In the past few days the Supreme Court heard two potentially groundbreaking cases with direct implications for the future of marriage in the United States. In one, liberal activists are opposing California Proposition 8, which defines marriage in California as being between a male and a female. In the other, another group of liberal activists are challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which allows each state to define marriage for itself without regard to the actions of other states. While a great deal of emotionally gripping rhetoric has been expended on the side of redefining marriage, very little time has been spent explaining why marriage should not be redefined. When an attempt is made, it usually centers on the argument that the Bible requires that marriage be between one man and one woman alone. While this argument is perfectly correct, ought to made, and should be more than sufficient, it is also worthwhile to consider what the nature of the relationship between marriage and the state says about how the state in particular ought to recognize marriage.
The first point to note is that the government shouldn't recognize marriage at all. Many Christians today correctly point out that the state is never given the authority to marry anyone and seek to pass that authority to the church. The Puritans correctly noted that the Bible never gives authority to perform marriage to the church and declared marriage a duty of the civil government alone. In actuality, wherever the Bible does mention marriage it is always connected with the family, not the state or the church, implying that, of the three authorities which God established - the state, the church, and the family - it is the family which is given authority over marriage. How exactly that authority would be enacted is a topic for another (very long) discussion, but what matters at the moment is that marriage is, in an ideal world, not the domain of government. If we were perfectly free to rewrite laws as we desired, none of them would address marriage. That said, our world is not an ideal world. At the same time that we work toward the ideal scenario, laws must be made with reality, not a hypothetical perfect scenario, in mind. Government is involved in marriage, and will be for the foreseeable future.
It has become quite common to equate state-recognized marriage with love. One of the more common arguments for same sex marriage is that the love of a homosexual couple is equal to that of a heterosexual couple. Regardless of whether a case can be made that a relationship which God describes as an abomination can be considered equal to one He described as undefiled, the point here is that love is considered the final arbiter of who should be married. Government, in recognizing marriage, would be acting solely to gratify the desires and reward the love of the couple, and any other results would be purely incidental.
In reality, government has neither the impetus nor the authority to place its stamp of approval on the love a particular couple has for each other. In one sense, that love is entirely below the purview of government, in another, it transcends any government. Government simply is not and never can be designed to reward or punish love. Government institutes rules which, ideally, act to guide behavior into orderly and constructive channels while maintaining the freedom of each individual - that is, government's role is to manage behavior. Love, an emotion with an attached dedication to a particular purpose, is not in itself a behavior which can be guided by laws. It exists outside the realm in which government has power. Therefore, it would be quite absurd to argue that the basis for legal recognition of marriage is the love the would-be-weds have for each other.
On the other hand, an excellent case can be made that the reason the state recognizes marriage is to ensure the future of society through codifying an orderly system for procreation and for bringing up children in a constructive manner. That that system was a preexisting system resulting from the direct command of God and which had been placed outside the domain of government was, perhaps, unfortunate, but necessary - it is the only such system in existence. The Supreme Court even recognized the inextricable relationship between marriage and procreation - and even further, with the raising of children - on several occasions. In Meyer v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court decided that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children." Again, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court decided that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man" because it is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Now, arguably the Supreme Court is consistently wrong on most high profile issues, and one could argue that its action in extending the Due Process Clause to marriage was suspect at best, but its opinion on the nature of the government's role in marriage is notable. Ultimately, in the West at least, government began to recognize marriage while still linked to the church, but the impetus to continue to recognize marriage results from the role marriage plays in the creation and bringing up of children.
With this in mind, rather than the absurd argument that the state recognizes marriage purely out of respect for love, we are left with the proposition that the state recognizes marriage in order to achieve the benefits that marriage provides. This explanation is consistent with the idea that government should - and generally does, or at least tries to - act only to directly further society by punishing those who do evil and rewarding those who do good. Further, it provides a compelling reason why state recognition of marriage should be limited only to those couples which are, in principle, capable of producing offspring. That definition will be in accord with God's definition of marriage because God, as designer, created a universe which acts according to His law, but, to the state, that accord is somewhat incidental. If God had not spoken on the subject the state-recognized definition of marriage would remain the same, as that definition alone fulfills the need to further society in an orderly manner.
Once the proposition that marriage is recognized by the state primarily for the sake of the children has been promulgated, the most obvious objection falls naturally into place. If, as is posited here, marriage is legally recognized for the purpose of procreation, why doesn't the state take steps to ensure that marriage will produce children? Indeed, many who support the traditional definition of marriage will object strenuously to any attempt to limit marriage based on fertility. Is this not a serious inconsistency? The answer lies in the nature of the role of government. Government is tasked with maintaining order and furthering society while respecting the freedom of the individual. On the one hand, it would seem that society would be furthered by ensuring that every marriage produces children in exactly the numbers necessary and raises those children in exactly the way which will most effectively meet the needs of society. On the other, not only is that ideal impossible - government can't even figure out the best way to administer a driver's license test, let alone raise children - it tramples roughshod over government's second duty: to respect the freedom of the individual. The trick to good government is to balance the two functions of government, providing structure and freedom together. As concerns marriage, that balance is struck when government limits marriage to those unions which can in principle produce children. Inquiry into the intentions or ability of the couple to procreate would be an egregious invasion of their freedom - what matters is the ability, in principle, to procreate. Whether a particular relationship is efficacious in procreation is incidental; it is the role of government to guide behavior into constructive patterns, not to dictate it.
Thus, it would appear that if the state is to recognize marriage it must do so with the purpose of that recognition in mind. Such recognition must therefore be limited to those unions which are, in principle, capable of producing children. Unions between those of the same sex, or between those of the same immediate family, are in principle incapable of producing any offspring, in the first case, or usually incapable of producing healthy offspring, in the second. It is not by accident, then, that it is those unions which are not recognized by the state as marriage.
At the same time, a Christian will find himself at the same conclusion merely by reading and applying the Word of God. Where government acts on issues addressed by God, it must act in accord with the Word of God. Christians will find themselves in support of traditional marriage, but one should not mistakenly conclude that only Christians should favor traditional marriage, or that Christianity is the only argument for traditional marriage. All that is necessary is to believe that government's role is to further society, maintain order, and protect freedom: state support for traditional marriage alone follows naturally if one accepts that definition of the role of government.
In summary, although government ideally would refrain from acting when it comes to marriage and other issues placed outside of its authority (for a reason), if it is to act - and at present it must - it must act in accord with its own purpose. The purpose of government is to guide behavior into orderly and constructive channels while protecting freedom, not to serve as a behemothic bureaucratic cupid. A government acting within its purpose can only recognize one definition of marriage: one man and one woman.
Labels: Politics