Marriage, according to conventional wisdom, is a social construct. Governed by cultural norms and expectations, the institution of marriage is completely malleable. This view of marriage was front and center in the debate over same-sex marriage, but the battle against traditional marriage was won long before that when divorce, especially in its no-fault variety, became an acceptable norm. Divorce, or at least its cultural acceptance, is what changed marriage making it a social construct. To say divorce made marriage a social construct is to suggest that things once were otherwise so that if we are to grasp how we got here, we might simultaneously find a remedy.
Anthropological Roots of Divorce
Deeply imbedded within the Western mind is the notion of man as a rugged individual. Naturally solitary and free, man forms a social contract either to escape the anarchy of the state of nature (Hobbes) or its noble savagery (Rousseau). All social institutions become “social constructs” in which men and women freely enter and freely leave according to their own will. From within this paradigm of liberalism, marriage like all other social institutions are “social constructs” in which men and women freely associate and equally as freely disassociate. Only the State remains a permanent fixture so as to protect the individual from other individuals infringing upon their rights, even if it too is ultimately a social construct.
Civil divorce grew out of the soil of 18th Century liberalism because it, like all other private contracts, was completely voluntary and always in danger of one of the contracting parties dissolving the contract. In order to protect this freedom, the State adopts the stance of arbiter and enforcer and is empowered to dissolve what was previously thought indissoluble. Given the power to dissolve, the State must also then have the power to define and decide what marriage is and who should be married.
There is a certain irony surrounding the fact that marriage was not always thought to be a social construct. The “social construct” viewpoint replaced the natural view of marriage. For millennia, marriage was considered to be a natural institution that formed the foundation of the family which was the building block of society as a whole. It is the natural view of marriage that would preclude either divorce or gay marriage. By combining them into a single issue it avoids reducing the argument to mere biology.
It is not any mere external circumstances that draws man into society, but his nature. Man is by nature a social animal. In order to fulfill his nature, he must have a society of other men to do that. Because they are absolutely vital for fulfillment, the family and the State are natural societies.
In order to grasp this truth, we must also see that men and women fulfill their nature by becoming virtuous. Virtue is what perfects all our natural powers. Marriage is the bedrock of virtue. Only within the framework of the family are both the spouses and children perfected in their gift of self and unity. It is where the children are educated in the cardinal virtues as they prepare to give themselves in service to society as a whole. It is where siblings learn how to live as a community of equals. It is where parents learn to shed ego. As statistics repeatedly show, those who divorce or are victims of divorce severely handicap their chances at fulfilling their nature.
It is the Author of human nature, and not the State, that is the Author of marriage. Marriage, because it is a complete union of persons in all their dimensions—bodily, spiritual and temporal—and thus naturally indissoluble. The State does not make marriage but only provides an occasion for consent and works to protect and promote it. The State in its role as guardian of the common good, may act to protect and promote marriage, even by dissolving legal bonds between spouses, but is powerless to dissolve the marriage itself. In truth a civil divorce is worth no more than the paper upon which it is printed.
Marriage, because of its indispensable and irreplaceable role in fulfilling human nature, is a natural institution and not a social construct. Understanding the roots of the errors that led to its demise helps us to go back and correct them.