First, it is about whether we shall all become, as the Canadian political philosopher Douglas Farrow puts it, "chattels of the state." That is because as long as the natural family is recognized as prior to the creation of the state, then we may still argue that it possesses its own legitimate sphere of authority, and indeed that the state is in some sense beholden to, and subordinate to, and the artificial construct of families, and not the other way around. Simply put, once the state assumes the authority to rule that relationships outside the boundaries of the natural constitute married relationships, then the family becomes a mere ward of the state; for the power to define implies, a fortiori, the power to control.
I strongly recommend clicking through and reading the entire piece.
Mere Comments also pointed me to this PDF file with an excellent, extensive piece by Alan F.H. Wisdom entitled "Is Marriage Worth Defending?"
I especially challenge people who identify as Christians or libertarians who do not see the value of defending marriage to read these.
I agree entirely. Fundamentally, an individual is only as free as we define an individual as. By redefining individual as something less than autonomous and sentient, its easy to slip on the noose.
ReplyDeleteSame with marriage. Marriage is our right as individuals to create families and be in governance over them as we raise our children. The only way we create families naturally, without the state, is obvious :)