An open marriage is no marriage

Reflecting on the aftermath of the Obergefell decision in 2017, Carl Trueman suggested that the reason the majority of Americans changed their minds concerning same-sex marriage was not ultimately due to superior arguments and logic, but because shows such as “Will and Grace carried more weight than any church catechism or tome of moral philosophy.” John Corvino and Andrew Sullivan, among many others, were obviously around to make bold arguments about the legitimacy of gay marriage. But it was entertainment rather than argument that convinced many people to view same-sex couples as no different than the traditional, heterosexual nature of marriage.

The push among certain progressives to mainstream open marriages and polyamory is now working with the same playbook. Lindy West, a self-proclaimed feminist activist and writer, divulges in her newly released memoir the intimate details of how she and her husband practice non-monogamy. They do not just allow each other to see other people but, for the last several years, have been sharing the same female partner. Most revealing is West’s admission that she initially struggled to suppress her desire to keep their marriage exclusive before finally drinking the Kool-Aid herself.

Along the same lines of the “suicidal empathy” identified by Gad Saad, West’s decision to go against her instincts so as to stay on the cutting edge of modern sexuality illustrates the precarious nature of the cultural elite. A campaign for polyamory amid the evolving carousel of love in the 21st century is just another opportunity to flaunt one’s privileged status. A large proportion of those who support open marriages are not even in one to begin with. The pronounced need to flaunt a moral message before the masses comes from an awareness of the instability polyamory invites by design.

Open marriages and polyamory can only become viable if, for one thing, intentional childlessness gets there first. Plenty of couples on their way to the altar now see offspring as a choice rather than a constitutive part of marriage. With the tragic exception of infertility, doing all that one can to disallow reproduction’s intrusion into a marriage can readily make monogamy more fragile. The burden upon one’s spouse to be the primary vehicle for emotional fulfillment becomes ever greater. That’s probably one reason some adventurers might be tempted to add others into the marital mix.

Failing at marriage as God meant for it to be results from failing to remember its true, sanctifying purpose in our lives. Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas somewhat controversially but soberingly contends that “We don’t fall in love and then get married; instead we get married and then learn what love requires.”

Nowhere in Scripture are we called to conjugal drudgery. Hauerwas is encouraging us towards the specially revealed reality that marriage mirrors God’s relationship with His people, consummated in Christ’s redemption of those who believe and count themselves as members of His bride, the church. The affection and commitment the married are commanded to pursue must reflect the unyielding, unconditional love the Lord has for His people. It is entirely right for us to want to have a natural spark with a potential spouse, but the kindling of covenant love makes it last a lifetime.

The church cannot hesitate to declare how high a vocation marriage really is, nor should we ever cease to extol how much of a spiritual adventure it can be. Monogamy is a blessing, not a curse. Safety and security in the singular arms of another who is willing to trust us with their whole self is a privilege that brooks no comparison. An open marriage is no marriage at all.