Politicizing the nature of marriage

THE stir created recently by some leaders of a women´s party list group has bared the fact that some of our politicians are actually ideologues bent in crafting laws detached not only from the people´s culture but also from nature itself.

It´s about time we examine again the mechanics of the party list system. There are now clear signs and proofs that groups using it are just covering for some ideology rather than representing a marginalized but significant population.

Imagine the brilliant idea they are proposing—that marriage now should be subjected to an expiry date and that it should be renewed and renegotiated after some years. I don´t know what planet they are living, but down here where we are, the proposal just won´t wash.

Of course, the rationalizations are not lacking. It´s meant to protect women, to rescue battered spouses in hopeless marital situations, etc., etc. The way things are now, ideological groups never run out of excuses if they want to advocate something.

They are good at making spins to make their views acceptable. Like, since we are in a democracy, then any group and any idea just have to be accommodated. All positions enjoy the same freedom and weight irrespective of how they really stand with any criteria.

In this thinking, there´s no more need to subject these views to further examination. It´s enough that some people are advocating for them.

Or they can cleverly turn the exceptions that are supposed to prove the rule into exceptions that now make the rule. The exceptional cases are given the same status as the normal and the natural.

Or in a democracy, change is necessary. Nowadays many politicians are singing this mantra of change and some have greatly benefited from it. But this attitude often leads to indiscriminate changes, not anymore distinguishing what can and should change and what should not change.

Or again, that in a democracy everything has to be submitted to the polls, politicizing even marriage itself. This is, of course, a lie, since not all things are subject to the opinion of the people.

All these rationalizations are biased assessments of things, grounded on very restricted considerations. We have to be quick to expose the tricks and fallacies involved, before they finally get to mesmerize the people.

The nature of marriage has already been long settled. And as nature, it cannot be redefined. The definition might be enriched or enhanced as more data come, but it cannot be given a substantially different definition.

For sure, the nature of marriage has not been defined simply on the basis of faith or religion. That´s what ideologues also like to claim—that the definition of marriage has so far been tilted unfairly toward some faith-based beliefs. They, who have a different take on it, now assert they should be given the same treatment.

The nature of marriage is defined by just looking at it, discerning what it is supposed to be, what its purpose is, etc. It’s based on the nature itself of man who for his proper development need an institution to perpetuate himself and his descendants in a way fit for his dignity.

And this can only be marriage as it is known up to now—a life-long commitment between a man and a woman, based on the fullness of love that includes the use of the body.

We are capable of entering into this commitment, and this commitment also in turn helps in developing us toward full human maturity.

We are capable of this commitment because in spite of our changing conditions there is something in us—precisely our spirit, our soul, our heart and will—that enables us to remain constant and consistent even as we face varying circumstances.

That is why, more than our bodily senses and powers, we really have to take care of our spiritual faculties, because they are the main engine for our development and our fidelity in our commitments.

Marriage is to last until death, since it is supposed to be driven by a love that involves everything in our life. A love that changes along the way is not true love, and in the process it can only harm us.

That is why, one’s marital commitment should lead him to renew and refresh his love and sense of commitment everyday, always looking for new ways to show that love with deeds. One should avoid remaining in the level of intentions and theories. It should go down to the level of praxis.

Marriage is also between one man and one woman. Period.