“Mixed marriages” - the unions of Jews and Gentiles and the pro’s and con’s thereof - is a topic that re-occurs with almost predictable frequency. It is again a matter of concern, a subject of debate.

However, whenever and wherever the debate, it is inevitably a largely one-sided affair - with those who oppose or fear the impact of this phenomenon being very vocal while those favouring or directly involved in such marriages remaining virtually silent. Why?

One possible explanation for the uneven nature of the debate may lie in the fact that such marriages are still in the minority, against the norm. And, as is the case with other exceptions to established convention, there is a whole series of objections, fears - real and apprehended - based purely on a fear of change.

Perhaps it is because mixed marriages are against the norm, that those involved normally demur from the debate - they are wary of re-activating old fears. In the absence of the positive side of the argument, the discussion generally turns - at least in its initial, most simple form - on the problems of reconciling differences within a marriage. The basic line of reasoning being that it is sufficiently difficult to reconcile the differences associated with any marriage without adding religion and nationality to that list.

Most married people would agree that a successful marriage depends on the ability to reconcile differences. But most of these - beginning with those between men and women per se - not to mention all the others, (age, occupation, language, culture, personal interests, political views, etc.), tend to be deemed at least potentially manageable and are openly discussed from a whole variety of viewpoints, while those between Jew and Gentile, well.....

More recently, hesitation in supporting, approving or even accepting Jew-Gentile unions seems to have heightened due, largely, to a rise in self-consciousness within many nationalities including, most definitely, the Jewish nation. From this perspective, mixed marriage is frequently regarded not only as something personally difficult for those involved but, also, as a potential danger to national interests.

Everywhere outside of Israel Jews are a minority, a very small minority at that. Mixed marriages, therefore, are often opposed because they are seen as representing a tendency toward ‘diluting’, weakening of the nation and confusion of its identity. - reducing its ability to survive in the face of an unfriendly and increasingly hostile outside world. Is this valid? If so, are those who flaunt tradition and marry outside the nation simply self-centred, lacking in national pride?

As the thirtieth anniversary of the very happy, successful mixed marriage in which this columnist has been engaged draws near, it is tempting to simply ignore the traditional silence that people involved in mixed marriages have traditionally imposed upon themselves, state the case that has so often been left un-stated, and celebrate the virtues of what has for so long been denigrated.

But we are not dealing with personal positions or philosophies here. Nor are we dealing with an issue, for which one successful argument or demonstration of value will gain a victory, or garner a change in public perceptions and attitudes which are the real challenge. To evaluate mixed marriages we must begin by considering the basic attributes of marriage, mixed or otherwise - first “farshtein” and then judge. Rather than a conclusion, what follows is a presentation of the key factors of the argument. Although clearly presented from one side of the argument, it will, it is hoped, form the basis of a debate and only then, an attempt at resolving the issue.

At their best, marriages represent an undertaking of two people to love, honour and respect each other, to share a life. Mixed marriage entails sharing two traditions which may include religious beliefs and most certainly two national and cultural heritages. If the undertaking to honour and respect is, itself, respected, can any harm, insult or injury come to either of the religions or national/cultural heritages? Moreover, it is not without reason that persons entering into mixed marriages are inevitably driven, not only to understand and appreciate the traditions of their partners but, also, to deepen the understanding of their own beliefs and customs. How else can differences be understood, sharing taking place?

On the surface at least, achieving a better understanding of your own beliefs, would seem to be a good thing. A Jew who knows what it means to be a Jew and how Jewish beliefs and customs differ, or perhaps, align with those of other nations is surely more valuable than someone who accepts and follows without much conviction or understanding and more capable/likely to add to the strength and value of those beliefs.

With mixed marriages there is always the concern that the children will not learn or respect their heritage, or have no clear understanding of themselves, their own beliefs, values. Again, where children are raised to understand the differences in religious beliefs and national traditions, are they not more likely to truly understand those beliefs and traditions? Having had to weigh two approaches to life, two versions of living, will they not be more at home and secure in those they themselves ultimately choose?. In fact, will they not more likely to place more value on religious beliefs and national traditions per se, to be more strongly attached to their own, whatever they may be, than they would were those they follow to arise simply from family history?

As a secondary but far from unimportant benefit, will the children of mixed marriages not be more likely to respect differences in general, less likely to accept prejudice, tolerate bigotry?

I would maintain that the Jewish Nation has not only a unique identity and special role in the history of the world but, for better or worse, a special, ever-present challenge in preserving its past and protecting its present and future. Few people have constituted a nation for so long and none have maintained themselves in the face of such persistent threats of physical annihilation. For those opposing mixed marriages, the constant necessity of self defence, and the undeniable challenge of Jews, as a nation, to achieve physical survival is often the ultimate test, the trump card in the debate over mixed marriages.
For some, security for individual Jews and the nation resides in the greatest possible numbers and maintenance of a self-conscious, exclusive national identity. This, they contend, will prevent destruction from without and disintegration from within. It is a fundamental point - a very fundamental point.

From a purely religious perspective, it is impossible to argue against exclusivity as a sine qua non for survival. Those for whom Jewishness is a nationality of which religion is but a part and not, necessarily, an essential part, represent a challenge to the Jewish religion as it now is. They will, inevitably, be a source of change, modification - and an increase in Jews of mixed heritage, as well as secular Jews cannot but strengthen this challenge to the religion.

However, it is at least arguable that acceptance of the notion of Jews, first and foremost, as a nation, to whom admission is based on acceptance of the nationality, including religion, as well as other traditions, customs, and fundamental beliefs would, in fact, leave the nation more resilient - relegating the differences in religious understanding, practice, etc. to just that, a difference within the nation and, also, render it more defendable from without - one people with a single, unqualified identity, committed to one homeland, united in their nationality.

Far from a source of dilution, weakness or identity confusion, within this concept of nationhood., Jews of mixed heritage would constitute a major source of strength.

Anyone care to take up the debate?