Should The Government Be Involved in Marriage?

by Thomas Patrick Burke on February 17, 2012 · 7 comments

Marriage involves property. Every family needs to have family property, property that belongs to them not as individuals but as members of the family. Children especially need this. But property always must be governed by rules. If one spouse dies, what provision is made for the other, and for the children? Disputes can arise, which need to be settled authoritatively, and therefore by government.

All societies we know of have had definite rules about marriage, usually presupposing a definition of marriage. There are some kinds of theoretically possible “marriages” that all societies have rejected. None give legal recognition by government, which would involve distinct property rights, to “marriages” between fathers and their sons, or between mothers and their daughters. The action of government is needed to set these rules.

The jurisdiction of the church over marriage during the middle ages did not remove marriage from the purview of government but was a result of the traditional union of church and state. As the Roman civil authority collapsed in the face of the barbarian invasions, the Christian bishops, already officials of the state since the emperor Theodosius, remained and took responsibility for what was left of civil society. The subsequent feudal states in effect gave authority to the church, as they also gave the universities certain rights of self-government. But they always retained the power to take it back, which the modern state has done.

The theory that marriage does not need government is foolish and irresponsible. It is related to the even more foolish and irresponsible theory that society itself does not need government. Some libertarians argue, with Murray Rothbard, that all the responsibilities of government can be carried out by the market. It is true that many of them in our day can be, because government has claimed authority in so many areas of life where it does not belong. But a true market is always only a free one, and is not compatible with the unjust use of force. The fact is, however, there will always be people who use unjust force, including in marriage. In the face of them, the market is helpless. Only government can ensure a free and true market. As John Locke argued, true freedom is always freedom under law. Likewise, marriage needs to be protected by the law.

In the Western world marriage has fallen into relative disfavor. Couples now often live together without marriage and have children without marriage, or deliberately have children without a spouse. It is not clear that this is a great benefit either to them or to the society, for a successful marriage is by far the most satisfying of all human relationships. If we ask why marriage is currently in decline, an important reason is undoubtedly that government has abdicated its responsibility for protecting it. Divorce should be possible, but it should not be easy, just as marriage should not be easy. By making divorce easy, even frivolously easy—usually a unilateral breaking of the contract—government has emptied marriage of its most basic value, which is the guaranteed and dependable sharing of a life together. Although government is needed, then, that is not to say its role has always been benign. The current attempts by members of the legal profession to label same-sex unions  “marriages” testifies—if we needed any more testimony—to the foolishness and cupidity of the legal and political class to whom we have entrusted our laws, who are willing to have the society they govern pay any price if only it will reelect them.

Like other valuable institutions in our society, marriage and the family have been systematically weakened over the last fifty years, especially by the current obsession with equality. Many people have come to view marriage and the family, no longer as treasures to be protected but as haunts of oppression and exploitation, a’ la Marx. But libertarians are not Marxists. You cannot love freedom and also love Marx who wanted to abolish it. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe in law and government, because without law and government there is no freedom. For the same reason libertarians should also believe in marriage and the family.

Pages: 1 2 3

  • Therese Marie

    The problem with Government becoming involved in marriage today, as I see it, is that people by and large do not think and reason properly.  Government is led by officials who do not make the best decision for the people, but, who make the popular decision to get re-elected.  By allowing government to become involved in Marriage, we open ourselves up to unjust laws and the possibility of Marriage being re-defined and contrary to Church teachings.
    You make good points, especially when it concerns Children’s rights and divorce issues, but, that would only work with just, moral, God-fearing officials making decisions through prayer and an informed intellect and conscience.  We are very far away from that situation currently.  Politics in our country has become a slow death with the Republicans or a fast death with the Democrats.

  • Mamk0908

    I agree that government should be involved in publicly recognizing the reality of marriage which unites a man and a woman and any children from their union because having a married mother and father is a fundamental human right that is common to every child with out exception.  It is also an internationally recognized right in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and can be confirmed by the desire that all of us to be known and loved by the parents from whom we originated.

    In a country where 40% of our children are now being born to unmarried mothers, I would say that it is imperative that we have a legal structure that promotes a clear understanding of the reality of marriage and its value to children and society.

  • Blndtrst

    God doesnt care about any of this..he wants His people to truly love one another.  He couldnt care less about this endless worshipping.  It’s draining humanities resources with all the fighting over God.  I’ll say it again, God doesnt care about the chocolate-covered crap that is religion.  Jus’ sayin’…

  • Alex

    Libertarians don’t call for the government to be out of marriage entirely.  We would like government to be involved to the extent of enforcing contracts between individuals, should one individual fail to hold up his side of the contract.  If two Catholics decide to get married in the Church, why do they need a marriage license?  If government is out of marriage, then the only people who would still get married are the people who value it for what it is: a sacrement.  Other people who want to live together and draw up a civil contract can do so, and the government would enforce this contract.  Or, if they so choose, they don’t have to have a contract at all!  They can just live together, and if things go badly, they separate. If Catholics want to draw up a contract in addition to getting married in the Church, they can do so.  Libertarians, Ron Paul and myself included, just want the government to stop giving benefits to married couples, and dictating things such as visitation rights.  We still think that the government has the responsibility and authority to enforce contracts.

  • Peter Nyikos

     Part of the message of the article to which you are responding is that people need to love intelligently and responsibly.  A lot that goes on in the name of love is foolish or just plain wrong.

  • chaco

    Right On ! Peter Nyikos ;  Blndtrst is asserting that “Love” doesn’t need to be defined ie;  “You can eat all the candy bars you want because I “Love” you.” Relativism (no Truth except what is “relative” to each individual’s personal experience / interpretation /appetites) is being promoted by current politics / culture even if it can’t be backed up with reason & DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE.[ [All in the name of tolerance & diversity.] Relativism is the “World’s” plan for peace among peoples. We just need to keep using our God given right to free speech  & REASONABLE Truth to counter the UNTENABLE stance of relativists. “The heavens & Earth can pass away but God’s Word will remain.” 

  • dchaitanya