Perhaps the greatest contribution to the social life of man made by Christianity is — marriage. Christianity brought marriage into the world: marriage as we know it. Christianity established the little economy of the family within the greater rule of the State. Christianity made marriage in some respects inviolate, not to be violated by the State. It is marriage, perhaps, which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State, given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist the unjust State. Man and wife, a king and queen with one or two subjects, and a few square yards of territory of their own: this, really, is marriage. It is a true freedom because it is a true fulfilment, for man, woman, and children.
Do we want to break marriage? If we do break it, it means we all fall to a far greater extent under the direct sway of the State. Do we want to fall under the direct sway of the State, any State? For my part, I don’t.[1][1]
“Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”[2]
The aim of this brief article is to draw a parallel between easy, no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution; the parallel in my view can be described as the freedom paradox.
No fault divorce and the sexual revolution are justified on the grounds that they maximise freedom. Whilst at first glance, this justification may appear to be correct and obviously so, passion is a more imperious master than morality and where passions are unconstrained, the subject can become enslaved to whomever is in a position manipulate their passions. True freedom as has been recognised by many philosophers, including Plato and Kant, is derived from obedience to the moral law; one cannot fully control external events, but one does have full control in deciding to act only in accordance with the moral law.
As is explained below, the breaking of the moral law benefits primarily the rich and powerful:
“They are not like the rest of us because they are rich and powerful, and so, when they urge Demos to break the moral law in the interest of some specious liberation, they are really bringing about his enslavement. Why? Because Demos is neither rich nor powerful. The only protection he has against the predations of the rich and powerful is the law, which is to say the moral law and the positive one based on it. If he liberates himself from the moral law he creates a society in which desire is the only measure of right and wrong.” [3]
In support of this statement, there are entire industries, such as the pornography industry, that benefit greatly from the destruction of the aforesaid moral law. Further, there are political movements that have sought power and the destruction of existing institutions, such as marriage and organised religion, through sexual revolution and the promotion of unrestrained hedonism.[4]
In tandem with the sexual revolution, there has been a weaking of marriage via no fault divorce and the promotion of women in the labour market and the professions. This has the effect of increasing the power of Governments, corporations and plutocrats. The reason for this is that, by increasing the number of single person households and reducing the number of married households that are reliant on a single income, the percentage of the population that are taxed increases. Additionally the percentage of the population who are indirectly subject to ideological control by their corporate employers, for instance by having to undergo so called ‘diversity’ or ‘sensitivity training’ or by facing the prospect of losing their employment for expressing politically incorrect opinions, increases.
Therefore the ‘fortress’ in the words of DH Lawrence is considerably weakened by divorce law reform; its inhabitants are lured into leaving the fortress and entering less hospitable ground, by the nebulous promise of happiness.