The Tradition of Marriage is Troubled Because of Individualism? I Think Not

Our class discussions have touched upon serious social issues that are being battled out between what Alan Wolfe describes in the introduction of The Transformation of American Religion as believers and non-believers. These discussions have touched upon suicide, homosexuality, and morality, but a subject that hasn't been discussed in great detail is marriage.

An article (which I'm going to link below) I stumbled across defined marriage as "previously understood as a sacred union given and governed by God for the stability of society". My question to the class then is, does marriage still stand as a sacred union given and governed by God? What difference is there between non-believers who get married and a gay couple who believes in God who want to get married, that gives the former the right to get married but not the latter?

The article I mentioned above is called "The Capital 'I' in 'I Do'" and discusses a survey by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers State University that claims that "the tradition of marriage is troubled today in large part because of an emerging cultural emphasis on individualism". I think this is bull, but let's look at what they have to say.

"Social scientists suggest the significant societal shift that is taking its toll on the institution of marriage can be attributed to the themes of personal independence and self-fulfillment....

...The recent family trends in the Western nations have been largely generated by a distinctive set of cultural values that scholars have come to label ‘secular individualism.’ It features the gradual abandonment of religious attendance and beliefs, a strong leaning toward ‘expressive’ values that are preoccupied with personal autonomy and self-fulfillment, and a political emphasis on egalitarianism and the tolerance of diverse lifestyles. An established empirical generalization is that the greater the dominance of secular individualism in a culture, the more fragmented the families...

...Increasingly, marriage—previously understood as a sacred union given and governed by God for the stability of society—is becoming viewed as a social contract to be terminated if it frustrates self-fulfillment...

...“The fundamental reason is that the traditional nuclear family is a somewhat inegalitarian group (not only between husbands and wives but also parents and children) that requires the suppression of some individuality and also has been strongly supported by, and governed by the rules of, orthodox religions. As a seeming impediment to personal autonomy and social equality, therefore, the traditional family is an especially attractive unit for attacks from a secular individualistic perspective."

Let's take a breather here for a moment and look at what they've said so far. Secular individualism teaches us to abandon religion to fulfill our own personal goals (because our personal goals can't be fulfilled while being religious?), while pushing us to believe in equality for all and the tolerance of diverse lifestyles (which we all know is a horrible goal to strive for). They go on to talk about how marriage is ended because of a lack of "self-fulfillment" and that the traditional family cannot be egalitarian because families require a "supression of some individuality" in order to function.

What? Perhaps my feelings on marriage is a belief not shared by my fellow peers across the nation, or perhaps even it is the secular individualism of the nation holding sway over me, but I feel like marriage does not require a sacrifice of oneself in order to make things work. I was under the impression that the vows given during a wedding meant that you accept the other person fully - both bad and good. That you're swearing to accept every part of them because you're willing to live with who they are.

I will often claim that the social value I hold in highest regard is my independence and personal freedom - it is one of the few things I would never give up no matter what. Without my freedoms I cannot be happy with who I am or where I am. My family understands this, and rather than being splintered away from my family because of my individualism, I am closer to them now than ever before. They support my right to make my own decisions and work with me to continually work as family unit even when I am states, or countries, away. And it is well understand that anyone who enters my life as a significant other must respect my high regard for these values, or in minimizing my freedoms, are disrespecting who I am.

Does this mean I can't be who I am - beyond the fact that I do not believe in a traditional God - and still be happily bound in matrimony?According to the National Marriage Project codirector Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, it does.
“We will have to adopt the view that personal happiness depends on high-trust and lasting relationships and that such relationships require constraints on short-term adult interests in order to foster long-term commitments to children, and thus to the future.”

I cannot accept that my personal happiness depends on another person, but that comes from my Native American upbringings and the beliefs I was raised on. I was told from a young age that "Only you can make yourself truly happy", and I will stick by that to the end. But that doesn't mean that I can't be happy in union with another person. It doesn't mean that I can't be a good parent and raise children in a stable atmosphere. I know what it means to be raised in a broken household, and I never want that for my children. And I don't need to sacrifice who I am to do that, because I believe who I am, or who I will be when I finally have children of my own, is the kind of person who will do just fine as a parent.

A conclusion statement from Barbara Whitehead went as followed:

"With each passing year these nations—including the United States—are more secular than ever before. The National Cultural Values Survey . . . found that regular churchgoing has dipped below 50 percent and only 36 percent believe “people should live by God’s principles.” The logical conclusion then, is that “America no longer enjoys cultural consensus on God, religion, and what constitutes right and wrong.”

Yet, Alan Wolfe would disagree.

"Religions can be astonishingly different, while human beings can be surprisingly the same... Study real people, and one is more likely to notice the similarities, not only among people of different faiths, but also between those for whom religion matters greatly and those for whom it matters not at all" (5).

I would ask each member of our class then - what does marriage mean to you, and how has your religious upbringing, or lack-there-of, affected it?