Abortion and same-sex marriage are often grouped together as “the social issues,” but besides inducing high blood pressure, do abortion and marriage policy have anything to do with each other?  Many people think not.  Our generation is overwhelmingly in favor of redefining marriage, but is split down the middle on abortion.

But for opponents of abortion, changing the law is not enough.  The laws permitting abortion are terrible.  Of course we should change them.  But we cannot afford to be naïve: As long as there is a demand for abortion, it will persist.  Political efforts need to be supplemented by a culture that can help women in desperate situations, and a vibrant marriage culture plays a crucial role in this culture of life.

No one who goes to an abortion clinic wants to be there.  Women have abortions because they are scared, confused, and feel alone.  Oftentimes they would gladly choose life, if they felt that they could.  Many abortions could be prevented by a supportive and loving family willing to help a woman raise her child.

Other women choose abortion because the child’s father threatens to abandon her.  Every year, hundreds of thousands of fathers abandon their children because they treated sex as a plaything.  These men did not sign up to be a dad; they were just trying to have fun.  This attitude would not be possible in a culture where sex implied a lifelong commitment.

A vibrant marriage culture is only possible if marriage remains the union of one man and one woman.

Why?  How does same-sex marriage threaten traditional marriage?  The answer is that same-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and will make it impossible to rebuild a culture of marriage.  This debate is usually framed with the question “Why can’t gay people get married?”.  But that is the wrong question to ask.  The right question is what is marriage?

To answer this question, we need to look at some of the distinctive characteristics of marriage. For example, governments do not usually regulate our most intimate relationships.  You do not need a government certificate to be someone’s friend, or to go out on a date.  But the government does regulate the most intimate relationship there is: marriage.

Why does the state do this?  Why is marriage the exception to the rule?  Society has an interest in promoting family life.  No family is perfect, but families are the most effective way to raise morally good and responsible citizens.  This is also the reason why marriage is reserved to two people; if “love makes a marriage,” there is no reason why three or more people cannot get married.  Beyond this, the connection between marriage and family life is the reason why couples pledge to stay together “’til death do [them] part.”  If children are not an essential part of marriage, there does not seem to be any reason to make people permanently commit to one another.  So far, marriage revisionists have not given a reason for why, on their account, marriage should be permanent, monogamous, and regulated.  Their silence on these points is deafening.

But some people will object, “What about infertile couples?  They can’t have children, but isn’t that a marriage?”  Yes, it is.  Even though an infertile couple is unable to create new children, their relationship is still ordered towards creating new life.  Couples who struggle with infertility still recognize that their inability to have children is a loss.  Their relationship is ordered towards family life; they just cannot achieve it.

If we redefine marriage to mean a relationship that cannot produce children, and one that does not seek to produce children, it will confuse people as to what their responsibilities are as husband and wife.  Our culture is already ravaged by divorce, adultery, absent fathers, and other blights.  This is not a culture of life, and blurring the definition of marriage will only make our situation bleaker.

 

Brian Stahl is a senior history major living in Keenan Hall who hails from New Jersey. Contact him at bstahl2@nd.edu.