In light of all the negativity this election year, I’m hopeful the nation’s bi-partisan partnership can endure. Most would argue that our country needs to be more like-minded, but I believe that it’s the differences that guarantee some balance. In an odd sort of way our two-party system is a relationship not unlike many marriages. If you’re married and take offense, please forgive the loose analogy. I can’t speak for every marriage but I know that some of the strongest bonds exist between two people that don’t always agree. The relationship survives when there’s a concerted effort to resolve conflict – one that selflessly seeks to preserve the union, not tear it apart.
Certainly politics and marriage don’t work exactly the same and for that I’m grateful. I don’t know that I would want our kids to elect one parent to rule the household. I doubt that my platform of reduced spending on entertainment and allowances while increasing chores would get me many votes. Sure I’d have a well-designed logo and a solid record of fiscal responsibility, but my inexperience with the domestic meal program would most certainly sink my campaign. My ‘opponent’ is much better at handling domestic and foreign affairs and has a charisma that sways people. She’s no push-over and is very passionate about ensuring the happiness and well-being of our household. In that sense our goals are the same. I guess it’s a good thing we know how to reach across the aisle and work together — despite the occasional debate on the house floor.
On the eve of this presidential election our nation is split on the decision of who should lead. I hope and pray, that regardless of the outcome, that the best interests of our country are truly considered. That the citizens (and leaders) of this country can quit the bickering and really work together to restore unity and cooperation. Educate yourself on the issues, exercise your freedom and responsibility and get to the polls to VOTE!
One reply on “The American ‘Marriage’”
Sean, you should read some of G.K. Chesterton’s work (the apostle of common sense). You have so much in common! I recently read an article by Dale Ahlquist (President of the American Chesterton Society) with a very similar argument in defense of marriage between a man and a woman… one that goes beyond the obvious biological, fundamental nature of marriage. Your analogy reminds me of this.
Chesterton maintains, “Most marriages, I think, are happy marriages’ but there is no such thing as a contented marriage. The whole pleasure of marriage is that it is a perpetual crisis. The differences between a man and a woman are at best so obstinate and exasperating that they practically cannot be gotten over unless there is an atmosphere of exaggerated tenderness and mutual interest. To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they are to be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot. Every woman has to find out that the husband is a selfish beast, because every man is a selfish beast by the standard of a woman. But let her find out the beast while they are both still in the story of ‘Beauty and the Beast.’ Every man has to find out that his wife is cross — that is to say, sensitive to the point of madness; for every woman is mad by the masculine standard. But let him find out that she is mad while her madness is more worth considering than anyone else’s sanity.
Marriage is a duel to the death. It is precisely the tension between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, that makes marriage so interesting and beautiful, like the tension on a violin string.
The bridge built between the two sexes is the greatest feat of engineering in all of history. A same-sex marriage is a bridge that doesn’t go anywhere. It stays on the same side of the river.”
Today in MN we get a chance to vote on the constitutional definition of marriage. I pray that common sense and natural law prevail.
Love,
Sis