"Marriage must be defended; I think it's under

attack" stated 2012 Presidential candidate and

GOP primary front-runner Mitt Romney (Fox News
Sunday). Other candidates like Rep. Michelle
Bachmann have gone even further, signing a
pledge to protect traditional family values
(Somashekhar). According to their logic, since
traditional marriage is under attack, it must be
defended. At some point it must be understood
what traditional marriage is, and what it is not.
Traditional family values are not a myth but neither
do these values need exclusive protection. The
desire and willpower to be moral is all the
protection that the institution of marriage needs.
How are these values able to be protected when
many Christian denominations cannot even agree
on what these values are? Once it is established
what these values are, then the question of
whether these values are under any danger can be
addressed.
Some people argue that there is no such
thing as traditional marriage. Every society has its
own cultural and social structures in place, which
can change over time. In Debunking Myths about
Marriages and Families the authors do a very good
job of showing that there are many different family
models and that these models are products of their
historical context (Schwartz and Scott 281). It is
argued, for example, that the Industrial Revolution
brought about changes in the roles between man

and women where the man is the primary provider

and the woman is the primary caregiver for the
children. Because social structures between man
and woman change through time, and because
there are different forms of marriage/family social
structure, it is argued that the concept of
traditional marriage is a myth.
Tradition is the historically accepted
practices of a particular culture or society. In
American society it is fairly clear that Christianity
has had an enormous impact on citizens. It would
even be fair to say that throughout its history
America has predominately been a Christian
nation, at least in culture and social structures. A
person can go to almost any village or town in
America and see that there are plenty of churches.
In the authors hometown, a village with a
population of about seven hundred people, there
are at least four different churches. In a village
four miles up the road with even less population,
there are several different churches and a large
church camp. These are just examples of the
influence Christianity has had on tiny populations
in America. In larger towns and cities many megachurches have formed. Pastors such as Joel Osteen
have gained a huge number of followers. Because
Christianity has had such a huge influence on
morality in American society, the concepts of
traditional marriage mainly originate from the
Bible.

The concept of traditional marriage is not a

myth and must be properly defined for American
society.
Throughout United States history,
marriage and other morality issues have been
predominately influenced by the reading of the
Bible. There have always been disagreements as
to what the specific interpretations of the Bible are,
but the tradition is not in any specific
interpretations. The tradition is in American
citizens looking to the Bible for moral guidance, so
traditional marriage is looking to the Bible for
moral guidance in relation to marriage. There is
certainly disagreement as to what the exact
practices of traditional marriage are. In a free
society, no matter what a persons cultural
upbringing or moral convictions are, there will be
room for disagreement.
Because there are
different views as to what traditional marriage is
does not mean that the concept itself is a myth,
but it does mean that American society may find it
very difficult to agree on what those concepts are.
Due to a perceived deterioration of morality in
society marriage has been considered under
attack. It becomes imperative to find agreement
on areas where immorality causes an actual threat
to traditional marriage.
Since the varying
denominations are not able to agree on what is
right or wrong for individuals in relation to
marriage, the danger to marriage cannot be

identified. Without knowing what the problem is,

how can the problem be solved? If agreement on
these issues can be found then it would be easier
to find solutions that may help. The specific
reasons for why marriage is considered under
attack are inconsequential at this point, since
people cannot agree what form of morality is under
attack. With that said, there have been reasons
given for why marriage is under attack.
One of the most common reasons that marriage is
considered under attack is because of homosexual
marriage. Politicians such as Michele Bachmann
have made very strong statements in opposition of
homosexual marriage. For example, in relation to
the gay community, she once stated This is a very
serious matter, because it is our children who are
the prize for this community, they are specifically
targeting our children and that This is probably
the biggest issue that will impact our state and our
nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not
understating that (Prophetic Views Behind The
News). There are many Christians who believe
homosexuality is wrong certainly, but there is no
agreement among the Christian denominations.
Some support gay marriage and allow gay priests
while others strictly forbid it. Because there is no
agreement on what morality is, the danger to it
cannot be properly defined. If people do not know
what they are trying to protect, how can it's danger
be properly assessed?

Even if there is agreement on what is right

and what is wrong does this mean that Christians
have the right to impose that morality on other
individuals? Does any human have the authority or
capability to control another persons morality?
The one human that any credible argument can be
made for the authority to control morality would be
Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God in the flesh then it is
fair to say that he has the authority to control
morality. Even though he may have had the power
to control morality he did not use his power (John
8:15-16). Christ did not restrain wickedness, sin, or
immorality. Instead, he brought salvation to those
that knew they were immoral, yet wanted to be
righteous. He did not condemn people, since he
felt that God (the Father) was the judge of
everyone. If God has not viewed them as
righteous, then they were already condemned
(King James Bible, John 3:17-21). If the Messiah did
not condemn anyone for their morality then people
who want to act like Christ should promote laws
that do not condemn anyone for their morality.
Christian morality should not be imposed
on the unwilling through civil law. To do so would
amount to condemning people through law. This
would be no different than the practice of the
Pharisees, who also used Gods morality laws to
condemn people. The Pharisees even tried to
condemn Jesus. In one example they tried to
condemn his disciples for picking corn on the

Sabbath. Christ replied that if the Pharisees had

understood the meaning of the laws that they
would not condemn others but would have instead
had mercy on them (King James Bible, Matthew
12). In another passage, Jesus said that he did not
judge after the flesh, (meaning he did not condemn
others for their morality) unlike the Pharisees
(King James Bible, John 8:15). If Christians should
not impose morality on society through law, then
why should any Christian support a law that forbids
a marriage practice, despite its perceived
immorality?
If the only argument is that the institution of
marriage is under attack because of an increase in
the perceived immoralities of society then it seems
suggestible that there is no need for the protection
of marriage through the passage of laws, since it
seems that the morality of society is not dependent
on the law. There are those that would try to
marginalize immorality through demonization but
calling people names does not solve the problem.
Gay people will have gay sex no matter what the
laws say, so trying to control morality in this way
only causes more hostility. It simply does not solve
the problem.
Christianity has had an enormous impact on
American society. At the same time, the United
States Constitution also protects the right to
individual liberty and the freedom of religion. This

means that American citizens have the right to

make their own morality in society as long as this
does not interfere with the individual liberty of
another. Another way to say this is that it is not
the role of the government to control morality in
society, unless that morality interferes with
individual liberty. Since the relationship between
spouses or other family structures is primarily an
issue of morality it becomes a question of whether
or not Christian morality in relation to marriage
should be imposed on society. It seems that the
Biblical argument and the Constitutional argument
is that it should not be.
At the very least, Jesus changed the morality of
society. After all, it is two thousand years after his
crucifixion, yet look at how many followers he has.
So it seems that the best way to improve morality
is to do the things that Christ did. Instead of sitting
around condemning people, Christians need to go
out and make friends with the sinners of the
world (King James Bible, Mat. 9:11-13). They need
to be able to accept others and at the same time
teach what Gods standards of morality are to
anyone who is willing to listen.
Do the perceived immoralities of society
pose a significant danger to the institution of
marriage? Do immoralities such as cheating on a
spouse pose a danger to those who chose to
remain faithful to their spouse? Everyone should

be accountable for their own actions and their own

morality instead of being threatened by the
morality of others. If a person believes that certain
actions are immoral, then they should not do them
regardless of what the law permits. If homosexual
marriage was made legal in all fifty states
tomorrow how many Christians would turn gay?
How many atheists? It seems likely that no one
would change their morality based on the law,
since the morality of society is not dependent on
the law.
If the morality of society is not dependent on the
law changes in the law will not solve the problem.
Christians need to stop focusing their efforts on
trying to change the morality of society through
law, because it might make the problem even
worse. In order to improve morality in society, for
example, alcohol became illegal in the United
States during the 1920s. The exact opposite
happened.
Morality
did
not
improve,
it
deteriorated significantly. More people started
drinking, and violence increased significantly.
Because the Christian denominations cannot agree
on what Christian marital standards are, Christian
marital standards should not be imposed through
law. Moral marital laws will only cause more
hostility between those who agree with the law and
those who disagree. Perhaps the greatest reason
why Christian morality should not be imposed

through law is because it goes against the actions

of Jesus Christ. Additionally, it goes against the
very concepts of freedom that were set forth in the
United States Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence.
As
United
States
citizens,
Americans have the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Imposing Christian morality
(or any other form of morality) goes against all
three of those rights.
Everyone has the right to do whatever they want to
their own body. This applies to marriage just as it
applies in every other area of life. When
consenting adults choose to do things to their
bodies that the Bible considers immoral, it is their
choice. If there is truly a desire to reduce marital
immorality it seems that the best approach would
be the ability to love others. This does not mean
that marital immorality will go away. The simple
fact is that immorality is not going to go away until
Jesus Christ returns. There will still be infidelity, or
homosexual marriage, but no civil law is going to
change that. On the other hand, Christian morality
is able to thrive in almost any society. Immorality
in marriage does not pose any danger to Christian
morality. Even in times past, when there has been
a danger to Christian morality, Christianity thrived.
A good example of this is the Roman persecution of
the Christians. Despite the fact that Christians
suffered extreme persecution for their standards of
morality more people became Christians (Hunt

199-200) People have every right to destroy their

bodies, but what they cannot do is save their
bodies. Since people are unable to bring their own
salvation there is no need for the protection of
Christian morality. Humanity is not able to protect
morality, since humanity is not a moral species.
Since God is the only one who is considered
morally perfect, only he can protect morality.

Works Cited
Hunt, Lynn, Thomas Martin, Barbara Rosenwein, R.
Po-Chia Hsia, and Bonnie Smith. The
Making of the West Peoples and Cultures: A
Concise History.Boston: Bedford Martin. 2007.
Print.
Fox News Sunday. Chris Wallace , Host. Fox News
Channel 7 Mar. 2008. Television
Prophetic Views Behind The News Host. Jan
Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 20

Schwartz, Mary Ann and Barbara Scott. Debunking

Myths
about
Marriage
and
Families.
Writing
and
Reading
Across
the
CurriculumLaurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen.
Tenth ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2008.
Print.
Somashekhar, Sandhya. Bachmann Signs Socially
Conservative Pledge On Homosexuality,
Marriage Washington
Post. The
Washington Post 8 July. 2011. Web. 27 July. 2011.
The Holy Bible (Authorized King James Version).
Thomas Nelson, Inc. 2003. Print.