marriage is important for the public sphere also, particularly for outcomes of the public health system.

For instance, practicing physicians may treat married people differently based on their marriage status and its satisfaction level. Such a dramatic difference between married and singles about health should inform any medical treatment he advises.

Policy makers can also factor in this discussion. If marriage is empirically good for for health, it is also beneficial to the health system, to both quality of care and better use of resources. Of particular importance is the education of children and youths. Promotion of marriage should be part of the school curriculum to promote better health .

As you are probably aware, some Canadian jurisdictions are promoting the opposite agenda, especially in Alberta and Ontario. Already, the Ontario government is currently passing a bill to outlaw “mother” and “father” from official language.

So, if you want to live longer and healthier, get married!

MAINTAINING OUR MARRIAGE

 I mentioned in a previous blog that we live in a self-absorbed culture. But the culture is the sum of individual desires, and any cultural change must start with me. Today, I want to share with you three imperatives Ann and I consider necessary to maintain our marriage.

First, I’m sure you’ve noticed we are all different, as different in personality as we are in looks. Ann and I are probably the ultimate example that, like poles of a magnet, opposites attract each other. Of course, common interests, common beliefs, shared pursuits and desires, all aided in making us one.

But the differences that attract us to each other can eventually exasperate us because we each do things differently. Then I may try to make Ann over into my own image. If successful, the difference that attracted me fades, the source of excitement is lost, and I may venture elsewhere to fill the void. 

The disordered way in which Ann loads the dishwasher—compared, of course, with my efficient arrangement—is not the time for irritation and rebuke. No, it’s a time to rejoice that the vitality I first admired is still in the house and relish that happy incompatibility. 

Second, our culture of easy divorce promotes lack of commitment. It encourages the attitude: “If it doesn’t work for me, I can always leave.” At the first sign of trouble, it’s too easy to consider the marriage has failed and bail out. 

But an old adage tells us: “A ship’s captain doesn’t learn his craft on a calm sea.” We enjoy the green pastures and still waters God provides that nurtures our love. But Scripture encourages us to consider it “pure joy, whenever you face trials of many kinds.” 

Marriage is not built holding hands on a glassy sea. It is the perseverance through the storms that erupt upon it that deepens and matures our marriage, and forges the bond that will last a lifetime. Conflict exposes our readiness to sacrifice for the one we love. Joy is the outcome of conflict, for happiness is the by-product of service. 

Third, my devotion to Ann measures my devotion to God, for the first purpose of marriage is to reflect God’s faithfulness to His own. How I serve her betrays what I really believe about Christ’s sacrifice for me. So Paul admonishes us: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

Now, practicing this belief not only strengthens marriage, but fervency of faith is also the greatest legacy we can pass to our children. Families generally proliferate and bring joy beyond imagination. Children and grandchildren will learn the reality of God’s love and grace as we joyfully persist in our intimacy with God. 

That is necessary, not optional, if we wish to draw our children to faith in God. Even after 61 years of marriage. Our prayer remains: “May those who come behind us find us faithful.” 

 

Some of this material is adapted from our book, Happy Together: Daily Insights for Families From Scripture, obtainable from Amazon or directly from us at www.pebblepress.ca 

 

Welcome to Salt and Pepper

Welcome to Bryan's new blog dedicated to marriage, the benefits that accrue from it, and the challenges it faces. I plan this blog as a weekly journey that discusses current affairs relating to marriage.

First, what does the header on my new blog conjure up for you? Some have assumed a blog on interracial marriage. If so, I would approve. Marriage designated as the union of one man and one woman includes the union of a couple across all ethnic origins. Humans of every race share equally in human dignity.

However, this blog primarily celebrates the wider issue of traditional marriage. Each dinner table and restaurant booth provides salt and pepper, and here they represent the foundation of continuing humanity, and the archetype for companionship: the marriage of one woman to one man.

But this blog will also recognize the forces arranged against it. Let me be clear. Any union based on anything other than one man and one woman is a parody of marriage and a dilution of its meaning. Calling or legislating other unions as “marriage” does not make them so; they can only be poor copies of the original.

However, let me also be clear on this. Proposing or engaging in alternative unions does not reduce the dignity of the proponents; they also share equally in human worth. They have taken a wrong path leading to the deterioration of the culture as a whole, and wrong views on marriage will eventually have a related outcome.

The basis for one man and one woman (OMOW) forming marriage is simple. It takes one man and one woman to produce offspring. Of course, some marriages cannot produce offspring, but this side issue does not validate other unions that cannot produce children as “marriage.” The fundamental fact remains that childbirth requires an egg and sperm connection from each sex.

Furthermore, a registered OMOW marriage is a pledge to society that each has made a commitment to the other, and they accept responsibility for children from the union. Raised in a OMOW marriage ensures children build a balanced and practical assessment of the attributes of each sex that will inform each child later as they engage with the opposite sex.

Join me next week as we glimpse the future of marriage.