MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesJanuary 30, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
Now, I hope y'all weren't too disappointed not to see me last night. I know that the State of the Union address may be considered by some a poor substitute, but I though there were some interesting things in there and also interesting things over all that are coming out and some of the proposals that are being made as part of the Bush administration's budget and so forth.
I noticed one the other day that they want to set aside $100 million with the idea that they are going to support people on welfare, single mothers, who want to get married. This is an idea that I have thought about for many years. I have proposed it in many different forms. I am glad to see they're finally giving it a try. Because of course, the welfare system represents just one area in this society's life where unhappily, with perhaps good intentions, we put things together in a way that undermine the foundations of family life, discouraged people in fact from getting married and staying married and helped to contribute to the weakening of the marriage-based family structure.
It's not the only thing, mind you. There are many social phenomena. There are things that tend to emphasize the selfishness, the self-centeredness, even the achievement-oriented ethic of our business world, the economical part. All of it can result in people who put family in second place, and who also so caught up in what they are trying to do for themselves that they find it very hard to make a transition to a state and situation in which, as most of us who are married understand, you have to spend so much of your time thinking about other people and what's needed for them, what's good for them, what you've got to do for them. I think one of the chief characteristics of marriage and family life is that it's the context in which you learn that 90 percent of your life can be taken up thinking about other folks instead of just yourself. And that fulfillment of joy and satisfaction can all of it come in a context in which you have put yourself right in second or even last place in the midst of everything else.
But we're going to be talking about the challenges that a culture that in so many ways unfits people for the challenges of marriage. We are going to be talking about what that is doing to the institution of marriage, how people are reacting, what attitudes now are coming along that either help or hinder the prospects of marriage. And some people have gotten pretty pessimistic. There was a time we went through with the divorce statistics sky high, and everybody saying, well, the marriage-based family is gone. That's changing a little bit now. Statistics firming up, divorce rates going down a little bit, but everyone still recognizes that we're in the midst of a crisis.
Coming up in this program today, we are going to have Dr. Laura Schlessinger talking to us about her understanding of the relationships, and what can help to make for the strong relationships that marriages can be built on.
But first, I want you to meet somebody who has writing a very fascinating book. Her name is Pamela Paul. She is from New York, and she is the author of a new book called “The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony.” And I want to introduce Pamela, and I hope you won't mind, Pamela, if I say this, that some of the ideas you have put forward in the book are not ideas I have to confess that I am really comfortable with. There are ideas that actually riled me up a little bit. But I thought that they reflected some realities in what people are doing and attitudes that they are taking now that needed to be on the table as we began this discussion — welcome to the show, Pamela, and thank you for joining us tonight.
PAMELA PAUL, AUTHOR, “THE STARTER MARRIAGE”: Thanks for having me.
KEYES: Now, tell me a little bit about what you see going on out there. You are talking about people who get married, stay married for a short time, end up in divorce court. Why do you think this is an important phenomenon to look at?
PAUL: Well, nobody really talks about marriage taking place among young people, and in fact, many 20 and 30 somethings do get divorced, and nobody has looked at this idea of starter marriages, which I define as a marriage that lasts for five years or less and ends before children begin.
KEYES: Now, why do you think that this phenomena, one, is becoming more significant in terms of the younger generation, the people who are starting marriage? And what do you think it comes from? What does it arise from in the attitudes that they are bringing into marriage?
PAUL: Well, this is the first children of divorce generation, and I think that that has a lot of repercussions for how young people approach marriage. Even if their own parents were not divorced, they saw divorce in society around them. And what I found really fascinating is that this does not mean that young people think divorce is OK. In fact, they often go into marriage with very optimistic ideas that their marriage will not end. At the same time, there is a lot of contradiction, because they do know that divorce is an option. On the...
KEYES: You say that they are going into marriage with the thought — what — that they are going to marry somebody, they are going to stay married their whole life. What goes wrong?
PAUL: Everyone who went into a starter marriage really believed that they were getting married for a lifetime. Unfortunately, they often hadn't given the idea of marriage a lot of thought. I think that in our sort of matrimonial culture, a lot of people spent a lot of time and energy focusing on the wedding day, and there is this sort of whole wedding industrial complex, you can call it, where people spend so much money focusing on this magical white wedding that they think will somehow guarantee them a happy marriage, and it really...
KEYES: What do they think they are going to get out of the marriage institution itself though? I mean, in terms of going through this process, doing things in terms of the marriage and the ceremony and the excitement. But once they are married, what is it that they are looking for, trying to get out of that marriage situation? Why do they take that step in terms of their own expectations?
PAUL: People have very high expectations of marriage. I think that they have high expectations of what marriage will bring them. They look at marriage as a kind of transformative act that will make them more balanced, more successful. You know, it's somehow sometimes approached as kind of another thing to check off your list of things to do. You know, you have
graduated from the right school, you have moved to a great city, you get an apartment, you get a job, and then you get married. And people expect that all of the sort of goodies of society will follow. That they will automatically get the house and the two perfect kids who go to all of the right schools, and of course, that isn't the case.
KEYES: Now, tell me in your sense as you have examined these folks and the things that in terms of their expectations and what they actually find in marriage, what is it that then leads these marriages to fail, some of them quite quickly in terms of who those expectations measure up to what they actually find in marriage?
PAUL: Well, I think that, again, we have this sense that once you get married, everything will sort of fall into place, and we will all live happily ever after. And marriage can indeed be a really wonderful thing, but people don't recognize that there are all sorts of ups and downs, and just because you get married to someone and you're in love doesn't mean that your husband might get depressed for, you know, a year, or you might have — someone might get sick or lose a job. And there are challenges, and you need to get through all of those and make a serious commitment to another person. And I think that a lot of people don't really think that out.
KEYES: Well, tell me something. You have tried to apply this term “starter marriage,” and I've got to be frank with you, it's a concept that makes me very uncomfortable, because it seems to me — my first reaction to that was these are so short, they seem like finished marriages to me, not starter marriages. Why do you think that it would be advisable to try to look at this phenomenon, which seems in one sense so negative in a positive light?
PAUL: Well, I think there is a plus side and a minus side. I mean, divorce, it's very difficult, a very painful thing for anyone to go through. And I wouldn't recommend a starter marriage to anyone. On the positive side, however, I do think that's it good that these people are getting divorced before they have children, and often that is a very conscience part of their decision, where they say, you know, I don't want to do to my kids what, perhaps, my parents did to me or I saw friends of mine growing up go through.
KEYES: Yes, yes.
PAUL: And I also think that they learn a lot of really important lessons about marriage that will hopefully lead them to a lifelong marriage.
KEYES: Now, one last question, because you mention folks who are getting divorced before they have children. Does that mean that somehow the marriage decision and the idea of having children are not necessarily linked in their minds?
PAUL: I think they are decreasingly linked. It's sort of like sex and marriage have become increasingly separate concepts; the same thing with marriage and child rearing. A lot of people did want to have children, but they often thought if they got married at 25 or even at the age of 30, that this something they could put off for the next three to five years. And they often wanted to enjoy the marriage, enjoy themselves individually before they made, you know, had that kind of responsibility.
KEYES: Pamela, thank you so much. I think that the insights that you bring are kind of a provocative report on attitudes and behaviors that make some of us, to be quite frank, a little uncomfortable. But I think we have to look at them in the context of trying to think hard about the strengths and weaknesses that different aspects of our society contribute to in terms of married life.
Now later, Dr. Laura Schlessinger coming up, and plus your phone calls and e-mails, and of course, next, “People Just Like You” dealing with the topics that literally is close to home.
But first, does this make sense? I heard today that, I think it was Vice President Cheney went off to the Hill, the building back there, and was making the argument that they ought to be restricting their inquiry into the 9/11 business to the intelligence committees. Now, just as a thought here. We have the most egregious failure of our national security in history. As yet, we haven't really gotten to the bottom of what caused that failure of our national security structure. Can we be sure that all the money we are spending to try to fight terrorism and improve things are actually going to do so, if we haven't even understood the problem? Isn't that the first responsibility, in fact, of our representatives that you can't solve a problem you don't understand? Does restricting their effort to understand it really make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Well, here we are with some people just like you. Joining us now is David Noe, a Greek and Latin professor at Patrick Henry College in Virginia and a father of a 10-month-old son. Samantha Roe is a program director for a public policy organization here in Washington — not married yet. And Connie Markva is a retired nurse with 8 children and 10 grandchildren.
Now, we have been taking a look at the question of marriage and whether or not in our society, with all of the different pressures that develop, attitudes and sort forth, we are actually not preparing people for divorce instead of marriage, putting pressures on the marriage institution that doom it to failure in our society. We just heard from Pamela Paul, who — she's trying to put a positive face on it, but essentially she is talking about a phenomenon in which people are getting married and getting divorced very quickly. Come into it with high expectations and find those expectations somehow dashed up against the reality of what is required for married life.
Now, the question I want to put on the table right to begin with has to do with that question of expectations vs. reality. To what extent do you all think people who are contemplating marriage or involved in getting married are going into it these days with expectations that are realistic? Are they going into it knowing what's there, or are they going into it in a way that prepares them for a fall? What do you think, David?
DAVID NOE, MARRIED WITH NEWBORN SON: I think that in general, society tends to create an attitude of give me something, and I don't have to give anything in order to get that. And marriage doesn't work that way. Marriage is a relationship, where you have to give all the time if you want to have a successful marriage. You have to sacrifice to the other person's needs and desires, and if you're only thinking about yourself, like a narcissist, you're not going to have any success in marriage.
KEYES: Samantha, what do you think?
SAMANTHA ROE, SINGLE: Well, I think that a lot of people like Pamela have said they think that it's a process of you go to a university. You get done. You maybe live alone for a while, and then you get married. And there's like a time frame that you're supposed to be married by a certain age. When I lived in France, I mean, it's all over the place, but every time, when I turned 25, it was like “You're not married yet, you're not married yet?” And they would have these different festivals and things
like that for the people who weren't married that where they would get all dressed and try to find someone at that time. And I think that there was such a pressure of it's that time. You have to do that. It doesn't matter who the person is. So I definitely understand that starter marriage mentality that people go into.
KEYES: Why do you think, though, that Pamela is describing folks who think that they are ready for it, and that their marriage is going to work so wonderfully?
ROE: Because I don't think they look at the long term. I think they think they do, but I don't think they really understand what this means, and that it is this commitment where you have to make the sacrifices and do the things. And so when they meet someone they fall in love with, they think, oh it's just going to be perfect forever. But they don't think about the lifestyles that both of the people want that are in the marriage. I mean, there is so much more beyond love that goes into having a marriage work.
KEYES: Now, Connie, to what extent do you think, against that backdrop, we live in a society that actually encourages that kind of false expectation?
CONNIE MARKVA, FULL-TIME MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER: Well, just partly because of what our children are taught in school. And the fact that I believe the church has failed to give the background that children need growing up to teach them right from wrong. And you go into a marriage, you have to go in with right thinking and expect to make a commitment. And I think that if young people are counseled before they go into marriage, and so many are not. They don't have the foundations. They don't have a moral perspective that they need.
KEYES: What do you think that might be? What is the moral perspective that is required for a strong married life, David?
NOE: Well, this is why I think that in the long run, the question is marriage doomed? Marriage can't be doomed in the long run, because it's instituted by God so that there will always be maybe a small minority of people who find a way to have successful marriages. And I wonder also how come people don't learn from the experience of others? If divorce is so prevalent in our society, why don't people look around and say all these folks are getting divorced, maybe I should take marriage more seriously and realize that it's a commitment and it's not based on emotion, but a sort of oath that that person has to take.
KEYES: Well see, that's in line — in the chat room there was a comment from Liberty that said that, you know, the problem isn't the marriage institution itself. It's the people involved in marriage. And, Samantha, do you think that that is definitely true?
NOE: I very much agree with that, because I think what happens is people go in, and they don't necessarily think of what's best for even children that come into the family. And so what happens is you have people who get married, they have children, and then they decide that they are not getting along or whatever. And these children end up being put in the middle of it.
KEYES: See, one of the things that I noticed that was very interesting in what Pamela described is she described folks who are first approaching the sexual decision without reference to marriage; then approaching the marriage decision without reference to children. Isn't that double dichotomy, that double divorce, as it were, of realities from the reality of marriage? Wouldn't that, in fact, contribute to some of the problems that we're having, the unrealistic expectations? What do you think, Connie?
MARKVA: Absolutely, because when you go into it with sex first, then you've got it all backwards. You are supposed to get to know a person, have common values, set your goals that you want and we are commanded in the Bible to have children, and that's part of it. We are also commanded to stay together, and you know, God hates divorce. That's right out of the scripture, and of course, I am coming from a totally biblical base. And so anything I think should line up with that.
KEYES: Well see, one of the problems and it occurred to me as Pamela was talking. Let's say you start from the sexual perspective. So much in our society does so now, but especially this business of relationships. In one respect, that does mean, doesn't it, that the first introduction or the relationship is going to be one in which pleasure figures prominently. And one of the distinctions I have learned in the course of my own married life is the distinction between the pleasures and the joys of life. There are joys in marriage that are so deep and so fundamental, places in your own heart that you discover, possibilities of your own conscience and virtue, wonderful things that you see in your children when they come along.
But the whole business then which tends, I think, to be muted — that openness to joy. Isn't it going to be interfered with if your starting point is pleasure and sex? What do you think?
NOE: Now, this is why abstinence is important, very important up to the time that a person is married.
ROE: Well, I don't know about that though, because I mean...
NOE: Because if a person has the fulfillment of the...
ROE: I don't think you have to go that far though. It doesn't have to be like all or nothing. I mean...
NOE: But wouldn't that...
ROE: ... the point — it isn't a matter of, oh, we have sex, and suddenly I can't think straight. I mean...
NOE: But wouldn't it cause a person to think more about the immediate gratification...
ROE: No, I don't...
(CROSSTALK)
NOE: ... some of these other long term virtues?
ROE: I think you have to make the right decisions. I mean, every person is different. Everyone has their own values and whatever. But, I mean...
NOE: But it's something kind of irrevocable, isn't it?
ROE: But see...
NOE: I mean, once you make that step, it's not something you can go back on easily.
ROE: ... but I will tell you. There are people who are much more ingrained and live by the rules of the church much more than I do. But I can tell you my values are probably much stronger than a lot of other guys, but they actually go by it.
NOE: Well, I just mean that maybe they are inconsistent.
ROE: But the problem is is that so many people hide behind the Bible for what they do or hide behind certain things that it just is ridiculous when it comes down to it, because you know, a lot of these people are then cheating on their wives or whatever, because they're going to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KEYES: Connie, what do you think?
MARKVA: Well, every individual is responsible to God. And he has laid down certain rules. And anybody that say you're talking about people in the church who sound like they are living a hypocritical life, well, you are not to look at them. You are to look at what is...
(CROSSTALK)
ROE: That's fine, but what I'm saying...
NOE: You've got to grant Samantha's point though that there is a lot of hypocrisy, but that doesn't have anything to do with this standard though.
MARKVA: That's right. You have to have a standard.
NOE: I mean, just because people (UNINTELLIGIBLE) live up to something. It doesn't mean the thing no longer applies.
MARKVA: That's right.
NOE: It just means that we can't live up to it.
ROE: But that's fine, but I guess that what I'm saying is is that you don't have to necessarily follow those exact rules of the Bible or whatever to still live a life that goes by the same...
KEYES: Right. But see, what I am looking at is not the rules. People focus too much on rules and this and that. The rules have a purpose. The rules have a truth that they may or may not represent. And the question is the rule that looked at sexual activity and saw it in the context of marriage, if we look at what goes on in our society today, where we have divorced the two, has that strengthened or weakened the possibility of the marriage bond? That would be the point I think I hear coming from David and Connie is that we have looked at a situation where maybe that's weakened, not because there was a rule, but because this may be a fact.
The other thing that I was thinking about with Pamela Paul was the divorce from children, because of course, if you go into marriage thinking about children, you are already thinking about something other than yourself.
ROE: Definitely.
MARKVA: Right.
KEYES: But if you don't, doesn't that lead to the possible risk that you have looked at marriage in terms of what you will get out of it and not in terms of what's going to be required of you in that context?
NOE: Well, that's one of the advantages of saying procreation is not the only, but one of the important parts of getting married is that if you're thinking about children and you're talking to your fiance or you future spouse about this, then you are already thinking past your immediate desires, because the joy that children bring, you know, is something pretty removed from your wedding day and certainly from the time that you are courting.
KEYES: Because one of the things I remember reading that Pamela had noted in her book was that now folks go into it coming from marriage as a lot of them is the product that led to divorce. And where the parents had stopped trying to counsel and guide there children in terms of what makes a good marriage, because they felt like, well, what can I say? I failed myself. And at least she writes to a situation where they just say, well, whatever makes you happy. See? But if you go into marriage with the thought that, well, you do whatever makes you happy, can that really work in the marriage context when so much of marriage and then, of course, of child rearing is about what makes other people happy? What makes them better? What makes them virtuous? I mean, Connie, you've had children and grandchildren.
MARKVA: Right.
KEYES: How much of your time can you spend thinking about what makes you happy when you are preoccupied with those responsibilities?
MARKVA: Not a whole lot, but what makes a mother and a father happy is what results she sees, the interaction with the children, because while you are giving and giving and giving, you are also receiving. And that's an untold amount of joy I cannot express.
ROE: Well, as being a child of divorced parents, I know that they may not counsel me on what makes a good marriage, but what I have done by seeing them is I know what to look for and to see what mistakes they made in their marriage to know that when I go to get married that I will be aware of those...
NOE: See, that's something...
(CROSSTALK)
ROE: ... and be able to know how to go from there.
NOE: That's something I hear a lot, I think particularly at my age and your age is that the friends and the peers that I have whose parents were divorced, they feel strongly that they never want to get divorced.
ROE: Exactly.
NOE: And they have sort of learned the negative lesson from what their parents did incorrectly. But then if this concept of starter marriage is true, they haven't learned the lesson completely.
KEYES: See, it's a great problem I think, and it reminds me of a little something, if I may do it again — people will forgive me for this, but I read these people out — that comes up in Plato where Socrates says occasionally, “Is a doctor really a doctor at the moment when he's making a mistake?” It's a question that's asked in “The Republic.”
If you look at the mistakes that folks make, aren't you really looking at them at the moment when you can truly be guided by what they do? And I think that may be a problem with the whole issue of divorce, because where marriages fail, even if you think about the mistakes people make, maybe you are overlooking that which is the more solid basis for one's expectations. There are responsibilities and joys at married life, apart from whatever mistakes people may have made that can provide people with a better sense of what to taste for. Because you know, when you eat something that you might, if you are expecting one taste and you get another how awful it can be? But if you know what to expect, you can enjoy the right kind of taste, if you are looking for sweet and instead you get wine, it maybe something (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but if you understand why.
I think in some ways, we are preparing folks these days to taste for the wrong things in marriage, to taste for sexual pleasure and romantic gratification and not preparing them to look for the solid joys of the spirit and of the mind and of the deep heart that can come from the marriage relationship, first, and then from children.
Thank you all. I have to say every time I am a big advocate of the wonderful thing that happens when we get folks together in this segment of the show, because we are just seeing shining from people's hears the truth that can come out of their experience. And I really appreciate the fact that y'all were willing to take time today and come together with us and join in the discussions. So, David, Samantha, Connie, thanks for being with us today.
Next, we're going to have “The Bottom Line.” I am going to have the chance to talk with a good friend and someone whom I respect both for her sound common sense and the courage with which she expresses it, Dr. Laura. And later, we'll, of course, be looking at “What's on Your Mind.”
But first, first, does this make sense? There is a lady — a devout Muslim lady, who dresses in full purdah and you know, there are strict restrictions when you are a devout Muslim, and ladies cannot appear with their faces showing before people who are not male members of their own family. They can't do that. And she got a picture taken for a driver's license, and the State Florida Department of Motor Vehicles says that this picture won't do, and she can't have her license on that basis. And the ACLU says, though, that this is good enough for identification.
Well, you take a look at this picture, and you tell me, in terms of identification, do you think the ACLU is making sense here?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome to the bottom-line. Joining me now is Dr. Laura Schlessinger, author of “Ten Stupid Things Couples Do To Mess Up Their Relationships.”
But in addition to that, she is a good friend, someone whose common sense and courage I have come to have enormous respect for. And to show you that it's not just me, tonight was one of those nights when my whole family, Laura, insisted on coming into the studio just so they'd have a chance to see you and say hi.
DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER, AUTHOR: And they are adorable.
KEYES: So I appreciate you being with me.
Now, the somewhat ominous —
SCHLESSINGER: Do people know that that's not a photograph, that that really is out there?
KEYES: That that really is the Capitol? I think they do.
SCHLESSINGER: I didn't know that.
KEYES: Yeah. I point over my shoulder to it every now and then.
SCHLESSINGER: Because you know, TV is very phony. But I should have known with you it would be different.
KEYES: Well, this show is the real thing. We try to make it that way for sure.
I chose a kind of ominous title for tonight's program: “Is marriage doomed?” Now, you know, I'm not that lacking in optimism about it, and yet I do think there are a lot of pressures that, in terms of cultural attitudes, moral neglect, other kind of things that are putting tremendous pressure on the marriage institution, as we saw in Pamela Paul's writing and words leading to folks who get married but then don't seem to be able to make it work.
What do you think lies at the bottom of this? Is it in fact a dichotomy between the expectations people are bringing into marriage and what they I actually find? What's at the root of something like this, in terms of what people are understanding about marriage and the relationship that can be the basis for it?
SCHLESSINGER: What's never changed is that people have a deep, abiding need to be loved, to love, to have a companion, to be really intimate and close, to feel safe, to feel that warmth and the joy you were all talking about. That has never changed. That will never change.
What has changed is that these people, A: are either seriously damaged from the chaos in their own families, because divorce is so prevalent. Divorce, shacking up, a lot of boyfriends, a lot of girlfriends, remarrying, having more kids, not seeing the other kids — there is such incredible chaos in our society that there is hardly a young person coming up that hasn't been touched and damaged to some extent by that.
We're not talking about serious psychological damage, but you know, to not believe anymore in the hope that marriage and love and having somebody for the rest of your life is possible, to me is damage. That's one side.
KEYES: You know, there are folks who are trying to argue, now, that divorce isn't really all that damaging — and they have come forward to try to advocate a position that says, “Well, we're looking at it, I'm here, I'm doing pretty well, and we've learned from the mistakes of our parents.” Do you think that is in fact a viable position? Is that what is happening?
SCHLESSINGER: I think you're talking about the recent research from Heatherington, who is a good scientist. If you put aside the media and PR spin of the book and look at the data, the data support the data that's already been there.
In 20 years, 25 percent of the kids of divorced families are seriously emotionally and psychosocially disturbed. That's one on of four kids. The rest of them, you look at double or triple the problems in feeling comfortable about having a marriage, having a successful marriage. When you look at the data even she had, the children of divorce were less happy at the same stage as their parents were in their marriage and they were still married.
So you look at how this just keeps dumbing down. I don't think anybody comes out unscathed, but you have to decide what you're talking about when you talk about damage.
KEYES: On the positive side of the ledger, what do you think are the kinds of things that both people as individuals and we as a society could do to help both prepare people better for strong relationships, and relationships that can sustain marriage, and then to help them to deal with some of the problems and difficulties that one does encounter, in fact, in the marriage relationship?
SCHLESSINGER: Well, it's complicated because so many things would have to change. Government policies and what they do support. Do tax relief support married parents with children, especially parents who stay home with kids? Or do we constantly put money into the people who don't do it right and support that and make it OK?
We have taken shame and a sense of responsibility away from people having children intentionally out of wedlock and we all know the statistics on that.
So there is — from a political point of view, a governmental point of view, much less people who call me and their own parents are and divorcing and shacking up and they don't know what to tell their own children, the grandchildren, ministers.
And this is one of the points that one of your guests pointed out and this is very important. I have advocated on the air that no minister, priest or rabbi should marry people he or she has not counseled for at least six months, so that things like sex, marriage, dealing with the extended families, children, money, step-children, other, you know, extended problems. If they were to go through these, because most people don't want to touch that, because they're afraid to lose the feeling.
KEYES: I noticed, even in our discussion here, that there was a point of tension in the panel over the issue of sexual relations and their relationship with marriage. And you mentioned the habits that people have — the shacking up, the easy sort of promiscuity that's out there in terms of people who are having sexual relations. It's really become kind of commonplace and it doesn't matter.
You look at the surveys. It doesn't matter the religious orientation or anything like that, it seems to be prevalent throughout the society in terms of people having this habit. How do you see that affecting the marriage situation and the relationship needed to sustain it? Is it, as one of the panelists suggested, not that important? Or is it fundamental?
SCHLESSINGER: You know, she's absolutely wrong and the data show it and I have been talking to people on the air for a span of 25 years so I have been hearing the difference.
Women — let's just take women, for example, who are in shack-up situations, having sex with no commitment, oftentimes having children. They have a higher degree of psychiatric problems, there's more violence. The chance they will get married and stay married drops.
When we look at the emotional, psychological and financial costs of these situations, it's obvious. It doesn't work. And these people get themselves hooked in because now that they have been there, they don't know where else to go and they don't know how they can start with somebody else. Now that they've had a kid with that person, well, gosh, they don't want to lose that other person as a parent. So they get trapped into a situation in which they are really not happy.
KEYES: Well, so that means — because one of the things that worries me is if you have an understanding...
SCHLESSINGER: And by the way, married sex turns out to be more exciting than unmarried sex.
KEYES: Exactly. But if you have people who have accepted that divorce between sexual relations and marriage, the corollary seems to be a divorce, of course, between, and maybe the starting point, between sexual relations and procreation, so marriage becomes divorced from child bearing as well. Is it in fact the case that when you have separated the marriage institution from these things, you actually make it self-centered in a way that weakens the ability of people to understand the commitment and responsibilities it requires?
SCHLESSINGER: Yes. And you can point it out easily. It started — and I'm not taking a position — it started with birth control, where we separated out the sexual act from procreation, from having any responsibility. Abortion, if you just don't feel like it — you got knocked up, some guy walked out on you, we'll just abort and try again. And then for people who could afford to take care, love and nurture their own children, cavalier about daycare.
So each step of the way, we have seen a disassociation of individual investment in the well-being and welfare and care taking of children. That's all one picture, Alan.
KEYES: Well, give me a sense, now, of what you think can be some of the positive steps folks can take to make relationships stronger and to prepare better for a relationship and marriage.
SCHLESSINGER: The first thing you need for a very good marriage is a healthy self. And I think a lot of times people don't do that.
I know when people call me, they can complain and analyze about their partner brilliantly, they could be my colleague, they got it down to the last neurotic tendency. But when I say “What are you contributing to this” — just a blank stare.
You have to know yourself. You have to have maturity. This is why the divorce people rate of people who get married under 28 is so much greater than the people over 28. It takes about that amount of time for you to stop being your parents' little kid and start discerning what it is that identifies you and what makes you a unique adult and what your strengths and beliefs are in. One, I think religion is extremely important, because religion takes you out of the self you keep talking about and tells you there is something — a higher power, that has certain expectations that elevate your behavior, like sex, from the mundane, like animals can get it on every time they have a vibe, to the holy in matrimony. I mean, making sex holy.
So human beings, I'm afraid, have degraded just about everything we can do when we should be elevating it and then when we degrade it, we wonder why our life has no meaning.
KEYES: Well, I think that in some ways you are pointing in a common-sense way to some of the elements that were very much emphasized in the traditional understanding of marriage, whether it's in Christian context, Jewish context, Islamic context, all the great religions seem to have emphasized a lot of the things that you talk about in this context.
And yet we seem to believe that we can throw away the handbook and still get the job done. I would suggest...
SCHLESSINGER: That experiment has failed.
KEYES: It has failed. That it's not working and that in point of fact, a lot of people have already suffered in terms of the destruction of marriage. A lot of children have already suffered, and that maybe we should stop thinking that we are learning from our mistakes by repeating them, and instead start trying to learn from our heritage how we can avoid those mistakes.
SCHLESSINGER: Yes.
KEYES: I really appreciate your coming on tonight, Dr. Laura.
SCHLESSINGER: Thank you.
KEYES: I hope folks will take a look at your book. You have been a source of tremendous help, I think, for a lot of people, precisely because you're not afraid to look them in the eye and tell them uncomfortable truths. People tell me I do that a little bit sometimes.
SCHLESSINGER: Yeah, I've heard that.
The book gives really clear ideas and recommendations on the kinds of things you need to look at in order to improve the relationship before you get married or while you are in it.
KEYES: Well, I hope you all will take a look at it.
Thank you, Dr. Laura, for joining me tonight.
Later, we're going to have a personal note about a special show that we're planning for Monday. I want to share with you a little of the background of that show and what's on my mind as we put it together.
But first, I want to hear what's on your mind. That's coming up next.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: What's on your mind tonight? The portion of the program where I get to spend a little time hearing from y'all.
Let's go first to first to Jayesh in Maryland. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JAYESH: Hi, Alan. I've been listening to your conversation. It's very interesting. I just wanted to bring the Indian perspective, the Hindu perspective on marriage and what the scriptures have said. And that an answer — I think we have come to a full circle now — is that by definition, the institution of marriage is reserved for those — for the sole purpose of bearing and raising children.
I mean, if you put it in that context, then the concept of divorce, the concept of extramarital sex, the concept of premarital sex and all that is sorted away. And in this day and age, there is no universality to marriage, so you don't have to be married for the sex. If you are just doing it for the sex or whatever.
KEYES: One of the things I have noticed, Jayesh, because you know I spent some time in India, and in fact, met my wife there, and one of the things I noticed was — it was very hard for us to get used to the idea of arranged marriages, people from the West. But it turns out that they actually last a long time, are very stable, and I think it's in part because there is an expectation of duty in the context of marriage.
And we are somewhat uncomfortable with that, but I think we've gone way far in the other direction, where people have divorced the idea of marriage from the idea of duty and responsibility. And that weakens their ability to sustain it in the face of difficult challenges. Thanks for your call.
Let's go to Steve in California. Are you MAKING SENSE tonight, Steve?
STEVE: Well, I hope I'm making as much sense as you are.
No, I just wanted to say that I think a couple of things need to be looked at.
Number one, I think that the generation that went through World War II must just sit back and laugh at us. I mean, our generation — I'm 33 years old, and our generation, we get divorced because people drift apart for six months.
And I think a lot of what's going on is that a lot of it is actually television. Every night, you know, shows are on, and we get this false sense of unrealistic expectation created. And people see people on television, they appear very happy and all these things are shown in these television shows, and then if your life is not like that, I think that there is a tendency to feel, wow, I'm not measuring up.
And it's just — things are much more disposable now, and I think it's unfortunate that marriage has fallen into the category.
KEYES: I think it is.
Steve, thank you for your thoughts. Really appreciate it.
Again, emphasizing what I think is true, the sense that things fail because our expectations have been conditioned in a way that prepares us rather for failure than success.
Now let's take a look at some of your e-mails. We have Russ from Virginia who writes about Monday's show on the income tax: “If we just did away with the payroll deduction and forced the American people to write a check every month to the federal government, I believe the attitudes of most people would change drastically.”
I bet it would. A lot of people don't even think that's their money anymore.
Well, thank you for your calls and e-mails.
Next, I want to share some personal thoughts with you to help you understand a little bit the thinking behind the program that we planned for Monday on torture, in which I'll also be welcoming to the show Alan Dershowitz for a pretty serious disagreement.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Next week on ALAN KEYES IS MAKING SENSE, my sometime adversary Alan Dershowitz. Tuesday, my sometime friend and sometime adversary, Pat Buchanan.
Now, on a personal note, I heard about the views of Alan Dershowitz, where he was coming forward to recommend that we should make access to torture routine and lawful in this country, where you go to a judge, get a warrant and then you can go off and torture people. And I have to tell you, it riled me up to such a degree that I said to folks, we should do a show about this. Do you think Alan would come on? And he was glad to do so.
So I hope you will join me on Monday, because it's going to be a little bit of a dust-up, I'm sure, but it should be one that will help to enlighten us a little, because I feel deeply one of the greatest temptations we need to resist in this time is the temptation to sacrifice the advances we have made in liberty and decency for the sake of a false sense of what is going to lead to our greater security.
And I think the show is going to focus on that point above all when it comes to things like the methods we use or abuse in our war against terror. I hope you will join us, because I feel strongly this is something we all need to be thinking about, thinking about clearly, because if we don't, we're going to make mistakes that our coming generations will regret.
It's one thing for expedient purposes to do what you have to do to meet the times. It's another to set up institutions based on what you know to be abuses on the plea that necessity makes it necessary for you to commit permanently to practices that you know to be wrong. The one may corrupt action for a moment. The other will corrupt our institutions for all time. It's a grave error.
Stay tuned Monday, then. That's my sense of it. Be back with you tomorrow, when we will be talking about California and what it's doing on toleration in the education system. Should be fascinating. Join us then. Lester Holt is up next.
Now, I hope y'all weren't too disappointed not to see me last night. I know that the State of the Union address may be considered by some a poor substitute, but I though there were some interesting things in there and also interesting things over all that are coming out and some of the proposals that are being made as part of the Bush administration's budget and so forth.
I noticed one the other day that they want to set aside $100 million with the idea that they are going to support people on welfare, single mothers, who want to get married. This is an idea that I have thought about for many years. I have proposed it in many different forms. I am glad to see they're finally giving it a try. Because of course, the welfare system represents just one area in this society's life where unhappily, with perhaps good intentions, we put things together in a way that undermine the foundations of family life, discouraged people in fact from getting married and staying married and helped to contribute to the weakening of the marriage-based family structure.
It's not the only thing, mind you. There are many social phenomena. There are things that tend to emphasize the selfishness, the self-centeredness, even the achievement-oriented ethic of our business world, the economical part. All of it can result in people who put family in second place, and who also so caught up in what they are trying to do for themselves that they find it very hard to make a transition to a state and situation in which, as most of us who are married understand, you have to spend so much of your time thinking about other people and what's needed for them, what's good for them, what you've got to do for them. I think one of the chief characteristics of marriage and family life is that it's the context in which you learn that 90 percent of your life can be taken up thinking about other folks instead of just yourself. And that fulfillment of joy and satisfaction can all of it come in a context in which you have put yourself right in second or even last place in the midst of everything else.
But we're going to be talking about the challenges that a culture that in so many ways unfits people for the challenges of marriage. We are going to be talking about what that is doing to the institution of marriage, how people are reacting, what attitudes now are coming along that either help or hinder the prospects of marriage. And some people have gotten pretty pessimistic. There was a time we went through with the divorce statistics sky high, and everybody saying, well, the marriage-based family is gone. That's changing a little bit now. Statistics firming up, divorce rates going down a little bit, but everyone still recognizes that we're in the midst of a crisis.
Coming up in this program today, we are going to have Dr. Laura Schlessinger talking to us about her understanding of the relationships, and what can help to make for the strong relationships that marriages can be built on.
But first, I want you to meet somebody who has writing a very fascinating book. Her name is Pamela Paul. She is from New York, and she is the author of a new book called “The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony.” And I want to introduce Pamela, and I hope you won't mind, Pamela, if I say this, that some of the ideas you have put forward in the book are not ideas I have to confess that I am really comfortable with. There are ideas that actually riled me up a little bit. But I thought that they reflected some realities in what people are doing and attitudes that they are taking now that needed to be on the table as we began this discussion — welcome to the show, Pamela, and thank you for joining us tonight.
PAMELA PAUL, AUTHOR, “THE STARTER MARRIAGE”: Thanks for having me.
KEYES: Now, tell me a little bit about what you see going on out there. You are talking about people who get married, stay married for a short time, end up in divorce court. Why do you think this is an important phenomenon to look at?
PAUL: Well, nobody really talks about marriage taking place among young people, and in fact, many 20 and 30 somethings do get divorced, and nobody has looked at this idea of starter marriages, which I define as a marriage that lasts for five years or less and ends before children begin.
KEYES: Now, why do you think that this phenomena, one, is becoming more significant in terms of the younger generation, the people who are starting marriage? And what do you think it comes from? What does it arise from in the attitudes that they are bringing into marriage?
PAUL: Well, this is the first children of divorce generation, and I think that that has a lot of repercussions for how young people approach marriage. Even if their own parents were not divorced, they saw divorce in society around them. And what I found really fascinating is that this does not mean that young people think divorce is OK. In fact, they often go into marriage with very optimistic ideas that their marriage will not end. At the same time, there is a lot of contradiction, because they do know that divorce is an option. On the...
KEYES: You say that they are going into marriage with the thought — what — that they are going to marry somebody, they are going to stay married their whole life. What goes wrong?
PAUL: Everyone who went into a starter marriage really believed that they were getting married for a lifetime. Unfortunately, they often hadn't given the idea of marriage a lot of thought. I think that in our sort of matrimonial culture, a lot of people spent a lot of time and energy focusing on the wedding day, and there is this sort of whole wedding industrial complex, you can call it, where people spend so much money focusing on this magical white wedding that they think will somehow guarantee them a happy marriage, and it really...
KEYES: What do they think they are going to get out of the marriage institution itself though? I mean, in terms of going through this process, doing things in terms of the marriage and the ceremony and the excitement. But once they are married, what is it that they are looking for, trying to get out of that marriage situation? Why do they take that step in terms of their own expectations?
PAUL: People have very high expectations of marriage. I think that they have high expectations of what marriage will bring them. They look at marriage as a kind of transformative act that will make them more balanced, more successful. You know, it's somehow sometimes approached as kind of another thing to check off your list of things to do. You know, you have
graduated from the right school, you have moved to a great city, you get an apartment, you get a job, and then you get married. And people expect that all of the sort of goodies of society will follow. That they will automatically get the house and the two perfect kids who go to all of the right schools, and of course, that isn't the case.
KEYES: Now, tell me in your sense as you have examined these folks and the things that in terms of their expectations and what they actually find in marriage, what is it that then leads these marriages to fail, some of them quite quickly in terms of who those expectations measure up to what they actually find in marriage?
PAUL: Well, I think that, again, we have this sense that once you get married, everything will sort of fall into place, and we will all live happily ever after. And marriage can indeed be a really wonderful thing, but people don't recognize that there are all sorts of ups and downs, and just because you get married to someone and you're in love doesn't mean that your husband might get depressed for, you know, a year, or you might have — someone might get sick or lose a job. And there are challenges, and you need to get through all of those and make a serious commitment to another person. And I think that a lot of people don't really think that out.
KEYES: Well, tell me something. You have tried to apply this term “starter marriage,” and I've got to be frank with you, it's a concept that makes me very uncomfortable, because it seems to me — my first reaction to that was these are so short, they seem like finished marriages to me, not starter marriages. Why do you think that it would be advisable to try to look at this phenomenon, which seems in one sense so negative in a positive light?
PAUL: Well, I think there is a plus side and a minus side. I mean, divorce, it's very difficult, a very painful thing for anyone to go through. And I wouldn't recommend a starter marriage to anyone. On the positive side, however, I do think that's it good that these people are getting divorced before they have children, and often that is a very conscience part of their decision, where they say, you know, I don't want to do to my kids what, perhaps, my parents did to me or I saw friends of mine growing up go through.
KEYES: Yes, yes.
PAUL: And I also think that they learn a lot of really important lessons about marriage that will hopefully lead them to a lifelong marriage.
KEYES: Now, one last question, because you mention folks who are getting divorced before they have children. Does that mean that somehow the marriage decision and the idea of having children are not necessarily linked in their minds?
PAUL: I think they are decreasingly linked. It's sort of like sex and marriage have become increasingly separate concepts; the same thing with marriage and child rearing. A lot of people did want to have children, but they often thought if they got married at 25 or even at the age of 30, that this something they could put off for the next three to five years. And they often wanted to enjoy the marriage, enjoy themselves individually before they made, you know, had that kind of responsibility.
KEYES: Pamela, thank you so much. I think that the insights that you bring are kind of a provocative report on attitudes and behaviors that make some of us, to be quite frank, a little uncomfortable. But I think we have to look at them in the context of trying to think hard about the strengths and weaknesses that different aspects of our society contribute to in terms of married life.
Now later, Dr. Laura Schlessinger coming up, and plus your phone calls and e-mails, and of course, next, “People Just Like You” dealing with the topics that literally is close to home.
But first, does this make sense? I heard today that, I think it was Vice President Cheney went off to the Hill, the building back there, and was making the argument that they ought to be restricting their inquiry into the 9/11 business to the intelligence committees. Now, just as a thought here. We have the most egregious failure of our national security in history. As yet, we haven't really gotten to the bottom of what caused that failure of our national security structure. Can we be sure that all the money we are spending to try to fight terrorism and improve things are actually going to do so, if we haven't even understood the problem? Isn't that the first responsibility, in fact, of our representatives that you can't solve a problem you don't understand? Does restricting their effort to understand it really make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Well, here we are with some people just like you. Joining us now is David Noe, a Greek and Latin professor at Patrick Henry College in Virginia and a father of a 10-month-old son. Samantha Roe is a program director for a public policy organization here in Washington — not married yet. And Connie Markva is a retired nurse with 8 children and 10 grandchildren.
Now, we have been taking a look at the question of marriage and whether or not in our society, with all of the different pressures that develop, attitudes and sort forth, we are actually not preparing people for divorce instead of marriage, putting pressures on the marriage institution that doom it to failure in our society. We just heard from Pamela Paul, who — she's trying to put a positive face on it, but essentially she is talking about a phenomenon in which people are getting married and getting divorced very quickly. Come into it with high expectations and find those expectations somehow dashed up against the reality of what is required for married life.
Now, the question I want to put on the table right to begin with has to do with that question of expectations vs. reality. To what extent do you all think people who are contemplating marriage or involved in getting married are going into it these days with expectations that are realistic? Are they going into it knowing what's there, or are they going into it in a way that prepares them for a fall? What do you think, David?
DAVID NOE, MARRIED WITH NEWBORN SON: I think that in general, society tends to create an attitude of give me something, and I don't have to give anything in order to get that. And marriage doesn't work that way. Marriage is a relationship, where you have to give all the time if you want to have a successful marriage. You have to sacrifice to the other person's needs and desires, and if you're only thinking about yourself, like a narcissist, you're not going to have any success in marriage.
KEYES: Samantha, what do you think?
SAMANTHA ROE, SINGLE: Well, I think that a lot of people like Pamela have said they think that it's a process of you go to a university. You get done. You maybe live alone for a while, and then you get married. And there's like a time frame that you're supposed to be married by a certain age. When I lived in France, I mean, it's all over the place, but every time, when I turned 25, it was like “You're not married yet, you're not married yet?” And they would have these different festivals and things
like that for the people who weren't married that where they would get all dressed and try to find someone at that time. And I think that there was such a pressure of it's that time. You have to do that. It doesn't matter who the person is. So I definitely understand that starter marriage mentality that people go into.
KEYES: Why do you think, though, that Pamela is describing folks who think that they are ready for it, and that their marriage is going to work so wonderfully?
ROE: Because I don't think they look at the long term. I think they think they do, but I don't think they really understand what this means, and that it is this commitment where you have to make the sacrifices and do the things. And so when they meet someone they fall in love with, they think, oh it's just going to be perfect forever. But they don't think about the lifestyles that both of the people want that are in the marriage. I mean, there is so much more beyond love that goes into having a marriage work.
KEYES: Now, Connie, to what extent do you think, against that backdrop, we live in a society that actually encourages that kind of false expectation?
CONNIE MARKVA, FULL-TIME MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER: Well, just partly because of what our children are taught in school. And the fact that I believe the church has failed to give the background that children need growing up to teach them right from wrong. And you go into a marriage, you have to go in with right thinking and expect to make a commitment. And I think that if young people are counseled before they go into marriage, and so many are not. They don't have the foundations. They don't have a moral perspective that they need.
KEYES: What do you think that might be? What is the moral perspective that is required for a strong married life, David?
NOE: Well, this is why I think that in the long run, the question is marriage doomed? Marriage can't be doomed in the long run, because it's instituted by God so that there will always be maybe a small minority of people who find a way to have successful marriages. And I wonder also how come people don't learn from the experience of others? If divorce is so prevalent in our society, why don't people look around and say all these folks are getting divorced, maybe I should take marriage more seriously and realize that it's a commitment and it's not based on emotion, but a sort of oath that that person has to take.
KEYES: Well see, that's in line — in the chat room there was a comment from Liberty that said that, you know, the problem isn't the marriage institution itself. It's the people involved in marriage. And, Samantha, do you think that that is definitely true?
NOE: I very much agree with that, because I think what happens is people go in, and they don't necessarily think of what's best for even children that come into the family. And so what happens is you have people who get married, they have children, and then they decide that they are not getting along or whatever. And these children end up being put in the middle of it.
KEYES: See, one of the things that I noticed that was very interesting in what Pamela described is she described folks who are first approaching the sexual decision without reference to marriage; then approaching the marriage decision without reference to children. Isn't that double dichotomy, that double divorce, as it were, of realities from the reality of marriage? Wouldn't that, in fact, contribute to some of the problems that we're having, the unrealistic expectations? What do you think, Connie?
MARKVA: Absolutely, because when you go into it with sex first, then you've got it all backwards. You are supposed to get to know a person, have common values, set your goals that you want and we are commanded in the Bible to have children, and that's part of it. We are also commanded to stay together, and you know, God hates divorce. That's right out of the scripture, and of course, I am coming from a totally biblical base. And so anything I think should line up with that.
KEYES: Well see, one of the problems and it occurred to me as Pamela was talking. Let's say you start from the sexual perspective. So much in our society does so now, but especially this business of relationships. In one respect, that does mean, doesn't it, that the first introduction or the relationship is going to be one in which pleasure figures prominently. And one of the distinctions I have learned in the course of my own married life is the distinction between the pleasures and the joys of life. There are joys in marriage that are so deep and so fundamental, places in your own heart that you discover, possibilities of your own conscience and virtue, wonderful things that you see in your children when they come along.
But the whole business then which tends, I think, to be muted — that openness to joy. Isn't it going to be interfered with if your starting point is pleasure and sex? What do you think?
NOE: Now, this is why abstinence is important, very important up to the time that a person is married.
ROE: Well, I don't know about that though, because I mean...
NOE: Because if a person has the fulfillment of the...
ROE: I don't think you have to go that far though. It doesn't have to be like all or nothing. I mean...
NOE: But wouldn't that...
ROE: ... the point — it isn't a matter of, oh, we have sex, and suddenly I can't think straight. I mean...
NOE: But wouldn't it cause a person to think more about the immediate gratification...
ROE: No, I don't...
(CROSSTALK)
NOE: ... some of these other long term virtues?
ROE: I think you have to make the right decisions. I mean, every person is different. Everyone has their own values and whatever. But, I mean...
NOE: But it's something kind of irrevocable, isn't it?
ROE: But see...
NOE: I mean, once you make that step, it's not something you can go back on easily.
ROE: ... but I will tell you. There are people who are much more ingrained and live by the rules of the church much more than I do. But I can tell you my values are probably much stronger than a lot of other guys, but they actually go by it.
NOE: Well, I just mean that maybe they are inconsistent.
ROE: But the problem is is that so many people hide behind the Bible for what they do or hide behind certain things that it just is ridiculous when it comes down to it, because you know, a lot of these people are then cheating on their wives or whatever, because they're going to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KEYES: Connie, what do you think?
MARKVA: Well, every individual is responsible to God. And he has laid down certain rules. And anybody that say you're talking about people in the church who sound like they are living a hypocritical life, well, you are not to look at them. You are to look at what is...
(CROSSTALK)
ROE: That's fine, but what I'm saying...
NOE: You've got to grant Samantha's point though that there is a lot of hypocrisy, but that doesn't have anything to do with this standard though.
MARKVA: That's right. You have to have a standard.
NOE: I mean, just because people (UNINTELLIGIBLE) live up to something. It doesn't mean the thing no longer applies.
MARKVA: That's right.
NOE: It just means that we can't live up to it.
ROE: But that's fine, but I guess that what I'm saying is is that you don't have to necessarily follow those exact rules of the Bible or whatever to still live a life that goes by the same...
KEYES: Right. But see, what I am looking at is not the rules. People focus too much on rules and this and that. The rules have a purpose. The rules have a truth that they may or may not represent. And the question is the rule that looked at sexual activity and saw it in the context of marriage, if we look at what goes on in our society today, where we have divorced the two, has that strengthened or weakened the possibility of the marriage bond? That would be the point I think I hear coming from David and Connie is that we have looked at a situation where maybe that's weakened, not because there was a rule, but because this may be a fact.
The other thing that I was thinking about with Pamela Paul was the divorce from children, because of course, if you go into marriage thinking about children, you are already thinking about something other than yourself.
ROE: Definitely.
MARKVA: Right.
KEYES: But if you don't, doesn't that lead to the possible risk that you have looked at marriage in terms of what you will get out of it and not in terms of what's going to be required of you in that context?
NOE: Well, that's one of the advantages of saying procreation is not the only, but one of the important parts of getting married is that if you're thinking about children and you're talking to your fiance or you future spouse about this, then you are already thinking past your immediate desires, because the joy that children bring, you know, is something pretty removed from your wedding day and certainly from the time that you are courting.
KEYES: Because one of the things I remember reading that Pamela had noted in her book was that now folks go into it coming from marriage as a lot of them is the product that led to divorce. And where the parents had stopped trying to counsel and guide there children in terms of what makes a good marriage, because they felt like, well, what can I say? I failed myself. And at least she writes to a situation where they just say, well, whatever makes you happy. See? But if you go into marriage with the thought that, well, you do whatever makes you happy, can that really work in the marriage context when so much of marriage and then, of course, of child rearing is about what makes other people happy? What makes them better? What makes them virtuous? I mean, Connie, you've had children and grandchildren.
MARKVA: Right.
KEYES: How much of your time can you spend thinking about what makes you happy when you are preoccupied with those responsibilities?
MARKVA: Not a whole lot, but what makes a mother and a father happy is what results she sees, the interaction with the children, because while you are giving and giving and giving, you are also receiving. And that's an untold amount of joy I cannot express.
ROE: Well, as being a child of divorced parents, I know that they may not counsel me on what makes a good marriage, but what I have done by seeing them is I know what to look for and to see what mistakes they made in their marriage to know that when I go to get married that I will be aware of those...
NOE: See, that's something...
(CROSSTALK)
ROE: ... and be able to know how to go from there.
NOE: That's something I hear a lot, I think particularly at my age and your age is that the friends and the peers that I have whose parents were divorced, they feel strongly that they never want to get divorced.
ROE: Exactly.
NOE: And they have sort of learned the negative lesson from what their parents did incorrectly. But then if this concept of starter marriage is true, they haven't learned the lesson completely.
KEYES: See, it's a great problem I think, and it reminds me of a little something, if I may do it again — people will forgive me for this, but I read these people out — that comes up in Plato where Socrates says occasionally, “Is a doctor really a doctor at the moment when he's making a mistake?” It's a question that's asked in “The Republic.”
If you look at the mistakes that folks make, aren't you really looking at them at the moment when you can truly be guided by what they do? And I think that may be a problem with the whole issue of divorce, because where marriages fail, even if you think about the mistakes people make, maybe you are overlooking that which is the more solid basis for one's expectations. There are responsibilities and joys at married life, apart from whatever mistakes people may have made that can provide people with a better sense of what to taste for. Because you know, when you eat something that you might, if you are expecting one taste and you get another how awful it can be? But if you know what to expect, you can enjoy the right kind of taste, if you are looking for sweet and instead you get wine, it maybe something (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but if you understand why.
I think in some ways, we are preparing folks these days to taste for the wrong things in marriage, to taste for sexual pleasure and romantic gratification and not preparing them to look for the solid joys of the spirit and of the mind and of the deep heart that can come from the marriage relationship, first, and then from children.
Thank you all. I have to say every time I am a big advocate of the wonderful thing that happens when we get folks together in this segment of the show, because we are just seeing shining from people's hears the truth that can come out of their experience. And I really appreciate the fact that y'all were willing to take time today and come together with us and join in the discussions. So, David, Samantha, Connie, thanks for being with us today.
Next, we're going to have “The Bottom Line.” I am going to have the chance to talk with a good friend and someone whom I respect both for her sound common sense and the courage with which she expresses it, Dr. Laura. And later, we'll, of course, be looking at “What's on Your Mind.”
But first, first, does this make sense? There is a lady — a devout Muslim lady, who dresses in full purdah and you know, there are strict restrictions when you are a devout Muslim, and ladies cannot appear with their faces showing before people who are not male members of their own family. They can't do that. And she got a picture taken for a driver's license, and the State Florida Department of Motor Vehicles says that this picture won't do, and she can't have her license on that basis. And the ACLU says, though, that this is good enough for identification.
Well, you take a look at this picture, and you tell me, in terms of identification, do you think the ACLU is making sense here?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome to the bottom-line. Joining me now is Dr. Laura Schlessinger, author of “Ten Stupid Things Couples Do To Mess Up Their Relationships.”
But in addition to that, she is a good friend, someone whose common sense and courage I have come to have enormous respect for. And to show you that it's not just me, tonight was one of those nights when my whole family, Laura, insisted on coming into the studio just so they'd have a chance to see you and say hi.
DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER, AUTHOR: And they are adorable.
KEYES: So I appreciate you being with me.
Now, the somewhat ominous —
SCHLESSINGER: Do people know that that's not a photograph, that that really is out there?
KEYES: That that really is the Capitol? I think they do.
SCHLESSINGER: I didn't know that.
KEYES: Yeah. I point over my shoulder to it every now and then.
SCHLESSINGER: Because you know, TV is very phony. But I should have known with you it would be different.
KEYES: Well, this show is the real thing. We try to make it that way for sure.
I chose a kind of ominous title for tonight's program: “Is marriage doomed?” Now, you know, I'm not that lacking in optimism about it, and yet I do think there are a lot of pressures that, in terms of cultural attitudes, moral neglect, other kind of things that are putting tremendous pressure on the marriage institution, as we saw in Pamela Paul's writing and words leading to folks who get married but then don't seem to be able to make it work.
What do you think lies at the bottom of this? Is it in fact a dichotomy between the expectations people are bringing into marriage and what they I actually find? What's at the root of something like this, in terms of what people are understanding about marriage and the relationship that can be the basis for it?
SCHLESSINGER: What's never changed is that people have a deep, abiding need to be loved, to love, to have a companion, to be really intimate and close, to feel safe, to feel that warmth and the joy you were all talking about. That has never changed. That will never change.
What has changed is that these people, A: are either seriously damaged from the chaos in their own families, because divorce is so prevalent. Divorce, shacking up, a lot of boyfriends, a lot of girlfriends, remarrying, having more kids, not seeing the other kids — there is such incredible chaos in our society that there is hardly a young person coming up that hasn't been touched and damaged to some extent by that.
We're not talking about serious psychological damage, but you know, to not believe anymore in the hope that marriage and love and having somebody for the rest of your life is possible, to me is damage. That's one side.
KEYES: You know, there are folks who are trying to argue, now, that divorce isn't really all that damaging — and they have come forward to try to advocate a position that says, “Well, we're looking at it, I'm here, I'm doing pretty well, and we've learned from the mistakes of our parents.” Do you think that is in fact a viable position? Is that what is happening?
SCHLESSINGER: I think you're talking about the recent research from Heatherington, who is a good scientist. If you put aside the media and PR spin of the book and look at the data, the data support the data that's already been there.
In 20 years, 25 percent of the kids of divorced families are seriously emotionally and psychosocially disturbed. That's one on of four kids. The rest of them, you look at double or triple the problems in feeling comfortable about having a marriage, having a successful marriage. When you look at the data even she had, the children of divorce were less happy at the same stage as their parents were in their marriage and they were still married.
So you look at how this just keeps dumbing down. I don't think anybody comes out unscathed, but you have to decide what you're talking about when you talk about damage.
KEYES: On the positive side of the ledger, what do you think are the kinds of things that both people as individuals and we as a society could do to help both prepare people better for strong relationships, and relationships that can sustain marriage, and then to help them to deal with some of the problems and difficulties that one does encounter, in fact, in the marriage relationship?
SCHLESSINGER: Well, it's complicated because so many things would have to change. Government policies and what they do support. Do tax relief support married parents with children, especially parents who stay home with kids? Or do we constantly put money into the people who don't do it right and support that and make it OK?
We have taken shame and a sense of responsibility away from people having children intentionally out of wedlock and we all know the statistics on that.
So there is — from a political point of view, a governmental point of view, much less people who call me and their own parents are and divorcing and shacking up and they don't know what to tell their own children, the grandchildren, ministers.
And this is one of the points that one of your guests pointed out and this is very important. I have advocated on the air that no minister, priest or rabbi should marry people he or she has not counseled for at least six months, so that things like sex, marriage, dealing with the extended families, children, money, step-children, other, you know, extended problems. If they were to go through these, because most people don't want to touch that, because they're afraid to lose the feeling.
KEYES: I noticed, even in our discussion here, that there was a point of tension in the panel over the issue of sexual relations and their relationship with marriage. And you mentioned the habits that people have — the shacking up, the easy sort of promiscuity that's out there in terms of people who are having sexual relations. It's really become kind of commonplace and it doesn't matter.
You look at the surveys. It doesn't matter the religious orientation or anything like that, it seems to be prevalent throughout the society in terms of people having this habit. How do you see that affecting the marriage situation and the relationship needed to sustain it? Is it, as one of the panelists suggested, not that important? Or is it fundamental?
SCHLESSINGER: You know, she's absolutely wrong and the data show it and I have been talking to people on the air for a span of 25 years so I have been hearing the difference.
Women — let's just take women, for example, who are in shack-up situations, having sex with no commitment, oftentimes having children. They have a higher degree of psychiatric problems, there's more violence. The chance they will get married and stay married drops.
When we look at the emotional, psychological and financial costs of these situations, it's obvious. It doesn't work. And these people get themselves hooked in because now that they have been there, they don't know where else to go and they don't know how they can start with somebody else. Now that they've had a kid with that person, well, gosh, they don't want to lose that other person as a parent. So they get trapped into a situation in which they are really not happy.
KEYES: Well, so that means — because one of the things that worries me is if you have an understanding...
SCHLESSINGER: And by the way, married sex turns out to be more exciting than unmarried sex.
KEYES: Exactly. But if you have people who have accepted that divorce between sexual relations and marriage, the corollary seems to be a divorce, of course, between, and maybe the starting point, between sexual relations and procreation, so marriage becomes divorced from child bearing as well. Is it in fact the case that when you have separated the marriage institution from these things, you actually make it self-centered in a way that weakens the ability of people to understand the commitment and responsibilities it requires?
SCHLESSINGER: Yes. And you can point it out easily. It started — and I'm not taking a position — it started with birth control, where we separated out the sexual act from procreation, from having any responsibility. Abortion, if you just don't feel like it — you got knocked up, some guy walked out on you, we'll just abort and try again. And then for people who could afford to take care, love and nurture their own children, cavalier about daycare.
So each step of the way, we have seen a disassociation of individual investment in the well-being and welfare and care taking of children. That's all one picture, Alan.
KEYES: Well, give me a sense, now, of what you think can be some of the positive steps folks can take to make relationships stronger and to prepare better for a relationship and marriage.
SCHLESSINGER: The first thing you need for a very good marriage is a healthy self. And I think a lot of times people don't do that.
I know when people call me, they can complain and analyze about their partner brilliantly, they could be my colleague, they got it down to the last neurotic tendency. But when I say “What are you contributing to this” — just a blank stare.
You have to know yourself. You have to have maturity. This is why the divorce people rate of people who get married under 28 is so much greater than the people over 28. It takes about that amount of time for you to stop being your parents' little kid and start discerning what it is that identifies you and what makes you a unique adult and what your strengths and beliefs are in. One, I think religion is extremely important, because religion takes you out of the self you keep talking about and tells you there is something — a higher power, that has certain expectations that elevate your behavior, like sex, from the mundane, like animals can get it on every time they have a vibe, to the holy in matrimony. I mean, making sex holy.
So human beings, I'm afraid, have degraded just about everything we can do when we should be elevating it and then when we degrade it, we wonder why our life has no meaning.
KEYES: Well, I think that in some ways you are pointing in a common-sense way to some of the elements that were very much emphasized in the traditional understanding of marriage, whether it's in Christian context, Jewish context, Islamic context, all the great religions seem to have emphasized a lot of the things that you talk about in this context.
And yet we seem to believe that we can throw away the handbook and still get the job done. I would suggest...
SCHLESSINGER: That experiment has failed.
KEYES: It has failed. That it's not working and that in point of fact, a lot of people have already suffered in terms of the destruction of marriage. A lot of children have already suffered, and that maybe we should stop thinking that we are learning from our mistakes by repeating them, and instead start trying to learn from our heritage how we can avoid those mistakes.
SCHLESSINGER: Yes.
KEYES: I really appreciate your coming on tonight, Dr. Laura.
SCHLESSINGER: Thank you.
KEYES: I hope folks will take a look at your book. You have been a source of tremendous help, I think, for a lot of people, precisely because you're not afraid to look them in the eye and tell them uncomfortable truths. People tell me I do that a little bit sometimes.
SCHLESSINGER: Yeah, I've heard that.
The book gives really clear ideas and recommendations on the kinds of things you need to look at in order to improve the relationship before you get married or while you are in it.
KEYES: Well, I hope you all will take a look at it.
Thank you, Dr. Laura, for joining me tonight.
Later, we're going to have a personal note about a special show that we're planning for Monday. I want to share with you a little of the background of that show and what's on my mind as we put it together.
But first, I want to hear what's on your mind. That's coming up next.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: What's on your mind tonight? The portion of the program where I get to spend a little time hearing from y'all.
Let's go first to first to Jayesh in Maryland. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JAYESH: Hi, Alan. I've been listening to your conversation. It's very interesting. I just wanted to bring the Indian perspective, the Hindu perspective on marriage and what the scriptures have said. And that an answer — I think we have come to a full circle now — is that by definition, the institution of marriage is reserved for those — for the sole purpose of bearing and raising children.
I mean, if you put it in that context, then the concept of divorce, the concept of extramarital sex, the concept of premarital sex and all that is sorted away. And in this day and age, there is no universality to marriage, so you don't have to be married for the sex. If you are just doing it for the sex or whatever.
KEYES: One of the things I have noticed, Jayesh, because you know I spent some time in India, and in fact, met my wife there, and one of the things I noticed was — it was very hard for us to get used to the idea of arranged marriages, people from the West. But it turns out that they actually last a long time, are very stable, and I think it's in part because there is an expectation of duty in the context of marriage.
And we are somewhat uncomfortable with that, but I think we've gone way far in the other direction, where people have divorced the idea of marriage from the idea of duty and responsibility. And that weakens their ability to sustain it in the face of difficult challenges. Thanks for your call.
Let's go to Steve in California. Are you MAKING SENSE tonight, Steve?
STEVE: Well, I hope I'm making as much sense as you are.
No, I just wanted to say that I think a couple of things need to be looked at.
Number one, I think that the generation that went through World War II must just sit back and laugh at us. I mean, our generation — I'm 33 years old, and our generation, we get divorced because people drift apart for six months.
And I think a lot of what's going on is that a lot of it is actually television. Every night, you know, shows are on, and we get this false sense of unrealistic expectation created. And people see people on television, they appear very happy and all these things are shown in these television shows, and then if your life is not like that, I think that there is a tendency to feel, wow, I'm not measuring up.
And it's just — things are much more disposable now, and I think it's unfortunate that marriage has fallen into the category.
KEYES: I think it is.
Steve, thank you for your thoughts. Really appreciate it.
Again, emphasizing what I think is true, the sense that things fail because our expectations have been conditioned in a way that prepares us rather for failure than success.
Now let's take a look at some of your e-mails. We have Russ from Virginia who writes about Monday's show on the income tax: “If we just did away with the payroll deduction and forced the American people to write a check every month to the federal government, I believe the attitudes of most people would change drastically.”
I bet it would. A lot of people don't even think that's their money anymore.
Well, thank you for your calls and e-mails.
Next, I want to share some personal thoughts with you to help you understand a little bit the thinking behind the program that we planned for Monday on torture, in which I'll also be welcoming to the show Alan Dershowitz for a pretty serious disagreement.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Next week on ALAN KEYES IS MAKING SENSE, my sometime adversary Alan Dershowitz. Tuesday, my sometime friend and sometime adversary, Pat Buchanan.
Now, on a personal note, I heard about the views of Alan Dershowitz, where he was coming forward to recommend that we should make access to torture routine and lawful in this country, where you go to a judge, get a warrant and then you can go off and torture people. And I have to tell you, it riled me up to such a degree that I said to folks, we should do a show about this. Do you think Alan would come on? And he was glad to do so.
So I hope you will join me on Monday, because it's going to be a little bit of a dust-up, I'm sure, but it should be one that will help to enlighten us a little, because I feel deeply one of the greatest temptations we need to resist in this time is the temptation to sacrifice the advances we have made in liberty and decency for the sake of a false sense of what is going to lead to our greater security.
And I think the show is going to focus on that point above all when it comes to things like the methods we use or abuse in our war against terror. I hope you will join us, because I feel strongly this is something we all need to be thinking about, thinking about clearly, because if we don't, we're going to make mistakes that our coming generations will regret.
It's one thing for expedient purposes to do what you have to do to meet the times. It's another to set up institutions based on what you know to be abuses on the plea that necessity makes it necessary for you to commit permanently to practices that you know to be wrong. The one may corrupt action for a moment. The other will corrupt our institutions for all time. It's a grave error.
Stay tuned Monday, then. That's my sense of it. Be back with you tomorrow, when we will be talking about California and what it's doing on toleration in the education system. Should be fascinating. Join us then. Lester Holt is up next.