Contract or covenant? Marriage is either a sacred union or a private arrangement. But is it public?

From: Michael Coren [e-mail]

To: Karen Selick [e-mail]

Date: Oct 23, 2006 10:17 AM

Subject: Tie, Belinda and marriage

Nothing could interest me less than the vulgar indiscretions of the risible Belinda Stronach and former hockey enforcer Tie Domi. What is significant, however, is that Domi's wife has named Stronach in her divorce proceedings. Canadians have been reminded that when we get married, we make certain absolute commitments, such as to honour one's spouse and not to have sex with other people. In fact, the whole gay marriage mess began not with homosexual activists but with heterosexual betrayal and immorality. We made marriage common when we, well, accepted common-law marriage. There is no such thing. We ought not to live with one another until we are genuinely married, commit adultery or get divorced, just because we are obsessed with passing feelings and the cult of instant and constant gratification. When the marriage revolution began 40 years ago, we were told by the elite that it wouldn't matter. In reality, hardly anything has mattered so much.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

From: Karen Selick [e-mail]

To: Michael Coren [e-mail]

Date: Oct 23, 2006 10:59 AM

Subject: Tie, Belinda and marriage

So what do you suggest, Michael--that we jail everyone who cohabits and has sex without a licence from the state? If so, toss me in the clink. I've been in a monogamous, heterosexual, unlicensed relationship for 27 years. My husband and I are just as smart and ethical as any politician or bureaucrat who has purported to govern us during that time (indeed, probably more so). Why, then, should we need their permission to sleep together? It makes no sense. State-registered marriages are actually a relatively recent invention. Until 1753, marriage registration was not required in England. Everybody's marriage was "common law." Eleven U.S. states have never required licences in order to contract a legal marriage. I think the government should withdraw from the marriage and divorce businesses entirely, not ramp up its intrusions into the nation's bedrooms and joint bank accounts. Sexual and financial unions should be private contractual matters between consenting adults, not state-bestowed status symbols.

From: Michael Coren [e-mail]

To: Karen Selick [e-mail]

Date: Oct 23, 2006 1:03 PM

Subject: re: Tie, Belinda and marriage

Personal wisdom and ethics are all very well, but we're speaking here of greater truths and of the lives of children. Nobody is going to arrest you or anyone else for the way you live or love, but nor must we pervert the fundamental nature and meaning of a timeless institution. The state only got involved because it wanted more control, both of society and of the church. So the idea of that state withdrawing from marriage does have a certain appeal. As for the statement that "Sexual ... unions should be private contractual matters between consenting adults," I didn't know you were such an old romantic. I've always considered marriage a loving and lifelong commitment in which two people could achieve completeness, share sacrifice, raise children and mingle joy and faith and happiness. Nothing common about that.

From: Karen Selick [e-mail]

To: Michael Coren [e-mail]

Date: Oct 23, 2006 3:22 PM

Subject: re: Tie, Belinda and marriage

Marriage may indeed be what you've described--for some people. But why are raising children and mingling faith part of your formula? Would you deny marriage licences to sterile people or atheists? Anyhow, your definition is irrelevant to the issue we were discussing, namely the state's role in marriage. Couples can have a relationship like you describe with or without a marriage licence. And many of those who get a licence don't achieve permanent, fulfilling relationships. But the high divorce rate isn't necessarily a sign of increasing moral turpitude. Many unhappy couples stayed together in past centuries from sheer economic necessity, not love or virtue. What has changed in recent decades are the opportunities for women to be lucratively employed, so they needn't remain on the farm with an adulterous or abusive husband. Want to reduce the divorce rate? Just do what the Taliban does. Withhold education and employment from women. Then they'd stay with their husbands. They'd have no choice. I hope even you would prefer divorces over this.