Marriage legislation

Human relations are what exists most intimately within the scope of coexistence. And for this very reason it is unthinkable to see the state regulating, for example, friendships or dating - it would be ridiculous to imagine a series of rules determining who can be friends with whom, or who can date who, and what the relationship should be like. Friends or boyfriends would have to cheer for the same team? Like the same kind of music? Live within a certain radius of distance to facilitate interaction? Talk at least once a day? Travel together at least once a year? Signing contracts of friendship or dating, with clauses stipulating the conditions of disruption? Nonsense, is it not? However, there is a specific type of relationship that has been recognized by public authority for a long time - and not only that: there is growing pressure for even more regulation and even redefinition. It's about marriage. But does that make sense? If we do not want to see public power intruding in our friendships or relationships, why act differently when it comes to marriage? What does the state have to do with it?

Before giving the answer, however, it must be remembered that recent discussions about marriage have been based on issues that "put the cart in front of the horses": very often, one wonders who can marry (or more recently, how many can marry). However, it is difficult to find the right answer when one does not know, first of all, what marriage is, that institution not invented, nor "socially agreed", but recognized for centuries by the most diverse societies around the globe.

We borrow the answer from philosophers Ryan Anderson, Robert George and Sherif Girgis: Marriage is "a comprehensive union" between two people. "Comprehensive" because it is not limited to one or another aspect or circumstance of human life, such as working in the same place or enjoying the same hobby. The "comprehensive union" of the spouses is complete, involves their minds and their bodies; it is totally voluntary, and directed to common goals, which are the happiness of the couple, the mutual development of husband and wife and the building of a family by shared life and, where possible, by the generation and raising of children. So the idea of "comprehensive union" includes the minds, but also the bodies of the spouses: it is by sex that they become "one flesh", by the act that has as a consequence - although not always achieved or even desired - the children, enriching the conjugal union. So it also makes sense that a commitment of this importance is unique and permanent. To this notion of marriage Anderson, George and Girgis call "conjugal conception".

"Children born and raised in a stable environment, benefiting from the contribution made by the father and the mother, grow better"

And therein lies the answer to our question: why does marriage matter (or at least should interest) the state? Or, in other words, why is state regulation of marriage justified? Because a healthy society needs, for its perpetuation, individuals. But mere numerical maintenance of the population is not enough; if we want the development of this society, we need healthy individuals, and families play a key role in this. It is no exaggeration to say that civilization depends on strong marriages. The generosity of couples in openness to life, and then parental care and supervision of the children, are essential for the physical, moral, and cultural maturity of these new individuals, so that they become secure and steadfast people. There are countless studies that children born and raised in a stable environment, benefiting from the contribution made by the father and the mother, grow better and tend to reproduce in their own adult life the good values learned in the home - just remember that everyone recognizes the evils caused by the disruption of families. That is why, while any attempt to intervene in other types of intimate human relationships is to be repelled, it is justified that the public power regulates marriage: it is the institution that allows the very perpetuation of society, and it is in its interest that Its members develop in the best possible way so that they fulfill their vocation to be complete, upright, virtuous people.

In contrast to the "conjugal conception" of marriage, however, is what Anderson, Girgis, and George have called "revisionist conception." In it, the essence of union becomes the affection between the partners: the existence of this affection legitimates the elevation of the relationship - any relation - to the status of marriage and, after affection ceases, the bond is undone without further questioning. "May it be infinite as long as it lasts," says the poet; when it does not last longer, let each one go his own way.

"If the foundation of marriage becomes affection, we fall into conceptual chaos. How to define affection, how to measure it?”

At first glance, it seems to make perfect sense. We do not get tired of singing about love and affection, in prose and verse. The very union of mind and body we commend in the marital conception of marriage requires a deep love between the spouses. What, then, is the problem with revisionist conception? First, it isolates the affection of all the rest - family life, permanent and exclusive commitment, generation and the raising of children - and makes it the only criterion that makes a relationship worthy of being called a marriage. The revisionist conception is not a simple extension of the concept of marriage: it is a total redesign, replacing the basis and purpose of the union between the spouses, in comparison to the conjugal conception.

"The defense of the marital conception of marriage means a devaluation of other relationships"

If almost everything can be marriage, suffice for this affection (and, perhaps, also sexual activity), the very notions of marriage and human love are weakened. True love is disinterested, seeking first the good of the other, its growth in the virtues. It involves feeling, but it is also an act of the will. It requires constant dedication and conviction about the value of a union that is lasting. Hence all its beauty, which we recognize and cherish. This is exactly the opposite of the fickle, selfish affection that vanishes as easily as it arises and only keeps the person in a relationship as long as he extracts his own affective fulfillment from him. Now, if this becomes the basis of a marriage, what solidity can we expect from marriage bonds? What encouragement would we have to value and seek family life, with all its joys, but also vicissitudes, as an ideal?

Does defending the marital conception of marriage mean a devaluation of other relationships, romantic or otherwise? Whoever has read the speech that Shakespeare puts in the mouth of King Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt knows that other ties can also be intense and deeply valued. The same can be said of other relationships of a romantic-affective nature. Marriage, however, has something unique, which is in the union of bodies and minds with a view to building a family. It is no more, no less - it is different, a difference that deserves to be preserved and, by its role in the perpetuation of society, justifies state regulation.

This regulation, however, does not imply the abandonment of any partners who enter into relationships that escape the marital conception of marriage. Common interests in the patrimonial area, the right to choose who can be with you in critical situations, such as a hospital stay, can and should be recognized by the state if it is the will of the individuals, regardless of the nature of the relationship they maintain, whether sexual, family, cohabitation or friendship. The conjugal conception of marriage and its legal regulation are the healthy middle ground between two extremes: the libertarian, according to who civil marriage should not even exist; and the revisionist, who seeks to redefine marriage to include various types of relationships in it. This failure to weaken the very institution of marriage; he ignores that marriage has a dimension that is of maximum interest to society - its perpetuation - and that justifies state regulation. Marriage matters, yes, to the common good; but you have to deal with the subject in the right way.