Your conclusions are fascinating and it is incredibly refreshing to read such a staunch defence of the benefits of monogamous marriage. Of course, coming from my own conservative Christian perspective I would say this, but you identify ‘goods’ of marriage in a way that, sadly, even some Christians have lost sight of.

I’d like to push you further though, as I think your commitment to a contemporary liberal worldview keeps you from embracing your own conclusions as clearly as you should.

You write that “The institution of marriage, as it once was, is now more or less dead.” I would agree with this statement – and grieve it. You also put your finger on the nub of why this is the case: that, “Where once marriage was all about reproduction and the pooling of resources, it is now more often understood as a means of sexual and emotional fulfilment.” It is (as you again identify, as has Mark Regnerus previously) primarily technology that has forced this shift – in this case the reproductive technology of the pill. Without the risk of pregnancy women have been ‘freed’ to act sexually like men and the nature of relationships has dramatically changed; although as you point out, the pill is not as failproof as generally imagined.

Where I think you join the wrong dots, or at least join the dots wrong, is in concluding that because the institution of marriage as it was is dead, and because the shape of relationships has shifted to be more about personal fulfilment than creating a family, we should “extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, who necessarily lack ‘sexual-reproductive complementarity’.” This is a rephrasing of the arguments made when same-sex marriage was legalised that extending marriage does not weaken marriage. I would argue the contrary, and I suspect in your heart of hearts you agree with me.

In order for your advice to be taken seriously, that women should, “Get married. And do your best to stay married. Particularly if you have children, and particularly if those children are still young”, we need to – somehow – work for the institution of marriage to be rebuilt. In order for it to be rebuilt it has to stand for something, and that something always was about conceiving and caring for children. By extending marriage to those, “who necessarily lack ‘sexual-reproductive complementarity’” a very important message is communicated: the message that marriage is simply a personal lifestyle choice, divorced from any greater good.

I’d like you to go the whole way: not only to recognise that monogamous marriage is the best system we have for safeguarding women but that to safeguard women requires us to safeguard marriage. In our laws around who can marry, how divorce can happen, how tax benefits should be applied, and so on, we should be doing all we can to rebuild the institution of marriage, because that is the only way we can start to heal the damage wrought by the sexual revolution.

You are right to say that, “The marriage system that prevailed in the West up until recently was not perfect, nor was it easy for most people to conform to, since it demanded high levels of tolerance and self-control.” Yes, marriage can be difficult but our mistake has been to try and make it easier. It really is the institution that is our best hope for creating a society where there is more sexual health than disease.

Then, of course, I’d like you to take the final step – to recognise that the institution of marriage cannot only be safeguarded by cultural and policy decisions but by seeing it as God intended it to be: a model and picture of the relationship between Christ and his people. It is grasping this theological, spiritual, reality that transforms marriage and makes it something that is truly good, both for those in the marriage, and for society more broadly. That’s my prayer for you, and for us: the poor beleaguered sons and daughters of the sexual revolution.

Thanks again for the book. I wish you all best in your future writing and campaigning; and in your marriage.