TJOURNAL.COM • Website of The Tri-County Journal & Chattahoochee Chronicle
The Tri-County Journal
& Chattahoochee Chronicle
PO Box 850, 71 Webb Lane
Buena Vista, GA 31803
229-649-6397
tjournal@windstream.net
Nothing helpful in celebrity's
statement about marriage
statement about marriage
By Randy Hicks, President of Georgia Family Council
Let’s face it, celebrities often get more ink than they deserve. That’s probably attributable to our peeping Tom society that obsesses over every move made by the so-called rich and famous.
Personally, I think it might be constructive to our national well-being if we recaptured the idea of infamous. Seriously, if we’re honest about it we realize that we often bestow the label of “famous” on some who probably merit the label “infamous.”
“Famous” ought to be reserved for people who are heroic or who have achieved something great; people like Mother Teresa, the passengers on United Flight 93, accomplished artists, authors and musicians. “Infamous”
But enough of that. I have a point to make.
One highly recognizable person – a celebrity – made headlines a couple of weeks ago when he stated, “Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."
Okay, you know who I’m talking about. It’s Brad Pitt.
Now, normally I try to avoid singling out specific individuals for public criticism. My reason for doing so simply stems from my understanding of what it means to be human.
But this doesn’t mean we cannot raise some questions, point out inconsistencies or sound the alarm on philosophies that would be highly destructive if taken to their logical conclusion. So we can’t ignore Mr. Pitt’s statement, which got a fair amount of attention but not much criticism.
At first glance, Mr. Pitt’s statement may seem high minded and perhaps sacrificial. Perhaps some even see it as heroic. But a deeper look at what is both said and unsaid pushes one to conclude otherwise.
What is unsaid, but should be obvious, is that Mr. Pitt hasn’t exactly exhibited some sort of profound commitment to the institution of marriage. This is, after all, someone who left the woman he was married to in order to live with a woman he refuses to marry but with whom he has a child. That’s not the picture of the kind of commitment that marriage needs to survive and, more to the point, flourish.
Put another way, Mr. Pitt doesn’t appear to be sacrificing anything. Sacrifice requires giving up something that you value for the sake of another; it might involve giving up some of your own desires and independence for the one to whom you say you are committed. Real sacrifice is a common component in the decision to marry. Mr. Pitt’s actions would indicate that he does not value marriage so there is no sacrifice.
Now, before anyone gets too bent out of shape, we must honestly say that marriage is more than a mere sacrifice where nothing is gained. At its best, marriage is a reward in and of itself – a relationship full of profound understanding, knowing glances, breathtaking intimacy and the shared and treasured scars of hardships endured. So, no, it’s not just about sacrifice. It’s about reward.
But Mr. Pitt – or at least some of the reports we’ve read or heard – would have us believe that his was an enlightened statement that should elicit affirming nods. But does he really mean “until everyone can marry who wants to marry”? That’s a broad statement that renders the word “marriage” utterly meaningless. Everyone? Does he mean couples? Same-sex couples? Threesomes? What about father and daughter? Some clarification is in order.
And if he does not mean to include all of those possibilities, I’d kind of like to know why not. Such an explanation would help clarify how he views marriage – i.e. who he would include and exclude – and might prompt us to think more clearly about what we believe marriage to be.
Today, there’s plenty of evidence that suggests that marriage is commonly viewed as a vehicle by which adults fulfill their desires, and that’s about it. But anthropologists give us what could be termed a “majority report” from history: the reason marriage has been set aside as special by every culture in human history is because of its relationship to the next generation. Simply put, societies have recognized that bringing the sexes together for the purpose of producing and rearing children significantly contributes to the common good, and a failure to do so results in harm.
Now, again, that’s not all marriage is, but that is why societies have bestowed upon the male and female union a special status. Reducing marriage to a mere form of self expression and a package of benefits does marriage, children and society a great disservice.
Mr. Pitt and Angelina Jolie have done some very good things. They’ve promoted much needed aid to suffering people in Africa. They’ve heroically adopted and cared for needy children – something that is very close to my heart – and they’ve encouraged others to do likewise. It’s easy for me to wholeheartedly applaud them for those efforts.
But not for this. I can’t help but feel that Mr. Pitt’s statements further diminish the meaning and importance of marriage – for himself and Ms. Jolie, their children and the broader culture.
Georgia Family Council is a non-profit organization that works to strengthen and defend the family in Georgia by impacting communities, shaping laws and influencing culture. For more information, go to www.georgiafamily.org, (770) 242-0001, gregg@gafam.org.