Santorums Definition and Understanding of the Institution of Marriage - Case Study Example

Module An Argument for Conservatism In 2005, Senator Rick Santorum published as book en d ‘It takes a Family’ as a response to Hilary Clinton’s ‘It takes a Village’ that was published in 1996 (Santorum 128). The book states that liberal social policies have undermined the family structure and the existing liberal attitudes have brought down the value of family across the board. He adds that the government should take an active role in establishing and promoting strong family structures in society. He states that the modern institutions have played a key role in undermining the convention meaning of a family. This essay agrees with Santorum’s definition and understanding of the institution of marriage. I come from a highly religious and conservative family that believes that marriage is an important institution that should be highly respected and maintained. Like Santorum, I am a bold supporter of the heterosexual marriage institution where children are taught the basic values of life and important lessons in society. It is also in this institution where boys are taught how to be men and girls are taught how to be women and respect their parents. The current rules and regulations on divorce make it easy for parents to break up and this causes children a lot of pain and suffering (Santorum 132). States should come up with rules and regulations that regulate divorce for parents with children less than eighteen years. I believe that parents should undergo a mandatory counseling period before they call it quits. This would considerably reduce the current divorce rates experienced in the country thereby strengthening the institution of marriage. Marriage is that important glue that joins civilization together. A huge deal is placed on marriage because children are important to society. Santorum asserted that marriage is imperative because children matter and without the institution, children suffer. Parents take pride in their children and there is no greater or better investment that parents can make than in a solid marriage. This insistence on the importance of marriage has given enough grounds for Santorum’s opponents to refer to him as a finger- wagging moralist (Santorum 128). However, the institution of marriage is based on morality. This morality is then replicated in the society at large. Santorum strongly believes that all ideas have outcomes. The idea that led to the concept of the ‘No Fault Freedom’ has led to the weakening of the institution of marriage and a wide range of social problems (Santorum 130). We have wasted so many years under the direction of misguided principles to facilitate the development of poor morals and failing to acknowledge the value of the traditional family values. There has been a popular belief that family and marriage are not of any significance. The concept of marriage is identified as the ‘natural form’. Although he discusses the ‘traditional family’ he states that the nuclear or natural family is something that comes before tradition. Santorum is a Roman Catholic whose values on marriage are based on the argument that marriage is the natural law. On the other hand, liberals see this concept as too restrictive and which goes against the concept of freedom (Santorum 130). Liberals argue that the ‘traditional family’ is neither vital nor natural. It is seen as an institution that has outlived its significance. This leads to the question on why a politician would base his definition of family on such a subjective definition. He answers this question by stating that in every society there is a form of marriage and in most cases it brings together a man and woman in a sexual reunion. The interests of the children are also taken care of under their parents (Santorum 129). Marriage describes the way man is connected with woman together with their children into one loving unit. It represents the best attempt by society to ensure that children receive their birthright. This entails the right to be acknowledged, the right to have parents and the right to show love and be loved. Most families in the contemporary world fail to live up to the above standards. Santorum asserts that nothing can take the place of family. When activists of the same sex marriage try to offer a different meaning to the institution of marriage, this is referred to as a liberal marriage (Santorum 131). If we accept the right of homosexuals to marry individual members of society will be viewed as abstract autonomous people rather than women and men. I believe that Santorum is an experienced legislator who completely understands the function of the law as a tool that is used for teaching children and teenagers about some of the basic values that society should be based on. There would be a significant impact on the future generations on the understanding of marriage and family if same- sex marriages is legalized in the current times (Santorum 130). Bearing in mind that we will have brought up a society views marriage to be a sexual relationship that allows the romantic pairing of individuals since the law will have defined it in that way. Institutions will have been forced into silence and forced to accept and teach about same- sex marriage as the commonly accepted practice. Laws and regulations have a meaning and also educate society. When something is said to be legal it is assumed to be right. Therefore, children grow up with the mentality that that society should be based on adult satisfaction, not on children’s satisfaction. The senator shows an intelligent and thoughtful engagement with the most important issues of conservative political philosophy, political theory and the social influence of culture (Santorum 130). He expresses his sentiments sensitively and personally based on his own observations and about how hostile social realities have influenced his family and they have managed to bring their children up. I believe with Santorum’s sentiments that marriage is not simply meant for adult pleasure. It is meant for giving birth to children and bringing them up in a moral environment. As a result, he believes that dissatisfaction among grownups is of a minimal consequence. His argument focuses on the rejection of what is termed to as individualism. He condemns individualistic individuals who do not pay attention to the needs of the society or the common good. He argues against abortion since it symbolizes how societies give in to individualism by allowing women to characterize morality on their own (Santorum 132). Santorum blames the culture of individualism on public schools and for promoting the idea that thoughtful people have a wide array of choices. Furthermore, he blames the rampant increase in premarital sex and states that people have sex for pleasure rather than procreation. There are low fertility rates experienced in developed countries. This leads to a decline in population rates. On the hand, aging is considered to be a serious problem in these countries as the larger part of the population is composed of the older generation (Santorum 132). There has increase in the expenses associated with the elderly and this has a negative impact on the economies at large. European nations are verge of the dying off owing to the low fertility rates. In conclusion, Santorum’s views on some of the controversial issues in society represent how a conservative society should be. He argues that the institution of marriage should be strengthened to ensure that children grow up in a healthy family. Most of his views coincide with mine since I am conservative and believe in the essence of family and marriage. Work Cited Santorum, R. It Takes a Family. Intercollegiate Studies Institute. 2005. Print. Read More