I took from William's statement that it's harder to stay married today, especially for the 60 years that the royals have. Marriage is under attack by an economic environment that requires two-paycheck households, leaving precious little time for relationship building and growth. Perhaps if we all had the material backing of our States (as the Queen certainly does), we would have more durable marriages.

It is rather a bizarre claim, but what I think he’s referring to is fact that people rarely stay married for any length of time these days. Thus, it is under “attack” by an epidemic of “divorce.”

He doesn’t say or even imply who is to blame, but the usual suspects when such “facts” are thrown out include a variety of factors that fall under the rubric of “modernism” – easy access to divorce, more “secularism” in society with the lessening of “traditional values” (e.g. more extra-marital affairs) and, for some people, the acceptance of gays in society falls in that category as well.

I think Williams was intending to say “things ain’t the way they used to be” but it came out in the garbled cliché “marriage is under attack” that has been appropriated by the religious right in this country. Methinks he’s been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and talk radio (he admits being a fan):

“…if I'm in the car, I will listen to Rush. And he will tell you I've been listening for years. I think it's my duty to listen to Rush. I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due, because his audience for so many years felt they were in the wilderness of this country. No one was talking to them.

Williams, by using this cliche is the expressing the sentiment of those who feel “in the wilderness” of this country. By using this expression, he’s trying to “talk to them” – the people who listen to talk radio – he’s trying to connect with them, and share their feelings (angst, disgust, fear) about modern society.

That’s my take anyway (although I haven’t had my coffee yet) and it is, at the very least, a “bizarre” assertion by anchor that really had no place in his story.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501240007

Anytime someone claims "marriage is under attack" one has to assume absolutely that person is one of two things (or both at the same time): either an imbecile who is merely regurgitating something they heard somewhere; or someone pushing an agenda.

Those who fall into the first category--great declaimers of received wisdom--litter newspaper letter columns, internet message boards and blogs, and local taverns with their nuggets of nothing, with their vast non-expertise. Those in the latter category (or who are members of both) may be generally found publishing newspaper and magazine articles and columns or taking up space in television studios to fill the airwaves between commercials for beer and chips.

So, the question is merely: is Williams pushing an agenda, or is he pushing an agenda and also an imbecile?

I agree that the word "attack" implies somebody's actively trying to destroy what is perceived as one of the traditional cornerstones and "securities" of society.

There's plenty of those "threats" to be found in the media nowadays. It's called "amplification": you combine two words in a context of fear and create something that seems to make sense, and most of all, make it sound like a threat.

In contemporary societies, fear is unpredictable and free-floating. It is volatile, often because it is unstable and not focused on any specific threat. So today, fear can migrate freely from one problem to the next without any causal or logical connection.

Just like "Islam" and "fascism".

Quote taken from: "The only thing we have to fear is the 'culture of fear' itself," by Frank Furedi: http://www.frankfuredi.com/pdf/fearessay-20070404.pdf

Maybe if all those gay people get married, then we'll run out of marriage certificates?

Or maybe Rudy!! is setting a bad example by both screwing around AND getting married over and over again--depleting the marriage certificate supply?

If marriage is under attack, it's obviously from those fundy megachurches. Every time you hear about them it's because they're harboring "leaders" that'll stick it in anything that wiggles. Close down the churches and marriage should be just fine. At least its something to try.

Actually divorce rates are down, pintobean.

Cohabitation is common among young people, which arguably has had the net effect of strengthening marriage, as the practice became routine.

It's probably the case that later marriage has led to lowering divorce rates; I am still amazed that my mother got married at the age of 19, and had three kids before she turned 23.

Blitzkrieg: According to wiki, blitzkrieg killed 43,000 civilians, destroyed or damaged over one million homes. That was an "attack".

Marriage is "under attack" according to Brian Williams: Too clever by half. As the comment shortly above this one stated, Williams is being an imbecile with an agenda. There is no short cut below that description. When a National News Anchor goes on the air and expresses utter clap-trap such as "marriage is under attack" while making a comparison to the Blitzkrieg, he should be embarrassed beyond measure.

Christmas is coming, and we all know that christmas is under attack. But it is not yet thanksgiving, and so we have to see what else is under attack. It sets the mood.

Honest, I am serious.

I see that people are taking this seriously.

Seriously, what Williams is saying with the "attack on marriage" phrase is "In an era where Ward and June's marriage is becoming increasingly rare..."

Which is a stupid thing to say. The increase in divorce rates that stemmed from women being able to (often barely) make a living on their own took place in the 70s and 80s, not now.

And he is, of course, reflecting the wingnut theme of a society being destroyed by something or other and the absence of traditional family values and similar claptrap. As someone else noted, this has something to do with fear on the part of a small number of Americans.

But what is really appalling is that he thinks an exemplar of the old system of marriage for life can be found in the British Royal Family, which has done as much damage to the institution as anybody. Given Prince Phillip's reputation as a randy adulterer, it's hard to believe that Williams really means to hold Queen Elizabeth up as an example of traditional values.

And the rest of them? The next generation? As Jed Clampett used to say, woooo-dogey.