Marriage, Government, and Freedom

Much has already been said about all three topics, but little is understood about the importance of marriage in the traditional sense. Marriage is more than the creation of children, more than the merging of time and interest of spouses, it is a joint responsibility assumed by both parties to become a micro society. It means that both spouses will do all in their power to assume the liabilities of the other as well as contribute toward the new family unit that marriage creates. It is the caring for aged parents, the nurturing of children, the combined effort to manage the finances, cleaning and repair of home, a joining of body and soul to a unified family. Together they seek to protect the family unit from all outside hazards, and when all those needs are satisfied, they benefit the community. Currently, marriage is portrayed in the media to be little more than a blending of selfish interest in entertainment and activity. Marriage is not a springboard to legitimize sex and fun. It is a sharing of responsibilities and struggles on an epic scale with someone you must be able to trust not only with your own life but those of your parents, siblings and offspring. Marriage is more than a simple walk with a lifelong friend. It is the merging of self into a greater whole. This can be the most satisfying experience anyone can have, the mutual love and support of a life time. It can be a heaven on earth.

Marriages can fail. Partners stress out from reality after the chemistry of attraction is insufficient to sustain their interest because a wholesome marriage doing what it is supposed to do is often hard and many people find themselves unable to commit a lifetime with the same person that they were once attracted to. There is no guarantee of success,but it is much easier for the complementary nature of man and woman to adjust to this new role of mutual support and sustaining, it is what nature provided us for. When a spouse is irresponsible and selfish or cheating, trust is lost and harms the whole family and the community at large. Such leads to unhappiness all around. When this cannot be mended, it must be adjusted. It can be a personal hell. At such times it is needful for a neutral outside arbitrator to reconcile or legally sever the family. This is when Government is needed.

Government is intended to protect, to furnish a safe orderly structure for all citizens. It is not a substitute for the family. It is not the father, mother, nor the big brother. It should keep itself out of this debate—it is not a forum for determination of belief, a referee for ideas and social feelings. It is a protector of basic human rights. Some, in their ignorance, consider that marriage, which is the basic social structure of society, a function of government. After all, the government can forbid marriage between nearly related couples; it taxes the union through the costs of a license and accommodates the legal recognition of a family, having once understood the mutual benefits that this relationship brings to the world. Marriage is not a function of government, though government can perform the legal joining, or in failure, a separation of the legally recognized structure of a marriage. It can also perform the legal framework when both parties agree to a ‘civil’ marriage. This involvement became necessary to provide order when the great diversity of faiths or lack of it emerged. Do not slip into the notion that government involvement equates to government sponsorship. Government should not be taking on the role of mothering, nurturing, educating, housing, healing and feeding children. That is what families are responsible to do. Confusion of these roles adds to the burdens to society exponentially, gives license to those who are lazy and irresponsible and discourages those who would fill community or extended family needs during a crisis. Government has for too long stretched its fingers into sacred grounds. When it does so, it takes away the freedoms and responsibilities that others should have found. It undermines the whole community when it intrudes upon the role of the parent. There are of course, exceptions, but that is what they should be: exceptional circumstances, not the norm. These exceptions increase with the increase of government involvement. Some people will always default on responsibilities when given opportunity. If unwed mothers provided for their own children, (without government assistance) there would be far fewer unwed mothers. One only needs to look at the numbers of single parents before welfare programs and then again after welfare programs took affect. A simple cause and effect can be seen. In the early 1950's about 18% of black children were born to unwed mothers. In 2010, the number reached 72.5% (sources: U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Health Statistics, 2011). Google "unwed Mother" and behold for yourself the numerous and expensive social programs that try and fail to substitute for the father! It cannot be done. To provide what a father should, the government must take away what a father earns. To provide as adequately as a family, it must assume family identity and becomes a twisted parody of a tyrannical parent, for it must determine then what role it must assume and will decree what others will and will not do. It cannot take any role without assuming all the responsibilities. No government has sufficient resources to care for all of its citizens from cradle to grave equally.

When government fully involves itself as parent, citizens will no longer be allowed freedom of self choice.

Those who care little of freedom will endorse government intrusion into these roles, but for those who understand the precious gift of self choice and determination; these things ring alarm bells. As a society, we need to reinstate and rededicate the core of our society: Marriage and Family.