A Defense of Traditional Marriage

When the leaders of my LDS faith came out in support of Prop 8 last summer, I initially questioned their involovement. I understand our theological position on marriage, but my libertarian leanings led me to the conclusion that the best solution to the marriage question politically might be to get the government out of the business of regulating it entirely. Make it a private matter, like a baptism or bar mitzvah. I continued to think that way through the election. Earlier this year I came across a talk given by Robert P. George from Princeton University at BYU last fall (link to the speech: here )  The talk is entitled On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government. In this speech he touches briefly on what I have since learned are his major themes: the proper role of government, defense of marriage, defense of life, and a warning against the dangers of judicial activism. This is one of those rare speeches that has given me reason to completely rethink my political footings. Particularly my beliefs about the proper role of government and how that relates to the marriage question

The strict libertarian position holds that the government's role ought to be limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property. Any departure from this role represents an unjust usurpation of the rights and liberties of the people. When it comes to issues like marriage, they would say that this is a private matter and the government should stay out. I recall listening to Ron Paul address a group once. He was advocating the abolition of certain Federal agencies like the Department of Education and Health and Welfare I think. Some of the listeners were asking him who would take care of those responsibilities if the government stepped out. He told them these were responsibilities of the family. Later I learned that Ron Paul was against the idea of a constitutional ammendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. I was troubled by the idea that a strict libertarian like Ron Paul could assign responsibility to the family, but deny the government the ability to support the family through the defense of marriage. And yet I found it hard to argue with him.

Then I listened to Professor George. What the libertarian position misses, he argues, is the subsidiary, but just as critical, role that the government plays in promoting what he calls a 'healthy moral culture'. This includes promoting and defending, through incorporation into the legal structure (not necessarily financially supporting) those institutions that shoulder the primary responsibilities of educating, nurturing, and caring for the members of a society. These insitutions include churches, the family, and other civic and charitable organizations such as the Boy Scouts.

Why is this subsidiary role so crucial you might ask? Well, as our founding fathers rightly saw, the key to a free society lies in keeping government limited. For government to remain limited to its primary role of defending life, liberty and property, the citizenry must take care of their primary roles of educating, nurturing, and caring for each other. As the institutions that fill these needs break down, the result is predictable: demand for government grows. When families and churches break down, there are still children that need to be fed, educated, and nurtured. There are mothers, expecially in many of our inner cities, that cannot afford, or emotionally manage the responsibilities. There are still poor people that can't take care of themselves. These unfortunate souls become fodder for eager politicians who seize the opportunity to win votes by promising them that the government will take care of their problems. So government grows, and our liberty is threatened.

So why is it important that the government continue to support traditional marriage? Because our liberty depends on the formation of strong families. The family is founded on marriage. The debate on gay marriage is really just the final act in the destruction of the traditional family that started in the 1960's with the divorce culture. Rather than continuing the madness, its time we reinforce the institution of marriage and restore it to its proper place.