By Mary Frances McCarthy
Herald Staff Writer
(From the issue of 3/25/04)

At a recent lecture, "Two Becoming One Flesh: On Marriage as the Union of the Sexual and the Economic," held by the Family Research Council in Washington, FRC President Allan Carlson discussed the history of marriage and sexuality in the United States and its economic implications.

Carlson discussed the historical anthropology of marriage and how it changed through the 20th century.

In the 1930s, education and protective roles of parents were transferred to the government, and American homes were little more than "parking places" for families.

"There are many wives without children," said sociologist William Fielding Ogburn in 1933. "Families without children may almost be classed differently. The stability of future family is not clearly seen."

The 1950s saw productive roles within the household reach a minimum. At this time, there was not full equality given to women in the workforce, so the majority of day to day work at home and with children was done by women. However, fewer mothers baked bread for their families and canned and preserved their own food. There was a rise in production of processed foods and time-saving devises for the household. Women were labeled "expressive leaders," in charge of emotional tasks and creating a pleasant environment, while men served as "chairmen of the board," the CEO of the family, emphasizing efficiency and economy.

In her 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, Betty Freidan said that the "domestic aspect of the housewife role has declined" and she referred to the growing suburbs as "ugly and endless sprawls … noisy places without walls and doors."

The population bomb misconception in the 1960s led people to believe that the world would soon be overpopulated, and because of the decline of domesticity by women, there was a rise in "companionate" marriages, which elevated sex as a method of pleasure and passion, not a means for procreation. The birth control pill was made legal in 1963, adding fuel to the fire of the sexual revolution. Look magazine reported in 1970 that "It can be more loving to children not to have them."

In 1973, even Hugh Hefner agreed that the institution of marriage was headed downhill. Playboy Press reported that "nothing was reduced to less recognizable rubble than the revered institute of marriage."

This breakdown of marriage from the foundation of families to companionate marriages fostering mutual pleasure has cleared the path for the demand of gay unions. If marriage is founded solely on two people loving one another, and procreation is no longer an issue, why not allow homosexuals to participate in this sacred union?

Carlson turned to the book of Genesis to explain how marriage is not only about love, but also a sexual and economic union.

"Humankind from our origin has been defined by heterosexual monogamy resting on linking of sexual and economical, where two become one flesh," Carlson said.

Changes that are seen in the structure of marriage are either cultural strengthening or weakening, he said. "Homosexuality is a biological and physiological dead-end," said Carlson. "Evolutionary theory absolutely depends on procreation."

So what can be done to strengthen marriage? Carlson said there needs to be a return to home-centered production. From day care to home-produced goods — their economic value is hidden. Freidan said it herself, "It is possible for women to reverse history." Freidan urged women to can their own foods and bake their own bread, to rely less on processed and mass-produced goods.

The cultural aspect of marriage needs to be recovered, Carlson said. Healthy children will thrive in families where there is a strong bond of marriage, in large families with a happily married mother and father. A household economy is reinforced by both love and economics. Between the parents there is a division of labor, a specialization of strengths.

John Mueller, president and chief economist of LBMC, adviser to investment managers and policy makers, added comments to the economic value of love.

"Man is fortunate in marrying the woman he loves. He is more fortunate in loving the woman he marries," he said, quoting G.K. Chesterton. Mueller said that economists need to look at the history of their science. He said that St. Augustine stated the theory of economics and love at the same time. "The first decision in every economic choice is choice of persons in the end of the economic task," Mueller said. "All human acts are fundamentally motivated by love of some person." Mueller described the difference between marketing economics and household economics, saying that marketing is the pursuit of profit and efficiency; while household economies strive for cooperation and altruism. Mueller said he goes to work each day not simply to make money, but to make money to support his wife and children.