It was a delight to see such a large turnout for the recent debate on marriage. The whole event, including the coverage in the Collegian, was a model of civil discourse. We write to clarify four points about the conjugal view of marriage.
First, as a comprehensive union of lover and beloved, marriage distinctively unites two persons in mind, will and body. Sex, or the two-in-one-flesh union that is essential to, though not sufficient for, the conjugal view of marriage, is not a metaphysical idea, it is a physical idea. This is basic biology: In coitus (and only in coitus) two persons (and only two persons), a male and a female (and only a male and female), unite to form a single, organic, reproductive unit, even if that unifying act does not result in children (as in most cases it does not, even with fertile couples).
This embodied, uniquely comprehensive unity of persons is itself a basic good of spouses, even if procreation does not or cannot result from it. Sadly, not everyone today recognizes this kind of marital unity as a basic good, though every romantic desire at least indirectly points toward it. Romantic desire says “I want to be one with you.”
The inherent and distinctive value of this total (including bodily) union in marriage has long been recognized. At common law, for example, infertility is not an impediment to marriage, but impotence is. The common law rightly presumes the potency of heterosexual couples. Legally, “Bob” (Corvino’s quadriplegic example) and “Jane” can get married, but should they want to separate, they have grounds for civil annulment.
Second, this view of coitus as an essential feature of marriage is not exclusively a Biblical idea. Consider this: Until roughly 25 years ago, not a single culture, state, tribe, political order, or thinker in the history of the world thought marriage was anything but conjugal. They saw what we have such trouble seeing today: That true bodily union, union as one flesh — though not the whole of marriage — is key to what sets it apart. The conjugal view of marriage has been defended by non-Christians as diverse as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Plutarch and Musonius Rufus. Clearly, the conjugal view of marriage is not merely Biblical theology dressed up as philosophy. Theological arguments about marriage have their value, but the conjugal view is an insight of human reason and crucial to the common good.
Third, the natural orientation of conjugal marriage towards childbearing provides a rational basis for legal marriage. As virtually every study on the subject confirms, children who are not raised by their married, biological parents are at a statistically significant risk for poor outcomes (academic, behavioral, social, etc.). (See Why Marriage Matters, 3rd ed.) The law upholds conjugal marriage to encourage adherence to its stabilizing norms — to give every child the best shot at being reared by the man and woman from whom she came, in a loving bond.
Finally, if five people on the Supreme Court rule that there is no rational basis for conjugal marriage against the deliberative majorities of 31 states, three consequences are likely to follow: First, none of the other norms of marriage (monogamy, exclusivity, permanence, etc.) can be rationally sustained. It will become bigotry to think that biological connection is the ideal, or that mothering and fathering are each irreplaceable. This is not a slippery-slope argument but a simple extension of the logic of the law. All it takes is one lawsuit by polyamorists, etc., to move that ball down the field. Marriage will be defined as whatever consenting adults want it to be, effectively collapsing “marriage” as a meaningful category.
Second, because there is no rational basis for the conjugal view of marriage, all persons, parents, civil and religious organizations, families, and other associations that teach the conjugal view of marriage will be stigmatized, like defenders of racial segregation, as bigots, and closed up as narrowly as the law will allow.
Finally, this new definition of marriage, with its new norms, will necessarily find its way into social norms, through public school curricula, etc., making it much more difficult for persons to understand and live the conjugal view of marriage. Children will be especially harmed by this regime change.
The stakes in this debate are very high. It is urgent, therefore, that we do our best to understand well what the issues are before making such a precipitous change to the bedrock of our political and social order.