×

From National Review‘s excellent cover story, “What Marriage Is For“:

It is true that marriage is, in part, an emotional union, and it is also true that spouses often take care of each other and thereby reduce the caregiving burden on other people.

But neither of these truths is the fundamental reason for marriage.

The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children.

If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.)

If mutual caregiving were the purpose of marriage, there would be no reason to exclude adult incestuous unions from marriage.

What the institution and policy of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. These days, marriage regulates sex (to the extent it does regulate it) in a wholly non-coercive manner, sex outside of marriage no longer being a crime.

Marriage exists, in other words, to solve a problem that arises from sex between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity. It has always been the union of a man and a woman (even in polygamous marriages in which a spouse has a marriage with each of two or more persons of the opposite sex) for the same reason that there are two sexes: It takes one of each type in our species to perform the act that produces children. That does not mean that marriage is worthwhile only insofar as it yields children. (The law has never taken that view.) But the institution is oriented toward child-rearing. (The law has taken exactly that view.) What a healthy marriage culture does is encourage adults to arrange their lives so that as many children as possible are raised and nurtured by their biological parents in a common household.

They then consider the position that government should get out of the marriage business altogether: “Let individuals make whatever contracts they want, and receive the blessing of whatever church agrees to give it, but confine the government’s role to enforcing contract.” This, they say, “is not so much unwise as it is impossible.”

The government cannot simply declare itself uninterested in the welfare of children. Nor can it leave it to prearranged contract to determine who will have responsibility for raising children. (It’s not as though people can be expected to work out potential custody arrangements every time they have sex; and any such contracts would look disturbingly like provisions for ownership of a commodity.)

When a marriage involving children breaks down, or a marriage culture weakens, government has to get more involved, not less. Courts may well end up deciding on which days of the month each parent will see a child. We have already gone some distance in separating marriage and state, in a sense: The law no longer ties rights and responsibilities over children to marriage, does little to support a marriage culture, and in some ways subsidizes non-marriage. In consequence government must involve itself more directly in caring for children than it did under the old marriage regime — with worse results.

They go on to deal with three common objections raised by thoughtful proponents of same-sex marriage: (1) law and society have always let infertile couples marry; why not treat same-sex couples the same way? (2) it is an outdated idea to make an important link between marriage and procreation ; (3) it is unfair to same-sex couples to tie marriage to procreation.

I encourage you to read this whole piece. It is a clear and careful argument with good reasons—and it is crucial for us to know not only what we believe but also why we believe it.

LOAD MORE
Loading