Nation's future rests on marriage as traditionally defined

Posted Tuesday, Mar. 19, 2013  comments  Print Reprints
A

Have more to add? News tip? Tell us

The deeply controversial, sometimes raucous legal debate about marriage soon will be settled once and for all.

Public opinion is swaying toward redefining marriage. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases challenging state and federal laws that define marriage as one man and one woman.

The nationwide creation of same-sex marriage seems all but inevitable.

At least that's what many journalists, pundits and activists would have us believe. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The national debate over marriage remains robust and important. Whatever the outcome of the Supreme Court's deliberations this spring, the only thing that's inevitable is this: Americans will keep talking about the issue well into the future -- and with good reason.

Appeals to "marriage equality" make good sloganeering but sloppy reasoning. Every law makes distinctions; equality before the law protects citizens from arbitrary ones. Marriage equality demands knowing what marriage is.

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father.

Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of human civilization. All Americans, not just conservatives, should respect this crucial institution of civil society. Indeed, 41 states affirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Government recognizes marriage because it benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.

But redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would further distance marriage from the needs of children.

Decades of social science show that children tend to do best when raised by a married mother and father. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life, prompting welfare programs to grow even more.

In recent years, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults' desires than children's needs. Americans increasingly are tempted to think that marriage is simply whatever sort of relationship consenting adults want it to be: sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or "open," temporary or permanent.

Redefining marriage would put a new principle into law -- that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.

No principled reason could be offered for why an emotional union should be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or exclusive.

But marriage can't do the work that society needs it to do for generations to come if the norms are weakened further. All of us who care about a thriving civil society, with institutions capable of limiting the state and its power, should be alarmed.

The cases before the Supreme Court provide an opportunity for Americans to discuss three questions: What is marriage? Why does it matter for public policy? And what are the consequences of redefining marriage?

Americans have good reasons to conclude that marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together to be father and mother to any children they have together. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has the right to redefine marriage.

The future of our country relies upon the future of marriage. And the future of marriage depends not only on our understanding of what it is and why it matters, but on demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation. www.heritage.org

Looking for comments?

We welcome your comments on this story, but please be civil. Do not use profanity, hate speech, threats, personal abuse or any device to draw undue attention. Our policy requires those wishing to post here to use their real identity.

Our commenting policy | Facebook commenting FAQ | Why Facebook?