Hugo Schwyzer, the Episcopalian pro-feminist blogger, married dad, and gender studies professor (hope I got all that right), adds his 2 cents to the Carnival of Feminists with a post defending the institution of marriage. His argument is one that I would characterize as quintessentially "integral," though Hugo only describes himself as having a "passion for reconciling contradictions."
His thoughts on marriage hint at complex, post-liberal and post-conservative solutions, pro-feminist and pro-male and pro-human activism, and respectful of a wide variety of dissenting perspectives. Plus, I just think it's totally right.
But you can read Hugo and judge for yourself. Here's a quote:
I am a cheerleader for marriage because I see the tremendous possibilities the institution still has to serve, as I’ve said again and again, as a vehicle for mutual personal growth. Actually, to be fair, my attachment is less to marriage itself and more to the idea of enduring monogamous commitment. Whether that commitment is formalized or not is less important than whether it is made in the first place, and whether the two people making that commitment are willing to challenge each other and sacrifice together.
But as passionate as I am about marriage, I dislike the conservative embrace of the institution as a solution for serious social problems. The conservative formula, made clear by everyone from Maggie Gallagher to Wade Horn to Warren Farrell to Mona Charen, is this: with the decline in marriage, the obligation of the state to care for its most vulnerable citizens has increased...
Read the whole post: "Another post on marriage, social policy, choice and necessity."