The Issue is Marriage

In the United States there are two main ideological division that group citizens between conservatives and liberals. The economic issues and the social issues. The combination of both divisions give fours possibilities: Socially liberals, federalists (social democrats); socially liberals, anti-federalists (libertarians); socially conservatives, federalists (neoconservatives); socially conservatives, anti-federalists (paleoconservatives). Of course this is a coarse division based on generalities that does not contemplate regional differences, but as political scientist try to do, at least it helps picturing the broad sample of all American citizens. I don't even picture myself easily in this lines of cleavage, but I would say I move between paleoconservatives to neoconservatives. Why? Because more than the economy, the issue for me is social values. And I want to talk about what I consider is the center of the debate between social conservatives and social liberals: the issue of marriage. Every specific issue of the broad debate can be traced back to marriage, and from it it springs to all other branches and specific questions. Marriage can be smelled in abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, education, feminism, religion and secularization, etc.

I'm going to call the institution at hand in the United States (and the rest of the Western Civilization if that's the case) Christian Marriage. This is an institution that we have inherited for thousands of years now. The debate is if it must be preserved as originally was given to us, or the movement of history forces us to change it. The problem of why marriage is so important is that it's the institution we have for the preservation of the species in a general sense, and the continuation of the citizenry in a narrower sense. Through it we defeat death and we engender life. Such an important goal always produces debate in a society as free as ours, as to how should we interpret marriage, its purpose and the role it plays in our society. Naturally the defenders of Christian Marriage, acknowledging its importance for the healthy survival of our society, gather around its defense. The perception that one of the holiest of institutions is in danger of being overrun can even turn them irrational contenders, as it usually happens. For a defender of Christian Marriage, the perspective of losing it to liberal forces seems as monstrous as communism itself, because he/she conceives that institution as the spring of everything beautiful and worth living in life and freedom, and the expectation of losing it produces a profound sadness and anxiety.

On the other side, the opponents of Christian Marriage see in it an institution of repression, first of the woman, but ultimately of the individual. Because Christian Marriage demands a level of abdication of the individual's will, and the effort of working together in an almost compulsory way, liberal individualists see in it the embodiment of intransigence. Because what is more intransigent than an ancient tradition that does not answer back with arguments, but with the immense strength of its ancestral authority? Let us remember that the real individualist distrusts any kind of authority, and only justify it in the extremest of cases. The authority of Christian Marriage is not that clear today. Ergo they see it with contempt and move forward an agenda to undermine it.

In what sense the entire debate of social values move around the issue of marriage? Some common cases will illustrate my point, abortion being the most dramatic one. Marriage as the institution that creates family, the ancestral mean of engendering new life and preserve the species and citizenry of a country, is completely annihilated by the idea of abortion. Abortion is the strongest way out of marriage, for it facilitates premarital sex and takes away the goal for what marriage exists. If the engendering of life can be kept away, why marrying? The modern answer is that the goal of marriage is love. Love is a strictly subjective experience, fundamentally necessary for a happy marriage, but not a strong groundwork for marrying, because we can actually fall in love and love another person in the most extraordinary way without ever marrying. As all subjective experiences, love can fade away as it happens all the time, and then the main column of a happy union collapses, from which what springs is divorce. Even more, love as the goal of marriage is a perfect justification for same-sex couples. The idea that love is not the means for preserving marriage but the goal of it turns the relation upside down in favor of the individual and opposed to the union. Its consequences are seen clearly; that interpretation of marriage is one of the main principles that threaten Christian Marriage in the United States.

The same applies to stem cell research, which is an issue close to abortion. But the strongest advocacy against Christian Marriage resides in the feminist movement. It is true that marriage has a long history of male domination and female repression. But I don't think that such a history justify the war feminism has waged against the institution. Instead of destroying marriage, the promotion of more happy unions might be the most reasonable solutions. Male domination must be eradicated, that is true, but the destruction of Christian Marriage is not a mandatory requirement for that goal. With feminism stands secularization, a very controversial theme these days. The case for the secularization of political institutions is clear, but, in the case of marriage? The belief that God is the supremest authority in sanctioning the union of a man and a woman is very important for a lot of people. It is the strongest argument against divorce, and also the strongest argument in favor of making an effort to fix a demoralized marriage. It takes away from the individual the capacity to choose, because God is a judge no one can get away from. Usually secularization comes together with atheism (not always and not necessarily, but usually).

Education, is it in the hands of the State or is it in the hands of family? If marriage is a holy institution as Christians are led to believe, then the strongest argument goes for family. No better judge and better educator of their child's good than their parents. Secularization thinks otherwise. The State as the supreme regulator of social life chooses what is better to be imparted to the new generations. Christian Marriage as the institution that engenders life loses another space of action (and justification to continue existing) when the State kicks in.

Everywhere I see, the debate between social conservatives and liberals reaches its ultimate consequence in the nature, principles and purpose of marriage in society. The line of cleavage here is strongest than anywhere else, and the ability to reach agreement is close to impossible. The good thing is that in the United States this issue has been discussed by parts, in the different segments of the topic, and not as the center of the whole, which has given some space for compromise.