A recent column by Angela Morabito in the College Conservative asserted that it is possible to support “marriage equality”—allowing same-sex couples to marry—without supporting same-sex marriage. This assertion was made on the grounds that Americans should be able to give people liberty without supporting what they do with that liberty.
We propose that the author’s arguments, however, are shortsighted for one reason: There is a proper role for government in society, and defining marriage falls right into the middle of it.
Marriage as a Social Institution
A nation is a social entity. Of course, that is not to say that its members should share all things in common or that the government should rule every aspect of a person’s life. Far from it. Our nation, rather, is founded in part on the belief that individuals wishing to live together in a peaceful society may institute a government to serve at their discretion and facilitate that society.
That’s political theory 101: Man is a social being, and government facilitates that socialization. Government makes laws; punishes criminals; and settles disputes in order to help maintain that peaceful society. Now, governments often overstep their bounds, forgetting that they exist at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around, but that is the basic notion of what government exists to do—protect and uphold society while burdening individual liberty as little as possible.
Likewise, the United States is a system of societies. Individuals form families; families form communities; communities form states; states form the nation. At its core, however, is the social institution of the family. The family is the first place where individuals interact socially.
As a result, the government has a vested interest in ensuring that families are as strong as possible. After all, if the family is at the core of society—and government is tasked with facilitating society—then the government is indirectly tasked with protecting and upholding families. So how does the government do this in the least intrusive manner possible?
Marriage Regulated
First, let’s look at an example of intrusive marriage regulations. The government could dictate the individual you are to marry. It could do so on the basis of your respective personality types, your career aspirations, financial stability, medical histories, genetic traits, and religious beliefs—like a dating website on steroids. The government could use all kinds of criteria to tell you which spouse it believes would be most beneficial for society as a whole. But that would be a gross infringement on your personal liberty.
Yet the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that families are protected. So how does it do that without infringing on your liberties? The answer is that it determines what interests are at stake (called “compelling interests”), and methodically outlines how best to preserve those interests while preserving as much liberty as possible at the same time.
First, the government recognizes that marriage is an important part of a family. Even if half of all marriages end in divorce, the other half do not, and the turnover rate—and by extension, instability—in cohabiting homes is higher than in married households. What’s more, cohabiting homes present other dangers and obstacles for children living in the home. So the government agrees—or should, at least—that it is good for people to marry and stay married.
That is why no-fault divorce was not permitted for many years, and why many states still try to find ways to encourage couples to seek premarital counseling before marriage and marriage counseling before divorce: Divorce adds instability to the social structure of the family, and often ends up costing the state in the long run.
The state also recognizes that it is unhealthy for immediate blood relatives to marry and have children. For that reason most states specify that no one closer than third or second cousins may marry. This is important to note, when discussing same-sex marriage: The state already tells at least one group of people, “There are legitimate reasons you cannot marry.”
The state also recognizes that for a man or woman to have multiple spouses introduces instability into the family. That’s why polygamy is specifically illegal in most states.
There are plenty of other regulations governing marriage: Minimum ages at which people can marry; regulations for who may legally pronounce a couple man and wife; and so on. All of these regulations are put in place because marriage is, at least in part, a fundamental social institution that helps form our nation, and the government has a legitimate interest in its preservation.
Is Marriage the Only Social Institution Treated This Way?
No. The government regulates plenty of others as well—although we may not think of them as social institutions.
Business is the obvious one that comes to mind. Businesses are, believe it or not, social institutions. They are people interacting with one other for the purpose of commerce and profit. And contrary to the belief of some, not all business regulations are bad; there are certainly many unnecessary regulations that should be lifted, but that doesn’t make all of them destructive.
For example, taxing corporations twice is a burdensome regulation that should be addressed; anti-trust laws that prevent a single company from owning an entire good or service is not. Good regulations are placed on businesses to prevent exploitation of employees and consumers, and benefit society as a whole. As long as the government exercises a proper degree of restraint, they are a healthy part of the private sector. The same is true of regulations on marriage.
Isn’t Marriage a Religious Institution?
It is. But that’s not all it is.
Marriage is a religious institution, but—contrary to what is asserted in the College Conservative—for the government to recognize it does not violate the First Amendment or any other constitutional provision.
The First Amendment exists to prevent the United States from encroaching on religious liberties. For the government to define and regulate marriage does not prevent religious groups from being able to hold to their own definitions; it simply means that if those groups have a different definition of marriage, those marriages will carry no legal weight. So long as the religious group is not blatantly violating criminal law, they may call whatever they want a “marriage,” and the government will not care in the least.
Now, what if a religious group decided to marry adults to children? That would clearly be a crime. Would it be a violation of the First Amendment for the government to arrest those adults and break up those marriage practices? The answer is obviously no.
Historically, the government has faced situations in which certain illegal acts were performed under the auspices of religious freedom. When that happens, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest in preventing that act—such as the protection of children—and that the law is being enforced in a manner that is as favorable as possible to individual liberty.
It’s important to make this distinction because no one is talking about criminalizing same-sex marriage—only preventing the government from including it in the social institution aspect of marriage. If a religious group wanted to consider same-sex marriage the same as heterosexual marriage for their religious purposes, they would be free to do so.
Is Refusal to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage a Positive Regulation?
So we can see that the government has a compelling interest in protecting marriage and families; they are a central part of the government’s fundamental job: Facilitating society. Is the refusal to recognize same-sex marriage, then, a legitimate way to further that compelling interest or is it unduly burdensome?
Well, studies show that only about 45% of same-sex couples are monogamous. In fact, studies have found that 47% of same-sex couples go so far as to have “sex agreements” with their partners that permit affairs. Of the same-sex relationships that are monogamous, studies found, most do not last more than five years. Further research has found that same-sex relationships have higher incidences of domestic abuse, substance abuse, and other disorders. This is completely antithetical to stability.
When the welfare of children is considered, the stakes become even higher. A well-designed 1996 study found that children faired best in married homes; homosexual homes, by contrast, came in last. Study after study has found that children need a mother and a father actively present in their lives. Children are deprived of one of those parents when raised by same-sex couples.
The legalization of same-sex marriage would inject this additional instability into the institution of marriage and, by extension, the family. Now, marriage is already a notoriously unstable institution, and the government certainly should be going to great lengths to shore it up and encourage citizens to form solid marriages and good families. Redefining marriage altogether, however, would be an obvious step in the wrong direction.
Concluding Thoughts
The points offered by Morabito in the College Conservative column are well-meaning, but ultimately shortsighted in our view. Like it or not, marriage is a foundational social institution; government and religion intersect over it in an acceptable manner; the government has a compelling interest in marriage; and refusing to recognize same-sex unions is one of the least restrictive ways the government furthers that interest. To advocate for anything else would simply be foolish. Supporting strong marriages goes hand in hand with supporting the traditional definition of marriage. That’s why marriage in America should remain as it always has: The union of one man to one woman.
