What Is Marriage?

And What Is It Not?

What’s the most important question concerning marriage these days? It’s not what you think. I’ll explain next, on BreakPoint.

Listen Now | Download

Eric Metaxas

For millennia, all societies have viewed marriage as an exclusively heterosexual club. But in the last few years, more and more people are saying it’s time to open the marriage door to homosexuals. After all, we are told, if marriage is all about love and mutual commitment, gay people can do that at least as well as straights—who have thoroughly messed up the institution in any event. And besides, it would be discriminatory to deny homosexuals the right to marry, no?

But according to authors of a great new book, we’re on the wrong track already if the marriage debate gets bogged down in the issues of love or rights, because marriage is founded on something far deeper. The book is called “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense,” and it’s written by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and my friend Princeton professor Robby George. “What we have come to call the gay marriage debate,” these three scholars write, “is not directly about homosexuality, but about marriage. It’s not about whom to let marry, but about what marriage is.”

Girgis, Anderson, and George say that on the one side is the traditional view, which they label the conjugal view. “The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law—along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice—of our civilization,” the authors write. “It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing out into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity.”

On the other side, they say, is what they call the revisionist view. They write, “It is a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity—a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remain as long as they can find it.”

Friends, homosexuality is not mentioned in the authors’ description of the revisionist view of marriage, nor is it necessary. In fact, many heterosexual couples define their marriages exactly this way, summarized as, “as long as we both shall love.” The argument is not with homosexuality, per se, but with a misunderstanding of marriage that makes supposed gay matrimony just the next step in civil rights.

The stakes for our society are high. “The health and order of society,” the authors write, “depend on the rearing of healthy, happy, and well-integrated children. That is why law, though it may take no notice of ordinary friendships, should recognize and support marriages.”

Gay-rights advocates claim that heterosexual marriage would not be harmed if gay marriage were legalized. But that’s not so. “What Is Marriage?” meticulously details some of the critical social goods at risk if we go down the revisionist marriage road—gay or straight: real marital fulfillment, spousal well-being, child well-being, friendship, religious liberty, and limited government. These are not trivial matters! The book tells us why in masterful detail.

Of course, the book also makes us think about our own marriages: Are they other-directed and God-directed, or are they merely self-directed? It’s fair to ask, are we part of the problem, or the solution?

This book, “What Is Marriage?”, makes an argument, but it’s not argumentative. Instead, it is philosophical, reasoned, and fair. It provides the kind of intellectual energy we need when so many involved in the marriage debate—on both sides—are busy producing more heat than light. Please pick up a copy at the Colson Center Bookstore at BreakPoint.org.

Further Reading and Information

What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense
Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, Robert P. George | Encounter Books | December 2012


I understand and agree with the point being made here, but America lost this definition of marriage in the 1960's. The days of no fault divorce, free love, and single mother households have destroyed the value of marriage as a safeguard to rearing children into adjusted lives ready for society. Not only has the definition been destroyed, but the legal issues of family court have run amok as it has nothing of truth to base its judgments upon.

At this time my belief is that the US with its Roman culture should abolish the use of the word and concept of marriage. In its place should be placed contracts between two or more people. These contracts should spell out the responsibilities of parenting, and give legal ramifications for breech.

Not even Christian churches follow marriage scripturally today.
Thanks for this Eric! As a 29 yr. old father of four I've been blessed with a wife who holds these same views! She bought me tickets to hear your speech on Bonhoeffer rather than attend a marriage retreat in our area. I don't think there is anything wrong with marriage retreats, but her words to me were, "we don't really need to work on our relationship together, we really need to hear about someone who changed lives." Your commentary today was right in-line with her thinking! Thanks for your work!