Marriage: Foundation of the Family
MARRIAGE: FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY
By Corazon T. Toralba
Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with
law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation…
The affirmation that the other person is the source of the desire for happiness in the company of another
person produces in the lover that passion to spend the rest of his life with the beloved. Love is a power that could
merge the lives of two persons in a union and communion that permeates all the dimensions of existence. In this
union and communion, all forms, and aspects of love among human beings could be found that could give birth
to a person: erotic, betrothed and affection. C. S. Lewis comments that without erotic love, we would not be born,
without affection we would not have been reared. However, without betrothed love we will not be assured of
becoming the persons that we ought to be.
Betrothed love which is a life-giving love is the foundation of the family. The addition of children brought
about by the sexual union of a man and a woman transforms marriage into a family. As previously discussed the
love that unites a man and a woman is the commitment to the good of the other for the other’s sake. Such love is
procreative. Marriage properly speaking is found in the union of bodies that make them one.
A prerequisite for the union of the bodies is the mutual consent both on the act and the end of the conjugal
act, which serves a dual purpose of a possible procreation and the pleasure in the company of the other. Part of
that commitment is to cherish one another for life. Implicit is the demand for exclusivity of the union. The union
of the will creates the marital bond; thus, the prerequisite of freedom in contracting the bond. In the rites of
matrimony both in the civil and religious spheres, the question on the persons willingness to assume responsibility
on the demands of the contract is explicitly asked. Moreover, the acceptance of each other as lawfully wedded
spouses is present.
The properties of marriage - exclusivity and perpetuity - flows from the ends of marriage; that is,
procreation and education of children of marriage, which in turn springs from the essence of marriage, union of
bodies in the self-giving act of love. Preserving the properties is showing respect for persons and a manifestation
of that virtuous love mentioned in which persons are loved for their own sake and not for the usefulness or pleasure
that they bring in the relationship. Likewise, protecting the ends of marriage shows respect for the of the person
in his/her entirety.
Conjugal love as the basis of the family
Eros is the state of being in love. Eros makes a man really want a woman. Natural sexuality is present and
is part of erotic love. Eros, as Plato states, is intermediate between the divine and the mortal. Erotic love is a kind
of transport and rapture and is enkindled primarily by beauty. Such love seems to alienate the person from one's
self and be one with another person. Such force draws the person out of her ordinary existence and be wrapped
in the world of another of which he/she wants to be part of. Thus, conjugal union takes place in and between the
lovers. In the same act, the feelings of emptiness that call for fulfillment in the company of another human being
and the natural desire to perpetuate oneself are satisfied.
Erotic love is not merely a carnal union of man and woman. It does not and cannot remain at the level of
feelings of rapture, in the pleasure of being in love. Erotic love discovers the "mystery and the beauty of the
other." Thus, the mutual discovery of the goodness in and between a man and a woman rejoices in the birth of a
child, fruit of that total self-surrender in betrothed love. Conjugal relationships permeated by erotic love, enables
a man and a woman through their bodies to be intermediaries in the transmission of life. "Conjugality takes the
procreative sexual urge beyond the natural wish to perpetuate just one's self. In the context of conjugal love, this
conjugal love, this natural desire acquires new scope and meaning. It is no longer a matter of two separate selves,
each wishing perhaps in a selfish way - for self-perpetuation. It is rather the case of two persons in love, who
naturally want to perpetuate the love that draws them to one another, so they can have the joy of seeing it take
place in a new life, fruit of that mutual spiritual and carnal knowledge by which they express their spousal love."
Love is creative and re-creative. It is the joy that one experiences in affirming the existence of another
who is good for that person. The erotic love between a man and a woman when infused with the personalistic
attitude becomes betrothed love, which is the giving of oneself to another chosen person. It is the self-surrender
of the lovers to each other in their entirety as persons. It is an act of ceding to another person the dominion that
one has over one's being in pursuit of that good that they both implicitly desire and mutually agreed on.
Conjugal love protects the spouses from being transformed into an object of use. The union of bodies
signifies the self-donation that each one renders unto the other. Self-donation brings other goods such as mutual
fidelity, honor, and indissolubility. In a betrothed love, what is given to the other is not part of the person that
could be used by the partner outside of the union. Self-surrender to another chosen person is total. What is
surrendered in marriage is the very being of the person in one's integrity to the effect that one no longer belongs
to one's self. The person is now, as it were a property of the other. Thus, to remain faithful to this union is to
honor one's partners for honor is the expression of respect or esteem. Honor is the recognition of the importance
of someone and seeks to express love and devotion to that person.
Married life is a self-giving and life-giving love. In the sincere gift of self to another, a new life is
introduced in the original union of husband and wife. It is another affirmation of love and the good that the child
brings. However, love does not remain in the level of pleasure of seeing another life, which is an extension of
their mutual loves. Conjugal love, while remaining and being strengthened by the birth of a child, transforms the
inter-subjective communion of husband and wife into a community of persons. Such produces a change in the life
of husband and wife by adding a new relationship that of maternity and paternity. This novelty produces that duty
to assure that child grows in love. This entails rearing the child to grow as the human being that he should be, a
person. Thus, affection comes in as an important ingredient in family life.
Affection in Greek is storge is the "warm comfortableness," the satisfaction of being together of parents
and their offspring and vice-versa. It is the peculiarity of affection to love the unattractive, not to expect too much,
to ignore faults, and to revive easily after quarrels. Affection opens our eyes to goodness we could not have seen
or should not have appreciated. It creates the broadening and opening of ourselves to the vast humanity, to
appreciate the others. It teaches first to notice, then to endure, then to smile at, then to enjoy, and, finally, to
appreciate the people who "happen to be there."
The family as a natural fruit of conjugal love
Marriage is a relationship between two persons who have been transformed by their initial meeting and
their initial gift of self to the other. It represents a maturation of love from a simple attraction to betrothed love,
on which marital love rests. The essence of betrothed love is the giving of the self to a chosen subject distinct
from the self. It is in the betrothed love that there is a total self-surrender of the subjectivity to another subject. In
this singling out of one among many to whom the person could establish a relationship; one's autonomy and
inalienability are surrendered to another person. Such act involves the will and demands a commitment of the will
because it is in the will that autonomy and inalienability reside. The choice is made "based on an unqualified
affirmation of the value of the person, with a view of lasting union in matrimony, with a clearly defined attitude
to parenthood."
Betrothed love found in the communion between husband and wife founds the community of persons;
thus, transforming the communion to a community of father, mother, and children. It is the self-surrender of
husband and wife in their integrity that gives rise to the family. The mutual self-giving in erotic love is the
biological foundation of the family while the union of their souls through agreement to the good, which they
understood and willed, is the moral foundation of the family. Both foundations are needed for the setting up of a
community of persons, specifically the family.
The family is a result of a reproductive conjugal union. Marriage is distinct from the family. Marital life
does not cease with the birth of children. The birth of the child transforms marriage to a family unit. While all
families are marriage-based not all sexual unions result in a family due to the physiological conditions of the
spouses or the natural end of the sexual union is thwarted by the will of the spouses.
Marriage and family as inter-personal relationships
Marriage is an interpersonal structure, an institution, and a state. As an inter-personal relationship, it is a
union of a man and a woman forming a communion of persons. As an institution, marriage signifies the maturity
of union between a man and a woman and testifies that the love in and between them is the basis of lasting union
and community of persons. The importance of marriage as an institution is to provide a justification for a sexual
relationship between a man and a woman within the complex whole of society. As a state, marriage is a durable
institution, which forms the framework for a lifelong coexistence of a man and a woman.
The family, on the other hand, as an inter-personal relationship is a community of persons. In marriage,
the gift of self is directed to another person and legitimately received by that person. In the family, the gift is
towards many persons and legitimately received by many persons that form part of the family. The family is also
an institution created by procreation within the framework of marriage. The family is a natural community directly
depending on parents for its existence and functioning. As a natural community, the family is the result of the
transmission of life within the conjugal communion. The family is a natural institution not because it is a result
of a gratification of an instinct or of an agreement between the parties involved, i.e., left to entirely to the human
will. Rather, it is natural because it the result of the will of the persons and the laws operating in them through
their humanity. Thus, one could speak of love as a natural attraction between a man and a woman that leads to a
deeper communion in marriage; and to affection, the natural love that parents have towards their children.
Marriage and family are highly inter-personal relationships that are actively constituted by the persons
involved in these relationships. Persons set up families and the corresponding organization that family life entails.
The same persons adjust the organization to the changing demands of societal life. However, dynamism does not
mean changing the essence of marriage and family. Marriage is essentially the union of the flesh and the family
is the natural outcome of that union. This presupposes sexual difference between the couple. While love and
commitment are elements that facilitate marital and familial dealings, presence of these elements in the
relationship does not establish marriage; otherwise, the love between parents and children will qualify as marriage.
Marriage and family as natural institutions
Marriage and family are also central institutions of social life. Marriage and family life cannot be
considered in isolation, that is, exclusively inter-personal, because marriage and family have ends that transcend
the person. They have social ends. Marriage and family are social institutions that closely interact with other
societal institutions. The beginning and the dynamisms of other societal institutions have the family as their base,
while societal institutions could impinge upon the development, the organization, and the inner dynamism of the
family. The ontological foundation of this dynamism is the social nature of man. Human beings are not meant to
exist in isolation. Phenomenological experience leads him to discover that he is part of a greater whole, the family
as an immediate surrounding and the community to which he belongs. He interacts with his family and the
immediate community and in that interaction, he leaves an imprint on the community in the same way that the
community leaves an imprint on what and how one is. Similarly, the relationships, which one forges with other
human beings, could not be isolated from the other societal institutions. There is two-way relationship between
marriage and family and the rest of societal institutions.
Marital and family ties as well as family life are affected by societal expectations and by the personal
commitment of those who form part of the marital and familial ties. Society expects that those who wish to marry
must abide by the principles of patrimony, tradition, propriety, and expediency. In some societies marriages are
usually forged between families, not individuals, to preserve the family patrimony; thus, ordinarily, marriages are
either arranged or consented to between persons of similar socio-economic background. Tradition is understood
to be those practices that the families have lived up to and which have been passed on from one generation to the
next, an example of which is the family organization. Preservation of family tradition is what gives family
members the sense of identity and solidarity with the rest of the kin. Propriety in the discharge of duties is expected
from family members to preserve family honor.
Society's expectations of the family are for the benefit of the person. The division of labor among the
members of the family ensures that personal needs are met. The conscious effort of the husband to acquire and
for the wife to preserve the family's patrimony provides for the present and future needs of the family members.
This gives rise to the right to private property and ensures that one could preserve the fruits of one's own effort.
This is also the basis of the societal expectation that marriage contributes to the family patrimony. Families expect
that what they have saved for their children's future is passed on to their heirs. Through the right to private property,
one could provide for one's needs and the needs of the family in the present, make good the debts of the past, and
gear up for the future. The prudent head of the family expects not only to preserve but also to increase family
patrimony. Hence, the prudence of passing on the family fortune to someone who could make it grow.
Consequently, marriages between persons of the same socio-economic background are usually expected to be
more stable and more successful than persons of unequal socio-economic status. This arrangement has bearing
on preserving family traditions.
Family traditions are practices that members of the family have established to unite family members and
to give them a sense of identity. With or without the societal expectations, the family conserves its own traditions,
maintains its own code of morality, and sets up its own organization and ways of doing things; thus, a family
culture is created. Family culture is the building block of societal culture. The kind of citizens raised in the family
determines the way that its rulers will manage society. On the other hand, the reverse is also true. Society's culture
affects family's conservation and to building up of its own culture. The cultural milieu that a family finds itself in
affects the way a family culture is built. Through osmosis, the family members bring into the family hearth the
values imbibed in school or in the work place. Still, the members of the family have the prime responsibility to
build and maintain family culture. It is a task and a challenge for families to be what they want to be. The building
up of society is but a consequence of how the family is. Society's influence on family culture is only secondary.
Persons who are conscious that they want the best for themselves will work out the conditions to what
they want. Thus, we could say that when someone consciously works to firmly instill the good values to facilitate
one's self-fulfillment does so not work for societal expectations but for one's own good. The root of this
consciousness is the awareness that one cannot do everything alone. One needs the cooperation of other human
beings to attain the goods that will satisfy his existential ends; and the existential goods are material and spiritual.
Marriage and family help satisfy the attainment of these existential goods thus, satisfying the needs of the person.
Societal expectations of marriage and family is an interplay of societal culture and traditions that public
authorities help to create and preserve through laws to assure the continuity of the state. Marriage and family are
natural and original institutions and are prior to the state. As Aristotle claims, man is a being that is more naturally
marital- and family-forming than one that is city-forming. The state does not determine what could be considered
a marital union and what falls under the notion of the family. Its function is to provide the necessary conditions
for families to perform their functions. The state also does not dictate family composition and organization or
simply legitimize "acceptable" and "unacceptable" unions without due regard for the true good of the persons and
community. Neither, could the individuals who compose these unions appropriate such function.
Institutionalization of inter-personal relationships: an ontological demand of personal fulfillment
Human beings experience the desire for stability and security. These conditions help him look forward to
the future and plan for what lies ahead. Deep within him, he recognizes the desire to perpetuate himself and to
leave behind a legacy. The fulfillment of these natural desires prompt man to be committed to the task of building
the civilization of life and love that we have discussed. Love, which mysteriously brings about an attraction to
the opposite sex, is the means that makes the desire effective. For the desire to be effective, love must mature
from a simple emotion to a sense of commitment to the good of the beloved, the object of one's love, and of the
children that will ensue from that love. Unconsciously, one also perpetuates the legacy of his country and assures
the future of humanity, not only by providing "bodies" but human beings, whose spirit is linked with the past,
immersed in the present, and transcends to the future. The establishment of the family gives him anchor in the
present, his personal identity, and the sense of solidarity with the rest of humanity.
Aristotle calls the family as a natural institution because the desire to perpetuate one's self biologically
and spiritually is inherent to man. Self-perpetuation is satisfied through procreation. The pro-creative act is also
a response to the sexual instinct, whose purpose is to produce that desire for biological self-preservation. Thus,
we could deduce that something as natural as this is spontaneous in man and therefore docs not need to be instilled
by social convention. However, man is a rational being, reason rules his spontaneity. Hence, man does not
necessarily mate with any woman, but rather a woman of his choice. Choice is an act of the will that is guided by
the intellectual faculty that recognizes that this specific woman that he is facing now is someone he desires to be
his wife and mother of his children.
Love is the root and motor of inter-personal relationship. The natural attraction that man and woman have
for each other lies at the beginnings of love. Initially, that love is an emotional response to a sensibly perceived
good. Gradually, that emotional love is transformed into a firm conviction that this woman is a good for me and
so the persons in love rejoice in each other's the existence of each other. This firm conviction leads them to commit
to each other in satisfying the demands of human nature. Consequently, they become united physically and
morally in everything that refers to the attainment of the goal, which is self-perpetuation in and through conjugal
life. Since the goal that unites them is not rooted in the pure satisfaction of instinctual desires but also includes
the conscious desire for self-perpetuation in and through children, they commit themselves to each other and to
the children in a stable form. Hence, the institution of marriage and family as a means of satisfying that desire.
The commitment to the goal leads them to have a common domicile and establish family life or domestic life.
However, the institution of marriage is not simply for convenience. It is rooted in that innate human desire for
stability and for accomplishing common and changing existential needs that last a lifetime; hence, the relationship
lasts for life.
From these desires flow the properties of indissolubility, exclusivity, and perpetuity. In marriage, a marital
bond validly established is indissoluble. The bond is created with the consent which is freely emitted.
Indissolubility means that established ties cannot be broken. Since the consent given includes the mutual selfgiving and receiving of the gift of the person in his or her entirety, it cannot be shared. A person does not have
two or more selves to give; thus, exclusivity. Lastly, in the exchange of vows, it was clearly stated and enunciated
that only death will part the couple, then the bond created is for life. Fidelity is the maturation of the emotional
love that leads the lovers to commit to a one man-one-woman relationship. Justice demands exclusivity and
fidelity in the relationships, not for convenience's sake but as a proof that human beings in the relationship are
persons whose only proper treatment is that of love and not of use. Objects could be disposed and replaced when
their functions in the life of an individual become outdated. Persons do not become outdated they just grow older
and richer in experience.
In the family, the above properties could also be applied. The family ties are indissoluble. At least on the
biological plane, one cannot at a certain point not acknowledge that this woman is the mother of his children, and
vice-versa. Neither could the children deny their ties with their parents as the ones who have given them their
life; neither can the parents deny that they have generated this child. Moreover, when the parents have brought
up the children in a morally upright manner, the children are already marked with the quality of life that identifies
them as belonging to this family and not another. Exclusivity is a consequence of and is naturally implied in
indissolubility. The ties and family relationships cannot be ascribed to anyone who is not biologically related to
the married couple and to their children. Exclusivity of relationship is founded on the exclusive and faithful
relationship between husband and wife. Their contribution to family life varies, and age and maturity does not
make them stop belonging to a family. Aristotle offers as a reason of convenience that exclusivity in family
relationship favors both the father and the child. On the side of the father, he could easily identify his own children
to whom he owes nurturing. The children, on the other hand, would be assured of the care and affection that they
need. Justice also demands that the relationship should last for life. On the part of the children, they need the
security of the home and the loving attention of both parents for a well-balanced and holistic development. The
parents could ensure this environment if they remain faithful to each other for life, despite the vicissitudes. For
the man and the woman, the same sense of security and stability needed to project the future is assured if the
relationship is something that should last forever despite the changing circumstances that could test their firm
resolve.
Permanence and change: the substantial and the accidental elements
In marriage and family life, there are permanent and changing elements. The permanent ones are those
rooted in human nature, such as the ends of marriage, which is self-perpetuation, and family as one of the means
that provide self-fulfillment for those who it set-up. Another permanent clement is the properties of the family
such as indissolubility, exclusivity, and perpetuity. The changing elements are those that could vary with the
demands of the times. These changes are introduced in view of meeting the goals of marriage and family life.
Some of these changes are the family members' means of coping with the cultural changes affecting the family
unit, like family size and family organization or household task distribution. Many sociologists define the preindustrial era family in terms of "clan" that is, the term "family" refers, not only to the nuclear family (father,
mother, and children) but also includes the whole household, which, in those times mean the grandparents (if they
reside with the couple or vice-versa), the unmarried members of family and· adopted relatives. The pre-industrial
era families lived close to one another; thus, justifying the genetic development of the state that Aristotle refers
to in The Politics. The industrial era saw the dispersion of family members resulting in a nuclear family. As for
the family organization and distribution of tasks, the changes are due, to a large extent, to the socio-economic
forces. During the agricultural era, when the main source of income was the land and family sustenance depended
on the produce of the land, it is understandable that the head of the family, the husband, was the chief breadwinner,
while the wife's main concern was the prudential use of whatever the husband earned and upkeep of the household.
The children, while still young, would lend a hand in whatever way they could in agricultural production. With
the advent of the Information Age and educational opportunities, women have joined the labor force and now
make compatible the running of the household and engagement in a job outside the home. The children still go to
school and are depend on their parents until they could take care of themselves: However, these accidental changes
do not change the nature of the family.
Since antiquity, family and household are used interchangeably to refer to a social grouping that typically
shares a range of domestic activities. In view of the goals of family life, there is usually division of labor. Thus,
the first obvious division is that of the biological roles in conceiving a child. The woman is the receiver of the
seeds of procreation. Man deposits the seeds that fertilize the ovum. The new creature is nourished and develops
in the woman's womb. The biological division has consequences on the economic roles: who takes care of the
home and who will look for the means to maintain the family. The one conceived passively takes whatever the
man and the woman could provide. The first division of labor is a consequence of the natural biological and
psychological difference that exists among the family members. Between the originators of the family, the
husband and wife, the roles of maternity and paternity are clear divisions of responsibility. The woman, who must
nurse and nourish the children when they are young, is expected to stay at home until the child could be left to
the care of a baby sitter, if the couple decides to allow a third party to be part of child rearing. A responsible man
is expected to look for the means to support, not only himself, but also his wife and the children as well. The
children while they are young, are supported by the parents and do not participate in the economic concerns.
When the children grow up, they help in the domestic chores and eventually establish their homes. In some cases,
parents receive the support of their children when they are no longer economically productive and not physically
able. The arrangement as to who will economically support the family and who will take care of the children is
not something fixed. It has been traditionally arranged that the husband goes out to look for economic support,
while the wife takes care of the children because of the natural gifts and talents that each of one possesses. During
the lactation period, the wife normally stays home and nurses the baby. The husband could help in the process.
The arrangements could be modified when the child has been weaned.
The division of labor within the household is to assure expediency; thus, the traditional roles of
"breadwinner" and "housekeeper" are ascribed to husband and wife, respectively. The woman is not expected to
work outside the home and is economically dependent of the husband. Due to her natural gift of sympathy and
caring. She seemed to easily intuit the needs of others, especially the children who in the early stages of
development cannot articulate their needs. Her economic contribution to the family is the prudent management
of the resources that the husband earns and the raising of good children. Fathers are stereotyped to be uninvolved
in domestic tasks or in the raising of children. His role is that of a provider and a disciplinarian. Thus, while he
has natural affection for children, such affection is not openly demonstrated. The woman is seen as the hearth of
the domestic home. She is expected to manage the housekeeping and to be actively involved in the care of the
children. However, these stereotype roles have slowly receded to the background due, for one, to the greater
consciousness of fundamental human dignity and equality among men.
Presently, there is a growing trend of fathers getting more actively involved in housekeeping and parenting.
Involvement also includes allowing the wife's career to prosper, if needed. At times, it requires the husband/father
to give up full-time employment and become an entrepreneur, while the wife is engaging in a full-time job or a
career advancement scheme. They establish these arrangements so as not to miss the growing up periods of the
children. Thus, the partners are consciously treating each other as equals. Both make a commitment to an active
family building and parenting. They work, not as isolated individuals pursuing "individual goals but as a team;
hence they see each other as active, capable, and competent partners. Through "gut feel" they know which
competencies are better dominated by the other. They also value and recognize the obvious differences not only
the physiological but also the cultural backgrounds that shape their personality and which could affect their
relating to each other and their parenting styles. n addition, they value each other for what they are and not as
competitors; thus, woman is not seen from the standard of man, and vice-versa. These couples adhere to a common
aim of being good partners and parents, translated to being there for each other and for their children. This is
further shown in being part of their growing in age and wisdom with the passing of years. For their children, it is
manifested in their active presence in the growing up years. They are aware that they want their children to inherit
their values and they personally want to instill these values in their children. The essential point of these new
trends is respect for one another and a conscious fulfillment of their role as husband or wife, and parents. The
roles that they assume are not imposed but are freely chosen. They love what they are doing; hence, are selffulfilled.
Post-modem society view marriage and family as personally constructed realities. It is argued that whereas
in the past, marriage and family were constructed within a broader context of kin relationships with romantic love
relegated to the side, post-modem families are fruits of personal commitment and mutual understanding of those
involved in the relationship. The emphasis lies on the subjects or individuals who form part of the relationship.
Underlining the active personal involvement of the persons in the relationship, one underscores the solitude of
the individual in existential decisions: relationships are private affairs. This bring to the fore the importance of
individual freedom in forging ties and determining the course of one's life.
Love is underlined as the basis of the relationship while personal happiness is the goal. Love in postmodern times is simply seen as an emotion that comes and goes. It is not a love that leads to a life-long
commitment to the good of another. Commitment, if any, is understood as commitment to the relationship and
not to the partner. Commitment is upheld if it will result in the attainment of the personal benefits that would be
derived from the relationship and if it will maximize the happiness that is sought for. Happiness is understood as
the maximum satisfaction of one's desire for sensible pleasures and the marginalization of pain. This is an inwardlooking view of happiness. The basis for happiness is a limited view of the person. At the least, the emphasis is
on the subjective aspect, thereby neglecting the inter-subjective aspect of personhood. At the most, the view of
the person could include the I-thou inter-subjective relationship. Rarely will the concept of the we relationship
come to the fore.
Post modernity advocates a notion of freedom as unrestrained freedom. The notion of freedom is either
“freedom to” and "freedom from” but not "freedom for." Thus, women should be freed from the child bearing,
childrearing, and the domestic chores. Individuals should not be trapped in an unhappy relationship; hence they
should be freed from a life-long claiming that this would be good for the spouses and the children, if there are
any. Relationships should be terminated rather than be forever frustrated. Individuals are free to forge
relationships that bring them happiness; hence, society cannot and should not impose societal expectations on
how they want to form and maintain marital and familial ties.
Hence, the usual reason for the marital breakdown with the consequent re-marriages and reconstruction
of families has led to a confused notion of the family. Traditionally, following the natural course of its
development, the family has been defined as a group of persons that make up a unit and whose members are
related to one another through conjugal and paternal ties. With the advent of post-modem family arrangements,
this definition only partially applies.
Some view marriage and family life as simply a contract and a commitment; hence, marriage and family
life could be arranged without the sexual differences needed to ensure the perpetuation of the race. Thus, the law
sanctions any form of partnership despite the lack of biological and natural lies. Partners in this arrangement could
adopt a child, even if it biologically belongs to only one partner, to justify the notion of "family" as stipulated by
the laws. The claims for recognition justify economic claims on "conjugal" investments and benefits derived from
such. They seem to forget that while laws are enacted to ensure respect and protection of rights and the
corresponding duties rendered and observed, only re-enforceable rights and duties could be properly legislated
because they protect not only private interests but also the wider social context that these individuals find
themselves in. Laws have personal and social dimensions that owe their enforcement to preserve the health of the
nation and not to protect its citizens' personal whims. Conversely, those who think that marriage and family should
not be a personal matter and ought to fall under state competence fails to respect personal autonomy.
Those who shun the view that marriage is purely conditioned by societal expectations seem to think that
marriage and family are an individual concern alone and have no societal implications. On the other hand, those
who think that marriage and family life are simply means to an end, that is, in service to the ends of the state alone
forget that marriage and family life are personal affairs. Both views tend to forget that man is a subject whose
happiness lies in a meaningful inter-subjective relationship. Failure to see this would lead to mentalities that
undermine human dignity.
For those who think that marriage is solely an inter-personal affair, see marriage seen from a societal
perspective is a contract rather than a commitment. Emphasis is on rights and duties and the satisfaction of what
is owed according to justice. Thus, marriage and family are conceived from a legalistic perspective. The
fulfillment of one's commitment becomes impersonal and vitiated by force of law. Such a mentality gave rise to
another trend, which is to view marriage and family life as a mere arrangement and a means to preserve family
patrimony; thus, marriages are pre-arranged avoid the squandering of family fortunes because of "inappropriate"
or "unequal matches."
With the shift to personal commitment as the basis of marriage, emphasis is now on the personal
satisfaction of the parties involved. The traditional view of marriage and family is under attack from persons who
claim that there should be greater equality between husband and wife in the division of domestic tasks. Reasons
are not based on biological and natural ties. They claim that women are not given the opportunity to develop
themselves and that women should be equal with men in all aspects of social and economic life. They also demand
a kind of economic compensation when they assume domestic tasks. Women studies show these claims to be
unrealistic. Most women spontaneously assume the roles that nature has designed for them and for which they
are psychologically more gifted than men. Hence, they welcome reduced involvement in the labor force with the
advent of children. They also naturally assume the efficient running of the household, even combining this task
with a demanding professional work outside of the home.
The shift to personal commitment is accompanied by the rise of different domestic arrangements that has
separated sexual activity, marriage, and parenthood. Whereas the traditional view rooted in the belief that
marriage and family are natural institutions upholds that these three aspects of marital and family life mutually
reclaim one another, marriage now becomes a reason to engage in legitimate activity. Marriage and sexual activity
are the gateway to parenthood. The rupture of this unity has given rise to cohabitation and divorce, with the
consequent reconstituting the family.
Thus, sociologists claim to family restructuring based on personal choices. Sadly, they also confuse man
and woman's natural and inherent roles in a family unit as social construct. However, it is not the arrangements
that make up or define the family. At most, the arrangements could refer to household management but not to the
essence of the family per se. The family, properly speaking, is a relationship based on conjugal and biological
ties characterized by solidarity, affinity, and differences. Marriage is not only a remedy for concupiscence, much
less a legal justification for the sexual act. Neither is it simply a. means for the propagation of the species. Marriage
is a natural consequence of the forceful attraction between a man and a woman that carries with it the desire for
union in the flesh and spirit. Such union leads the couple to commit themselves to the good of each other. Since
man and woman do not exist in isolation but are incorporated into a whole social system, marriage also fulfills a
personal and social good. The personal good is that public knowledge that this woman belongs to this man, and
vice-versa. The act of mutual belongingness is sanctioned by the society that recognizes that the union observes
the norms and customs of that society through its legal instrumentalities. The same instruments protect this love
itself from corruption and degeneration, phenomena to which this love could be subjected. In protecting love from
degeneration and corruption, the State protects itself from its own corruption caused by the lack of solidarity and
identification of the citizens with one another.
Since the times of Plato and Aristotle, conjugal love, identified closely with erotic love in the case of Plato,
is a means for engendering the city. The quality of closeness and solidarity that characterize the family determines
the character of the State. It is detrimental to the unity of the state, that marriage and family be non-exclusive, as
it will be more difficult to establish paternity. Fathers, in the time of Aristotle, are responsible for the physical
development and moral upbringing of their children. If a father does not claim paternity of a child, the child will
not be taken care of as he deserves. This results in citizens who are weak in body and languishing in-spirit. Nonexclusivity of the relationship could also lead to the watering down of fraternal spirit among the children, which
eventually leads to lack of unity and solidarity among them. If there is bickering in the family, then society would
be less peaceful.
Furthermore, marriage cannot be viewed simply as an antidote to unbridled human desire, as if human
beings do not have the rational capacity to direct his natural instincts to its natural end. The sexual act has the
natural end of self-perpetuation. What human beings perpetuate, though, is not the individual but the species.
Thus, marriage guarantees the continuation of the lineage. If someone would argue that the same end could be
attained without the benefit of marriage, by simply copulating as animals do, then it must be reiterated that
marriage is not simply a means for the biological reproduction of human beings but also moral regeneration. In
addition, as· previously stated, marriage is not simply a means for self-perpetuation; it also serves as the means
for building political communities. Now, political societies are established for the administration of justice, that
is, the observance of rights and duties. Rights and duties are notions that human beings understand: they should
live by them so that there be peace and harmony in society, with the consequent harmonious and peaceful
development of each individual persons of that state. Otherwise, man would be wolf to man as Hobbes puts it in
his Leviathan.
Finally, the institution of marriage as the appropriate base for the family is a demand of human nature that
requires a minimum of physical and moral conditions for human beings to grow and develop as human beings.
The distribution of roles and expectations from the different members of the family or household could vary with
the passing of time, but there are permanent elements and roles that each member of the family must perform,
owing to the natural gifts and physiological structures that make each member more competent in an aspect than
in another. A case in point is the nurturing of children. The wife is expected to take care of this aspect more than
the husband because of the natural biological link of the child with the mother, both in the gestation and the
lactation periods. On the other hand, it is but natural to expect the man to provide for the wellbeing of his wife
and children in these delicate moments. These roles are not socially conditioned but are spontaneously taken up
by each one. As studies have shown, this natural division of labor is more fulfilling for both. Switching jobs or
going on equal footing with one another does not necessarily lead to the personal satisfaction that feminist’s c1aim.
The distribution of tasks facilitates the acquisition of a sense of identity, not only of one's role but also who one
is. Human beings arc valued not for what they have, but for what they are.
Sense of identity and solidarity
Society's expectations of the family are the natural consequences of the collective, deep-seated
consciousness that the children of today are the citizens of tomorrow. Parents do not raise children for themselves
but because they are aware that they are channels through which the family patrimony will survive, be preserved,
and enhanced. The state or nation, though it expects the family to take care of raising citizens, does not directly
intervene in the personal formation of each of the family members. Such is a private affair, meaning that this is
the concern of the parents and of the rest of the family members. It is only when, for one reason or another, the
parents or any of the family members are incapable of doing the job that the State, through its welfare agencies,
takes over. In this expectation, as history shows, the members of a given society also have arranged their lives to
assure that their duty towards the state is fulfilled. People are aware that they have the duty to raise good children
for the family's honor and for the good of the state.
This phenomenon displays a deep-seated sense of solidarity with the past, present, and future generations.
The past, because they are heirs of the glorious achievements of their predecessors and are learning and benefiting
from the mistakes committed. There is also a sense of solidarity with the present because the family is conscious
that preservation of their legacies requires a concerted effort and commitment to save and to pass it on to the next
generation. Finally, there is a deep sense of solidarity with the future as shown not only in the preservation of the
past but also in the present's contribution to improve and enrich what has been inherited. This also gives them a
sense of identity and belongingness to the family and the society of which they are a part.
The sense of solidarity and identity develops in a climate of proper respect for the individual and a
universal concern for the common good. While the family is the basic social unit, the individual or the person is
the basic unit of any given society. An atmosphere where respect for the person reigns breeds individuals and
citizens who are self-confident and self-reliant as well as considerate towards others; on the contrary, a milieu
where the individual is not given due importance breeds submissive and dependent members, a condition
detrimental to the sense of solidarity that we have discussed. Such situation also strikes a deathblow to the sense
of identity of the individual, as he is only part of a herd, an anonymous being.
Ironically, the present trends of social/personal construction of family life could lead to the attitude that a
family's life is theirs to administer and, therefore, society could and should not dictate its expectations on them.
Society and the state should just accept them as they are·. This attitude, which already prevails in some quarters,
has brought about situations, such as stepfamilies, "adoptive" families, and reconstituted families. Stepfamilies
are families formed from families whose original parents have divorced and remarried to form a new family with
the children of the original marriage not necessarily forming part of the newly-formed family. "Adoptive" families
are those formed by homosexual partners who adopt either the biological child of one of the partners or any other
child for the sake of forming a "family" and so be institutionally recognized as such. Reconstituted families are
those formed by divorced couples who bring in their children from previous marriages to form a new "family."
In these cases, solidarity with the older and coming generation is not as tightly knit because the natural affection
that binds siblings of the same set of parents has waned. This is the objection raised by Aristotle against Plato's
community of wives and children. Aristotle espouses the monogamous relationship between husband and wife
because he is aware that the family is the biological and moral foundation of the State.
As discussed in the Introduction, these deviating trends owed to over-emphasizing on the personal
construction over the natural institution of marriage and family life could be traced to the liberalist ideas that
place primacy on the individual over the rest of the community of life and love. Thus, what is important is the
individual’s happiness, defined only in terms of pleasure that gives rise to a culture of "use." Persons in the
relationship are treated as objects and not as subjects who, just like any member of humanity need to be loved
and for that love to be fulfilled. Persons become dispensable. One can be easily discarded because one no longer
excites his or her partner. This is also the root of changing terminologies when referring to the husband-wife
relationship. They are either referred to as "partners" or, if there is no commitment involved, "lovers." This
situation severs the sense of solidarity that the family naturally fosters in the persons because unbridled
individualism creates a split between the private and the public. In these two divisions there is no continuity but
only an interface. The public has no right to interfere in the private sphere. There is no such thing as "ours;"
everything is "mine." Thus, only what is external and visible to the public eye could be legislated. A loss of a
sense of identity due to lack of belongingness to a stable group that considers one a natural part of the group, and
not simply an adopted member, is gradually introduced. The person is no longer anchored on anything or anybody.
Consequently, the children and the sick, the weakest members of the family, suffer from this situation
because they are usually not given a voice during the deliberation process of the individuals who primarily seek
their own "happiness." Foremost among these unheard voices are the unborn that are aborted because they have
been conceived due to "unsafe sex" or "unexpected pregnancy." The young children of divorcees who move from
one house to another become victims of circumstances that are beyond their control and which are not of their
own doing; they had neither a voice nor a choice. Thus, they suffer emotionally, psychologically, and even
economically. It takes time for them to restructure their lives, to live undaunted by the past and so look forward
to the future with hope. Children who suffer the trauma of divorce lack a model to which they could conform
their lives. They become distrustful of their own ability to sustain a lasting relationship and, sometimes, of others.
The inner lives of children of divorcées are shattered, even if the divorce proceedings and settlements have been
amicable. The sick family members for their part, are considered "unproductive" because they do not contribute
to the family economy. Instead of receiving care, euthanasia prematurely terminates their lives. One cannot deny
how abortion, divorce, and euthanasia corrupt, not only the family, but also the immediate political community
to which the individuals belong.
Ultimately, the person suffers as the external structures that are supposed to help him mature and be a
responsible member of society are hampered. The unborn are not given a chance to live and be a productive
member of society. Thus, one's capacity to contribute to the legacy of that nation is never cultivated. A case in
point is the children of divorcees. Their capacity to sustain the present and provide a legacy for the future because
they themselves undergo an erratic process of adjustment and recap acitation is placed into doubt. This process is
akin to stepping back to gain a better perspective. This does mean, however, that they are inferior to children
raised in a stable two­-parent family, about making positive contributions to society. Rather, their capacity to do
so is hampered or hindered. Finally, the elderly who are "killed off" earlier will no longer be able to pass on the
wisdom learned from experience to the younger generations. Thus, solidarity is put into question. This panorama
is detrimental to the society because the family is the recognized seedbed for the future generations. Today’s
family largely shapes the quality of the next generations.
Guide questions:
1. Compare and contrast marriage and family as an interpersonal reality and natural institution.
2. What does betrothed love add to the other aspects of love?