Libertarians should protect marriage, analyst argues
April 04, 2012
Jennifer Roback Morse explains why, although she sympathizes with libertarians on most political issues, she totally disagrees with their suggestion that the state should not be involved in defining or defending the institution of marriage. She argues that paradoxically, a move to “privatize” marriage would lead to a dangerous expansion of state powers. In recent decades, she observed, developments that were introduced as expansions of personal freedom—such as the acceptance of “no-fault” divorce and of out-of-wedlock birth—have led to grave social problems, which in turn produced more calls for state intervention.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: FredC -
Apr. 05, 2012 10:47 AM ET USA
The referenced article is worth reading. Privatizing would mean more work for lawyers -- the same profession that enacts the laws.
Posted by: unum -
Apr. 04, 2012 11:42 PM ET USA
As our society disintegrates, we are seeing what happens when the state does not provide a legal framework that supports marriage and protects children. Our governments have made it easy to dissolve marriages and avoid the obligations of parenthood. The problems with children in single parent or foster parent families who feel unloved and unwanted are just beginning as these children become the parents of tomorrow and raise children as they were "taught".