David wanted to move the family to Texas. The lower taxes and housing costs would give them immense financial freedom. Sarah wanted to stay in California. Her aging parents were there, and she couldn't bear to leave her support system. They were equal partners, and they were completely deadlocked.
They argued about it for two agonizing years. The tension infected every dinner, every vacation, and every budget conversation. Eventually, desperate for a resolution, they "compromised." They moved to Arizona—a state in the middle.
In modern egalitarian marriages, we are taught that every decision must be a 50/50 consensus. But some decisions are binary. You cannot half-move to a state. You cannot half-have a child. Forcing a compromise on a binary issue doesn't solve the gridlock; it just distributes the misery equally. To survive the crucible of major decisions, you need a different architecture.
You will never agree perfectly on everything. A marriage that requires 100% consensus to move forward is a marriage that will eventually grind to a complete halt, paralyzed by its own democratic ideals.
The truest mark of intimacy isn't finding a perfect middle ground. The truest mark of intimacy is looking at your spouse during a gridlocked decision and saying, "I disagree with you, but I trust you. You make the call." That is what mutual submission actually looks like in practice.