Blog Event

By generations of civil, religious and de facto recognition, we know that society can and does regulate the institution of marriage. Sticking with the civil side of things, by what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions? And if they do have the right, why, and how far does their authority extend? If they do not, why.

The question of government authority to regulate marriage and the point to which it extends are likely to be a key debate in our society over the next few years and I find it unlikely that I will solve it in 1,500 words but the idea was to keep it concise…and I'm already rambling.

Back on point.

Part 1

1. By what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions?
Through history to this point, marriage has been the smallest normal foundation of every society. It's had differing levels of importance but the family unit was the primary formative experience for humans for most of our existence, and the family unit was brought about by the institution of marriage.

A government has the right to pass laws that will protect the liberty of it's people and the interest of it's nation. At first glance, I want to say the government does not have the right to regulate marriage. But on further look I realize that marriage's end, both from death and divorce. In that case, if there are no rules governing property, chaos could ensue as the assets are fought over.

There is also the matter of children and custody, we can't just go around with orphans running around stealing extra bowls of soup, someone should raise them.

This constitutes the need for involvement of impartial mediators, and is a role that the courts can provide.

So I submit that only by the virtue of the property and custody is it necessary for the government to be involved in marriage. But because of those things, the government has a right to regulate marriage insofar as it's responsibility to protect the property rights of it's citizens and the interest of involved children.

Part 2

Since they do have the right and we've discussed why, how far does their authority extend?
Who can get married? When? In what forms? Etc.
Here is gets tricky. Why, if the government's role in this is protecting children in custody disputes and properly allocating property that is being fought over by adults, then any adult should be able to enter into this contract with any other consenting adult so long I suppose as they're both citizens.

What about two men? No issue there based on our argument. Two women? Same. But what about three people? Four? 42?

My point here isn't to indicate a slippery slope argument, I don't see that here. Rather, why on earth from a purely non-theological standpoint is polygamy illegal? A government does not, based on our descriptions so far, have the right to exclude any from this scenario because the purpose of their involvement is only the kids and the stuff. Surely a court can distribute all these things among 3 as easy as 2.

It's less convenient if 116 people are involved so an extreme upper limit might be justified, but surely seven people is ok. Right? The courts can handle these disputes.

The government's authority in this matter does not give it the right to determine who can get married, regardless of any factor save age is there is an "age of majority" like needing to be 18 to enter a contract.

From a purely civil standpoint, the government's role is one of allocation and custody. There is no civil reason why any person or persons should be excluded from making their own arrangements on this.

Unless………

Part 3

Unless I'm wrong about my premise. If the government's role is more than kids and stuff, then they should have more authority.

But what more can it be?

No surprise where I'm going with this.

They can regulate marriage if marriage is more than a contract. If in fact it is an institution of importance by itself. I know I believe it's a sacrament instituted by God, but I'll play ball here. Maybe it's not.

Maybe, through evolution and adaptation, trial and error, we learned that lifetime monogamy between a man and a woman is the best way to raise kids and build a society.

If that's the case, the process can clearly be seen as one that's still ongoing. It's still within recorded history that a man could have many wives. We see the development of the one man one woman marriage as a thing of permanence based on the fact that religions helped bring it on, and no doubt faith has played a role.

But if the atheistic view is correct, then it means this happening was either an incorrect way of doing things forced on society, one of many if not infinite options for forming unions of people or the result of a world that's tried it other ways and found them wanting.

I like to think that it's option three.

And if it is option three, then parts one and two of this blog and null and void. If it is option three, the government has an obligation to protect and maybe even promote what is correct way of things.

However, in a free society the rights of those who would believe it to be option one or two must be protected as well.

So, to sum up.

Yes, the government has the authority to regulate such matters. How far that extends, as far as it pertains to custody and property is almost infinite really, I suppose governed by what the people find apropos. Unless any restrictions levied are in relation to those matters, I would consider them to be unwarranted government intervention.

----

I know I'm under the word limit here, but a bad bout of food poisoning this weekend cut into my time.