The question has been asked, more and more these days, "Why is the government involved in marriage?" Reasonable question. It hasn't always been. So why is it?
In order to answer the question, we first need to figure out "Why is there government at all?" What is the purpose of government? At its lowest point, government exists to protect people from conflicts and to provide law and order. We might ask, "Why are there conflicts?" That one is easy. The Bible actually answers that one. "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." (James 4:1-2) So people want stuff, so they fight to get it. It may be a person, a family group, a society, a nation. But someone wants something they don't have and that produces conflict. Enter government. The purpose of government, then, is to protect and to regulate for the good of the governed. Well, maybe. If the government is "rule by man", then it might be for the good of the man. If the government is "rule by God" (theocracy), then it might be for the good of God. But ours is a "rule by law" government, so it is intended for the good of the people. Kind of like the classic police motto: to protect and to serve. The Declaration of Independence argued that the purpose of government was to secure our God-given rights.
This, of course, is about the end of anything on which people will agree. That's because at this point exactly how a government can best protect and serve its people is a matter of millions of opinions. Should it rule or relax? Should it enslave or loose? Should it be one person or representatives? How much freedom should individuals surrender for the good of the whole? Questions, questions, endless questions.
So why is our government involved in marriage? It is because the purpose of government is to provide for the greater good of the people. Killing is bad for the people. Outlaw it. Business is good for the people. Encourage it. Playing tennis is neither good nor bad for the people. Leave it alone. That, at least, is the basic concept. Encourage what is good for society, discourage what is bad, and ignore that which doesn't matter. Thus, the government is involved in the question of marriage because marriage is good for society. How?
I'm speaking here of marriage in the traditional, longstanding, millennia-old sense. In its original form, marriage benefits society. A male-female union for life is the ultimate environment in which to raise children. And, of course, children are absolutely necessary for a society to continue. Quality children are necessary. Quality children are best provided through traditional marriage. Children benefit from marriage of this type. They are less likely to suffer abuse, more likely to succeed, and less likely to have behavioral, psychological, or emotional problems. Married women are more likely to be healthy, less likely to suffer chronic illness, and less likely to suffer from depression. Marriage increases women's income by 50%. Married women are less likely to suffer domestic violence than divorced, separated, or never-married women. For men, marriage produces a civilizing influence. They are less likely to be incarcerated. Married men with children are more involved with their community. Married men work harder at earning a living. Married men make 25% more than single men. Their health is typically better and their life expectancy is two-thirds higher than single men. Marriage of this type is extremely beneficial to society as a whole. So the government regulates it.
As it turns out, the same value to society doesn't exist in the redefined "marriage" today. So the question is whether or not government should involve itself in marriage now that we've decided it has no real definition. Lots of voices are suggesting that the government get itself out of the marriage business since government no longer has a vested interest in marriage. My question: Is there a difference between "civil marriage" and "marriage"? Can you marry (biblically) and not have a legal married status? In short, with the dissolution of marriage (marriage itself, not marriages), is it possible to be married (in its original sense) without being married (in its government-defined form)?
2 comments:
I think that while the government isn't necessary for marriage to exist, other people are. A couple needs somebody to keep them accountable to their relationship. A secret marriage isn't sufficient in my opinion. The couple makes promises before God and they need others to keep them to those promises. Of course, losing governmental sanction means losing governmental benefits, but just like a church can still be a church without the government, there are benefits lost. The question is, are you willing to give up this benefits.
Of course, hopefully Christians are in a community of Christians (Heb 10:23-25), so I would certainly not advocate anything like a "secret marriage". But openly married in a community does not (as should be patently obvious) require civil marriage.
The benefits, indeed, are substantial. And, of course, there is the question of Romans 13:1.
Post a Comment