Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Interfaith marriage strengthens American tolerance
Chelsea Clinton, raised Methodist, and Marc Mezvinsky, Jewish, will wed this weekend.
Statistics show that 37 percent of Americans have a spouse of a different faith.
Statistics also show that couples in interfaith marriages are "three times more likely to be divorced or separated than those who were in same-religion marriages."
Is interfaith marriage good for American society? Is it good for religion? What is lost -and gained -when religious people intermarry?
From old family letters we know that, in or around the summer of 1896, my great-grandparents were secretly engaged. The couple was afraid that their marriage would be forbidden because it was an interfaith marriage: John was a Presbyterian and Janet was a United Presbyterian. The distinction, though no longer made today, was important then.
King David's great-grandparents had an interfaith marriage as well: Boaz was an Israelite and Ruth was a Moabite. And Biblical wisdom on this matter runs the gamut from condemnation in Ezra (Chapter 10) to welcome in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 7). When it comes to this perennial human question, clearly no single rule has ever fit all.
Then there is my own marriage: My husband is Catholic and I am fervently Presbyterian, and we celebrated our 29th wedding anniversary last April.
So who's to say whether an interfaith couple should marry? Who can predict whether a marriage will last for decades or end in bitter divorce like the couple in Naomi Schaefer Riley's recent article?
The answers are not to be found in statistics about marriage and divorce.
Because each couple is unique, the success of their marriage is determined not by what happens to anyone else, but by the quality of their relationship, the openness of communication between them, the agreements they reach about what religion means to them, and the support they receive (or not) from family and community.
For the couple, it is important to talk through a whole range of important life circumstances that might disrupt the marriage they intend to build together. Talking through everything they can think of at the start, perhaps with a good pre-marital counselor, can help. But the talking must not stop there. No couple can anticipate everything that will come up. The most important thing in marriage is constant open and loving communication, especially for interfaith couples.
For society, the most important thing is to support an interfaith couple -- just as we would any other couple -- as they make the promise to love and cherish one another. An interfaith marriage can only thrive in a society that values tolerance. And by the same token, the bonds of interfaith marriage strengthen the tolerant fabric of American life.
The heartbreak of interfaith couples in Sarajevo or portrayed in the movie "Hotel Rwanda" remind us how fragile inter-anything can be, and how important our communal commitment to support married couples is for us all. Society owes every couple the best possible chance at happiness, and that includes having the confidence and support of the community that surrounds them.
This weekend, the nation will watch as Chelsea Clinton, raised Methodist, and Marc Mezvinsky, Jewish, make their wedding vows. These two will then build a life together -- a life which, in all its richness, includes the gifts they each bring from their faith traditions.
Rather than throw statistics and horror stories at them, let's support them and every interfaith couple we know. This is what our friends, family and church have done for me and my husband. Throughout our lifetime together, we continue to talk -- and our friends cheer us on. Let's do the same for Chelsea and Marc.
By
Janet Edwards
|
July 27, 2010; 3:07 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Do people marry or religions marry? |
Next: Find sacred ground in marriage
Posted by: APaganplace | July 30, 2010 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Interfaith marriage strengthens American tolerance"
Yes, by diluting ignorance and superstition.
The children of such marriages have the chance to dilute it even more when they marry.
Posted by: PSolus | July 30, 2010 6:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There is a huge difference between a Catholic marrying a Protestant and a Jew marrying a non-Jew. First, though, to refute a point, although Ruth was not born Jewish, she legitimately converted before marrying Boaz. So let's put that aside for the time being.
Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion; although properly intentioned converts are welcomed with open arms, there are nonetheless high hurdles for a person to join the people.
Further, as I'm sure you are aware, Judaism is an endogamous religion. Statistically speaking, by marrying "out," there is a far higher than 50% chance that one's children will not identify themselves as Jewish in any meaningful way, and that is not only because of "rejection" by the local communities. To equate Paul and Ezra in the context of acceptance of intermarriage is a non-starter for Jews; the issue of intermarriage is one that all but more liberal of streams of Judaism are of one mind, and that mind says, "Don't."
Because the U.S. has been astonishingly and unprecedentedly kind to people who are not of the dominant ethnic and religious groups, Jews are well integrated into American society; that does not mean that it's not prudent for us to maintain a separate identity. Marriage and religious education are two sure ways to maintain this identity.
You are wrong to dismiss the research that is cited in the article you referenced. A marriage is made up of individuals. It is ALSO, incontrovertibly, made up of families, friends, and communities. So, no, I for one am not going to cheer them on; I'm not going to encourage them; and unless Ms Clinton chooses to become Jewish, they won't be a Jewishly-married couple, no matter whether there's a rabbi at the ceremony.
Posted by: thatviennaguy | July 28, 2010 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"""Interfaith marriage strengthens American tolerance"
Yes, by diluting ignorance and superstition.
The children of such marriages have the chance to dilute it even more when they marry.
Posted by: PSolus ""
I'm not sure you meant that in a nice way, but, actually, sometimes it does. Not 'diluting religion,' but actually diluting the ignorance and superstition *about* it.
Control of breeding is a particular obsession for *some* religions, either because they fear their supremacy is threatened or because they fear their minority identity is threatened.
Of course there's conflict, and much stress on marriages from *that.*
Children growing up more able to see multiple points of view are not the problem. Children, of themselves, can actually handle this if they aren't being taught *contradictions.* The problem is when *adults* demand they stop seeing multiple points of view, and pick only one way to see things.
Spiritually and religiously-speaking, it's on various religious communities and couples to *not make a mess of it.*
Competing monolithic authorities may be stressful, and monolithic authorities alongside more-open spiritualities will tend to sort by personality type, but two different traditions that are not 'competing authorities' can do very well by kids indeed.