Marriage in our Western culture has until recently been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Even within cultures that practice polygamy, a man can marry multiple women, but the women do not marry one another, nor do men marry men. Marriage has always had a male-to-female connotation. Thus the ongoing debate over “gay marriage” involves a real re-definition of marriage that strikes at the very core meaning of the word.

In our culture we have set the standard for marriage as “one man, one woman” due in large part to our Judeo-Christian heritage. There are many moral and religious reasons in favor of this traditional view. But those who support gay marriage reject many of these arguments as being archaic, overtly religious, and unfair to gays and lesbians who simply want to enjoy the same rights as every heterosexual. I agree that no one should be denied any basic human right based on their sexual orientation. Two consenting adults have every right to enter into a relationship of their choosing regardless of anyone else’s religious objection. However, marriage extends beyond the individual’s right to a personal relationship. Marriage implies an endorsement of that relationship by society. As such, marriage is also a public institution not merely a private affair.

But even so, why should marriage be limited to male-female relationships? What interest should the government have in restricting who marries? Why should society discriminate in this way? To fully answer the charges of the left against a traditional view of marriage we need to fully appreciate why we have an institution of marriage in the first place, why it has always been male-female, and why our government has no authority to change it.

Marriage has two primary purposes: (1) the mutual love and support of the spouses, and (2) to produce children and nurture them into valuable members of society. Granted, not everyone who gets married has children. But then again, not everyone who gets married is really in love either, as our high divorce rate demonstrates. Certainly the dual purpose of marriage is not a guarantee that every couple will live out these purposes in exactly the same way. But historically these two objectives (love and children) have been the dual components of marriage.

The gay marriage debate focuses attention on the first of these two purposes to the exclusion of the second. The argument in favor of gay marriage is framed around the “love” of the two individuals, insisting that society has an obligation to honor their right to love whomever they please. This line of reasoning seems compelling if procreation is left out of the picture. For obvious biological reasons, a same-sex couple cannot reproduce. But if goal of marriage is narrowed to mutual love and support and procreation is discarded, then homosexuals have no impediment to marriage.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the government’s primary interest in regulating marriage lies primarily in its procreative aspect and not exclusively in the emotional attachment of the couple. The government is interested in procreation because it produces the next generation of citizens. And common sense tells us that a male-female relationship stands a better chance of producing children than any other combination. The government regulates marriage because a state has a vested interest in the growth and stability of its population. The government cares about the love and support of the spouses only as it pertains to building a solid home in which stable, well adjusted, and productive citizens are most likely to be nurtured.

When a couple applies for a marriage license questions are asked about residency status, possible family relationship between the prospective spouses, in some places blood tests are administered, and all of these things fulfill the government’s responsibility to maintain a healthy, growing population. So the very nature of our marriage laws and the licensing process demonstrate that procreation is a key component in a legal definition of marriage. But if we redefine marriage so that love becomes the only necessary factor, then the state will be in the messy business of regulating an emotion. The state will have the power to issue a license for love and personal sexual fulfillment. No government should have this authority.

To borrow a slogan from the gay rights movement, “Keep the government out of the bedroom.” We do this by ensuring the traditional definition of marriage remains intact, not because we want to deny homosexuals their right to love, but precisely because love is too sacred to turn over to government regulation. No one’s emotions should fall under governmental jurisdiction.

Originally published in The Capitol News, October 24, 2006