Tapu Misa: Marriage badly damaged long before civil unions move

I've been married 23 years to the same man (no, I wasn't a child bride, but thank you for asking), so I guess that makes me not just a fan of the institution but also an upholder of civilisation as we know it.

And pleased I am about that, too. You have no idea the sense of superiority this engenders, knowing that I'm one of an apparently declining number of people doing their bit to keep society on the straight and narrow just by being married with children.

It matters not that societal good was not uppermost in our minds when we made that fateful choice (which we've regretted only a dozen or so times over the past two decades). I'm not sure that we were particularly thinking of the good of our children (who didn't arrive for some years), or the approval of our family and community (whom we neglected to inform for the same number of years).

The point is, we made a commitment and here we are, staunch defenders of good old-fashioned family values. Much like the Pope, who, along with others of his ilk, has been speaking out against that affront to family life and the very fine institution of marriage - same-sex unions.

The Pope didn't mention the other threats to the matrimonial state, but his injunction got me thinking about others in my social circle, who, frankly, could be doing much more to ensure the survival of our civilisation.

I'm thinking of the friends who, in more than two decades of cohabitation, have never managed to make it to the altar, despite producing a couple of fine children, both apparently smart and well-adjusted.

Or the married friends who never got around to having children in the first place, failing in their duty to put society first by producing offspring who could add to the diminishing workforce when we're all old and grey.

Not to mention the friend who's been selfish enough to leave a marriage of similar vintage to mine, exposing her children to the uncertainties of living in two households. Never mind that she's happier than she has ever been, and that her children appear not to have suffered any great emotional harm.

Of course, this sort of thing would never have been allowed in the good old days, when society rightly frowned on de facto relationships, divorce and out-of-wedlock births.

People got married and that was the end of it. They stayed married no matter how miserable they were, or how dysfunctional their family and kids became as a result.

Much has changed, and somewhere along the line marriage has taken a battering. In 1971, for instance, New Zealanders racked up more than 27,000 marriages, a rate of 45.5 for each 1000 people. Last year, there were just 21,420, about 14.7 a 1000 - less than a third of the 1971 high.

Blame it on what some commentators have called the "60s sensibility", which saw much of the Western world move towards social liberalism.

Blame it on the contraceptive pill, sexual liberation, feminism, working women, the domestic purposes benefit, and the introduction of the no-fault divorce. Especially that last one.

What could threaten the sanctity of marriage and family life more than the ease with which one can get a divorce these days? Last year, more than 10,000 marriages were dissolved, and half had dependent children.

Now, of course, we have the Civil Union Bill. Its detractors say it will undermine marriage and the family unit. And maybe it will, but no more than many other changes brought about by a shift in attitudes and a smorgasbord of choices that weren't available in our parents' time.

According to Australian sociologist Professor David de Vaus, the author of a just-released report, Diversity and Change in Australian Families, young Australians are so laden with choices that they're delaying and even avoiding the risks of marriage and kids.

After tracking 20 years of social, health and economic changes, de Vaus confirms that in a society that has divorce, blended families, abortion, contraception, living together before marriage, parenting out of wedlock, gay partnerships and women having children on their own, there is no longer one model of the family.

Maybe it's not the model most of us grew up with - though mum, dad and the kids is still the dominant family norm both here as in Australia, and the ideal for many - but there's no reason it's necessarily bad for children, who seem to thrive just as long as they're getting a minimal dosage of physical and emotional nurturing.

Is this the end of marriage as we know it? I doubt it.

Despite our having more choices, and despite the removal of the social imperatives to get married, most people are still choosing to get married - not because they have to but because they want to.

The marriage rate has remained steady over the past few years, and 80 per cent of couples are of the married kind. And most divorced or once-divorced people I know are either hitched again or wishing to be.

We of the heterosexual persuasion have choices. We can solemnise our unions or not. And whatever else the Civil Union Bill might confer on the gay community, that's essentially what it comes down to - the right to choose.