Should Democrats and Republicans Marry?

Are the differences between Democrats and Republicans substantial and important enough to keep the two from getting married? Yes, because of Same-Sex marriage and Abortion.

Generally, Democrats support SSM and Republicans do not believe it is a real marriage and hence cannot be legislated. Why is this significant? Because there is a underlying view of the nature of marriage in both cases. Democrats, in defending SSM, usually appeal to a type of relativism arguing that marriage is a social construct and so can be defined differently as society changes. Hence, marriage has no objective meaning. It may mean something at a particular time, but that is subject to change depending on people. 

Republicans on the other take the opposite view that marriage is not something that is prescribed but described. Marriage is not something contingent on society or individuals, rather it has its own nature and natures cannot be changed. This is why many Republicans oppose SSM. If one believes that a thing, like marriage, has a truth to it, no declaration of government can ever alter it. For example, the world is round, and no declaration of government saying it is flat will ever make it so. In the same way, the Republican believes, marriage is between a man and a woman, and no declaration of government can ever change that. 

So, why are these two differences important? Well, if two people are entering a marital relationship with each other, and they both have different conceptions of what kind of relationship they are entering into, they are not actually entering the same relationship. For example, if John tells Mary to meet him at their favorite restaurant, and John goes to Chili’s and Mary goes to Outback, they are not having dinner together. There is a misunderstanding between the two, and so one cannot truly consent to what the other wants. 

There may also be some further implications that will lead to tension. It is more conceivable under the Democrat view that divorce is permissible than with the Republican. In fact, if the Democrat is the wife, she is more likely to initiate the divorce, and most likely for reasons not relating to infidelity or abuse, statistics show. On some whim, like “trying to discover herself”, she may be granted a divorce, and it is common knowledge that the law in divorce cases heavily favor the females side (questions whether this is just or not [it isn’t, at the current degrees] will not be explored). Now let’s say the husband is a faithful Catholic Republican and so divorce is not permitted with the sole exception of infidelity. Being the faithful Catholic that he is, this wont be a problem. What this means basically is that divorce is an option for one, but not the other, and their parties, generally, reflect that (it is true that some significant divorce laws in existence like No-Fault Divorces are due to Republicans, but it is also true that many Republicans have seen this error and are trying to reverse it to be more consistent). So when entering a marriage, one thinks it’s for life, and the other does not. When the wife desires a divorce, the husband will have felt duped. He didn’t think he was signing up for a thing that was dissoluble. So, what marriage is is important and the two parties differ tremendously. 

Any marriage (putting SSM aside for the moment since that has been in contention) will naturally lead to children. True, some don’t because of infertility, but that won’t suffice as an objection because that is to confuse the function with its nature. It is in the nature of marriage (since sex or coitus or consummation is a necessary condition) to lead to children, like it is in the nature of baseball teams to win games, even if they never actually, or functionally, win a game. Though it may fail at its function, it does not take away from its nature. So, children are a natural result. But of course, these children are viewed differently from both parties. 

Democrats usually take one of two positions. Most commonly, they will deny the humanity of the unborn. Because the child is not fully human it is okay to kill it because it isn’t anything valuable. If they grant that the unborn is truly human, they may still take refuge and say that the mother still has grounds on killing her child because the child’s life cannot trump the mothers autonomy. In either case, the child is being killed. 

Republicans on the other hand believe that a human being has intrinsic value and so no matter what stage of development it is in, if he’s two days old in the womb or two days old out of the womb, it is still has that right to life. If the right to life were attached to anything that grew as he developed, that value wouldn’t be intrinsic, it would be relative to whatever property it is part of. So, no matter how small it’s organs or the number of organs, its value and right to life are not attached to those things. It’s value and right to life is attached to the very essence of it being a human.  

Now, in a marriage, lets say a Democrat wife gets pregnant. She believes she can have an abortion and it probably isn’t a big deal. However, the Republican husband believes that she did nothing less than kill his child. How in the world one can say that a relationship between these two will be fine is beyond me. Sure, the husband can tell the wife not to have an abortion, but then she will either not be a Democrat in this respect and so there is no problem to talk about, or she will find refuge in the typical Democrat rhetoric about being a misogynist and how this is intruding on her health and her private decisions and all that. Clearly, the stakes are high between the husband and wife, and being Democrat and Republican these views cannot be reconciled. 

The video to which I am responding poses the question in the context of economic policy, which I understand can sound a bit boring and not so relevant to the question of marriage. Then it goes to a screen and asks, “Does it really matter?” By phrasing it in that way, adding the word “really” for emphasis, it is a rhetorical question. The makers of the video are saying that it doesn’t really matter. But some thought shows that it does, as I have shown with the two examples of SSM and abortion, but to economic policy as well. 

Economic policy usually has some moral basis to it. For example, we may ask, “How much should we tax income?” 10%? 50%? 100%? 0%? Many will give some kind of moral objection that a certain percentage is too high and unfair, or that it is not high enough (think of the Occupy Wall Street crowd). So, with two different worldviews you are going to get two different economic policies (usually, this is not the case with Republicans and Libertarians. While we agree on the conclusions, we differ on the reasons why, which is a significant difference that leads to discrepancies elsewhere). So, what kind of economic policies affect marriage? 

Well, relating to SSM again, marriages get tax breaks. Many people for SSM object that this is discrimination. But this is not so. Again, marriage naturally leads to children, and children cost money. In order to raise these children, and the state does have an interest in children, it gives marriages tax breaks to make it easier on the couples and thus encourage having children. However, same-sex couples cannot naturally have children, and so there is no incentive to give them tax breaks (true, they can adopt, and so there may be a case for a tax break there). So, in order to end “discrimination”, a Democrat will either vote to end these tax breaks in general or to confer upon same-sex couples these tax breaks. But either has consequences for the marriage. If she votes to end tax breaks for marriages in general, then her marriage to her man will be harder for having children, which is significant. If she allows for the tax breaks for same-sex couples, then she betrays her view on the nature of marriage which has been discussed. 

What this also reveals is that under her view, a mother and father are not necessary for a child’s upbringing. If two women can do it, a father isn’t necessary. If two men can do it, then a mother isn’t necessary. But this means a mother and father aren’t necessary to the upbringing of the child, according to her view, and this can conceivably lead to disastrous consequences, like taking her child away from the father in a divorce because he isn’t necessary anyways. Children keep some not-so-happy marriages together (which is good for society and so is good policy) but a view of such tax policy reveals that this back door is open. This is not how the Republican approaches his marriage. So yes, even economic policies matter to marriages. 

It may be the case that a Republican can find a pro-life, pro-marriage Democrat, but then that person won’t be a Democrat in many meaningful senses. I don’t mean to incur more division with my answer, but hopefully what I have written will make one consider what one looks for in a spouse and consider what really matters to a person and his marriage.