See Luminosity

Same-Sex Marriage, Part 6: State Promotion of Marriage and Government Control

Same-Sex Marriage, Part 6: State Promotion of Marriage and Government Control

This series on gay marriage has attempted to shed light on the marriage debate, by illuminating the fact that everyone, both homosexual and heterosexual, benefits from traditional marriage not only being maintained, but being strengthened. Read the previous parts here:

Part 1: What is Marriage?

Part 2: The Benefits of Marriage

Part 3: The Connection of Marriage to Nature

Part 4: Changing Marriage to Its Demise

Part 5: Depriving Children of Rights

This article will explore the fourth reason promoting the conjugal view of marriage (one that is rooted in nature, rather than choice) is so significant:

4. The tie of marriage to nature is what allows it to be construed as a fundamental building block – the only structure which creates the most basic unit of society: a family. It is the generative nature of marriage, as the system through which future citizens are nurtured, which makes it an institution worthy of state promotion and protection. Same-sex marriage, by severing the ties of marriage to nature, will serve to significantly weaken marital culture, making the “good” of marriage more difficult to attain, and will invite unprecedented governmental control over family relationships.

The State’s Interest in Marriage

Marriage is not simply a matter of personal relationships between partners. From the state’s perspective, it is not about love, either, which is why there are no questions about the emotional connection between partners seeking a marriage license. Marriage, as an interest of the state, exists in order to connect mothers and fathers to children and provide the most stable environment for the building of families. It is an institution that has the potential to create the most fundamental unit of society – the family. It is this unique intrinsic characteristic of heterosexual marriage, its connection with procreation, which elevates it from the arena of private interactions to that of public policy.

From a policy perspective, marriage is an institution that is regulated, to a relatively minimal degree, by the state, because the state has an interest in the success of marriage. Although marriage is certainly a societal good separate from procreation, it is its intrinsic connection to family that expressly invites the state’s interest. Children need nurturing in order to develop into healthy, flourishing human beings, and marriage is the best way for that to occur, by providing a natural connection between mothers, fathers, and the children they produce. Children become citizens, and the healthier its citizens, the healthier the society will be. Part 2 of this series addressed the preponderance of evidence for the ways that traditional marriage is, far and away, the structure that best promotes the most optimal well-being of individuals, both adults and children. It is predominantly for this reason the state is in the marriage business at all.

Heterosexual marriage is the only institution in society that exists for the main purpose of supporting the most basic unit of society – family. Family law, including Supreme Court law, has consistently demonstrated the state’s interest in promoting marriage due to its citizen-forming nature, and how traditional marriage contributes to the well-being of individuals and to society as a whole.[1] For example, in Lehr v. Robertson [22], the Supreme Court wrote, “…Marriage has played a critical role … in developing the decentralized structure of our democratic society. In recognition of that role, and as part of their general overarching concern for serving the best interests of children, state laws almost universally express an appropriate preference for the formal family.” The government has a vested interest in protecting marriage, because doing so protects the family, which is, literally, the breeding ground for society.

The State’s Role in Creating Marriage Culture

Because the state has a vested interest in the health of the family, which produced future citizens, it has a responsibility in helping to create the kind of culture that would support, protect, and encourage marriage in its strongest form. Same-sex marriage severs the tie of marriage to its natural foundation in family. Marital norms, from a public policy perspective, no longer make sense when divorced from a connection to the fundamental building block of family. When there is no natural connection to the creation and nurturing of mutual children, the state has no more interest in promoting it or regulating it than it would kinship networks or close friendships. Personal relationships are not the state’s business. Marriage needs to be supported by civil and legal structure because doing so serves to strengthen the cultural and political norms surrounding the institution, which thereby strengthens it. As we have seen in Part 2, strong marriages mean strong families, which lead to a healthy society.

Governments have, throughout every society, regulated male-female sexual relationships to some extent, because the health of society is dependent upon the unit of family that these relationships create. But why should the government be involved at all?

The reason is that policy and culture are intricately connected. Both reinforce one another, as policy impacts attitudes toward and behaviors in social institutions, and the beliefs and actions of the culture in turn influence what policies are made. Policy helps to guide people’s decisions and actions toward marriage and within marriage, which, in turn, helps to shape how marriage functions as an institution within culture. A major factor in the state’s involvement with marriage is the fact that political reinforcement of marital norms shapes what people believe about marriage and how they act in marriage. In other words, the state, through policy development, has a tremendous influence in helping to create the kind of marriage culture that exists within society. And the more that politics, law, and culture work together to promote a strong marriage culture, the healthier and more stable families, and ultimately society, will be.

Same-Sex Marriage Weakens Marriage Culture

Marriage already has its problems. No-fault divorce, marital infidelity, co-habitation and weakening cultural acknowledgement of the unique contributions of mothers and fathers have all dealt significant blows to the institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage would further the decline by confusing the reasons marriage would be necessary or worthwhile in the first place. If marriage is redefined as being no longer be rooted in gender complementarity (male/female) or the creation of family, why need it be exclusive? Why must it be permanent? Why should it be monogamous? Marital norms would become arbitrary and marriage would become irrelevant as people formed any variety of relational bonds, with whomever they chose, for whatever time they decided upon, based simply on personal choice. (For a more significant discussion of this argument, read Part 4).

Same-sex marriage redefines the law to eliminate marriage’s natural connection to gender complementarity and family. It is this logical, intrinsic connection to biology that helps marital norms make sense. Whether or not a married couple actually conceives children is irrelevant (marriage is certainly a good in and of itself separate from procreation); what matters is that the nature of the union is one of the type that is intrinsically related to the creation of this most fundamental unit of society. Same-sex marriage eliminates the foundation of marriage as being rooted in nature to being rooted in personal choice. By doing so, the very norms upon which marriage is based– permanence, exclusivity, and monogamy, which exist to create the optimal well-being of the family – become exchanged for a bond of some type, for some amount of time, between some number of persons who so desire it.

It is not difficult to see how, as marital norms decline, the already damaged institution of marriage would become weaker and weaker. Ultimately, by weakening the culture of marriage within society, same-sex marriage would make the “good” of marriage more difficult to attain. Marriage is already a tremendous challenge, even when political and social pressures incentivize men and women to live up to the marriage ideal. Same-Sex marriage, by confusing the purpose and relevance of marital norms, and exchanging an institution grounded in nature with one based simply on personal choice, would drastically undermine the societal supports and motivations for a strong marriage culture. Commitment in marriage is already a challenge; same-sex marriage’s message that marriage is about personal fulfillment would make it more so. Marriage redefinition would greatly reduce the relevance and benefit of the institution, as individuals chose instead to form any variety of bonding networks, based on whatever criteria suited them best. And while this new relational culture might appear to be beneficial for the adults involved, the demise of marriage has already been unequivocally demonstrated by research to be disastrous for the children caught in the middle. As go the children goes the future of society.

Opposition to same-sex marriage, for most traditional marriage advocates, is not an end in itself. On the contrary, the goal for the majority of those who champion conjugal marriage is to strengthen marriage as an institution; to create a healthier, stronger marriage culture which will, in turn, produce healthier families and a healthier society. The state can greatly influence people’s abilities to participate in the good that is marriage by creating policies that protect and promote conjugal marriage, and it has an obligation to do so in an effort to guide people toward that which benefits the common good.

Marriage as a Fundamental Building Block

The state, as we have seen, has a role in promoting and protecting marriage, because of the fact that marriage has the potential to become family, and family is what nurtures future citizens. However, the state’s role in doing so has very necessary limits. The rights of the family are to be preeminent over the rights of the state, for marriages and families to be able to flourish. And it is the connection of marriage to nature which serves as insurance that family relationships remain autonomous from the state – as entities that can be protected by but not used by the government.

Biology connects marriage to a foundation that is not simply political or state-based, to a standard that is beyond individual choice or determination. In other words, the fact that marriage is rooted in sexual complementarity makes it a pre-political institution, grounded in human nature. The conjugal view of marriage is what qualifies the institution, and family relationships, as being a fundamental building block of society. Whether or not marriage does result in the creation of children, the fact that it can result in the creation of children puts it into the category of something higher than the state, and thereby something that has rights independent of the state; the state didn’t create it, and so it is not a tool of the government.

Greg Koukl, President of Stand to Reason, explains it well in his article “Solid Ground“: ‘”The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are to the whole.”

Fundamental rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are those rights that are pre-political. They were created by something greater than government (God, or nature), and therefore cannot be taken away by the government. Although the state has a role in protecting and promoting each of these fundamental rights (and can use regulation to do so), it cannot supersede these rights for its own power or gain. Marriage, with its roots in nature or biology, places the family, as the most basic unit of society, in the category of fundamental rights that must be protected, but not manipulated, by the government.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”[2] It is this “natural” status, its grounding in nature, that affords the family priority over both society and the state. When marriage is based in something more fundamental than the government, then government must always be subservient to the family, not vice versa.

Same-Sex Marriage Invites State Control

Same-sex marriage changes all of that. As Maggie Gallagher writes in “Defend Marriage: Mom and Dads Matter”, “Same-sex marriage represents an intellectual and moral repudiation of the idea that marriage is grounded in any human reality outside of government, that government is obligated to respect and protect.” By divorcing marriage from its foundation in nature or biology, and instead recasting the institution as being based on personal choice or will, marriage loses its status as the vehicle for creating the natural family. Douglas Farrow concurs, in his article, “Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage,” “[Same-sex marriage] is a closed unit that reduces to human choice, rather than engaging choice with nature; and its lack of a generative dimension means that it cannot be construed as a fundamental building block”.[3]

Fundamental vs. Legal Rights: What are the consequences of marriage no longer being a fundamental building block? Farrow expounds, “It therefore cannot present itself to the state as the bearer of independent rights and responsibilities, as older or more basic than the state itself. Indeed, it is a creature of the state, generated by the state’s assumption of the power of invention or re-definition. Which changes everything”.[4] Family relationships become no longer fundamental rights, but merely legal rights that are open to state control. Rights that the state confers, the state can take away.

Connecting Kids to Parents: Even worse, in the case of gay marriage, there will not only be an invitation for control by the government; it will be required. Gay columnist Doug Mainwaring supports this claim, “Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable ‘social units’ and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.”[5] The truth is that as long as human beings create offspring, children will somehow have to be connected to their mothers and fathers.

Currently, that process is taken care of primarily by way of nature. Children, for the most part, are connected to their biological mother and father by virtue of the fact that they are born into their biological family, with the government simply acknowledging in a legal manner the biological reality of what has already occurred. Traditional marriage, in other words, affords the state the easiest and least interventionist way to attach children to their parents – by simply recording through policy the connection that occurs naturally.

Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, requires the state to begin arbitrating how children are connected to parents.  Rather than simply documenting the natural reality that the child’s parents are the ones who conceived him or her (because obviously two same-sex partners cannot be biological parents of the same child), the state is then required to define and determine parenthood. (Part 5 addressed how same-sex marriage makes children into commodities and parenting into a contract). This would offer the government unprecedented control over human relationships – putting the state in the role of determining which child gets to belong to which parent.

Fixing Social Ills: State involvement is increased not only through contract parenting, but as the weakened marriage culture mentioned in the first part of this article leads to greater personal and societal ills, the government must step in to clean up the mess. Social services, criminal justice services such as courts, police and prisons, child support enforcement, welfare and Medicaid are all examples of increased governmental involvement either directly or indirectly related to marriage breakdown.[6] Research by sociologists David Popenoe and Alan Wolfe of countries in Scandinavia shows a connection between state intervention and the decline of marriage, with governmental power and spending increasing as marriage culture decreases.[7] This data supports similar research from the United States (as Part 2 and Part 5 referenced), which demonstrates that the decline of marriage results in numerous social problems, which in turn cost taxpayers $112 billion a year as the government is required to step in. Same-sex marriage, by weakening the culture of marriage within society, will ultimately undermine the well-being of families and the health of individuals. The less people are able to support and regulate themselves, the more they must be supported and regulated by the state.

Evidence of Weakened Marriage Culture and State Control

Increased state control over individuals and family relationships, as well as the weakening of marriage culture, is already evident in many locations that have moved away from a culture of traditional marriage toward same-sex marriage and the elimination of gender complementarity as a meaningful construct in public life. A notable example is Sweden, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, and has demonstrated an unprecedented shift toward state control over family relationships. Since the early 1900’s, Sweden has made a continual movement toward a collectivist and totalitarian, socialist national philosophy that has become defined by “comprehensive political control of family life” and its primacy in Europe as a “maximalist welfare state”.[8] Michael Donnelly, director of International Relations for the Home School Legal Defense Association, has called Sweden “The darkest of regimes for families in Western Europe.”

Background: In the 1960’s, Swedish efforts to eliminate gender in all aspects of life became paramount, and a philosophy of sexual liberalism joined hands with a drastic decline in marriage and a skyrocketing rate of cohabitation. Sweden in fact, has recorded the world’s lowest marriage rate, and 55% of births are out-of-wedlock (70% of out-of-wedlock births in Sweden end in abortion). Sociologist Richard Tomasson explicates, “The decline of marriage accompanied by the enormous increase in nonmarital births has also occurred along with the development of the extensive Swedish welfare state”. The Swedish statist political philosophy, along with this shift away from traditional marriage (and particularly the emphasis on gender neutrality), has led to the belief that “the ‘falsely individualistic desire’ of parents for the ‘freedom’ to raise their own children was unhealthy. It was ‘based on a sadistic disposition to extend this “freedom” to an unbound and uncontrolled right to dominate others’”.[9]

Although the factors that have led to the Swedish government’s tremendous control over individuals and families are certainly complex and multi-faceted, increased state control has been the primary tool for ensuring “gender equality” in all aspects of life. The goal, according to British family policy researcher Patricia Morgan, was to “break the bonds that private property and conventional family ties imposed on the development of the individual in a free society”. Tomasson explains, “The basic unit of the Swedish welfare state is the individual, not the family”.

Swedish authorities have increasingly viewed gender differentiation, and the idea that men and women contribute different and valuable things, as being at the forefront of that attempt to dominate others. Sweden.se describes Sweden’s process of “gender mainstreaming”, which incorporates “the gender equality perspective into the work of government agencies at all levels…. The idea is that gender equality is not a separate, isolated issue but a continual process. To create equality, the concept of equality must be taken into account when resources are distributed, norms are created and decisions are taken.” Morgan, in her study of the effects of legalizing same-sex marriage in Europe and North America, found that “Everywhere, the remaking of the sexes has been inseparable from an aggressive policy to equalize ‘sexualities’”. Allan Carlson, in his book, The Swedish Experiment in Family Politics, writes, “Policy analysts turn to Sweden ‘as a widely touted example of modern family policy, a system that recognises the social transformations made necessary by the commitment to gender equality and the full industrialisation of social life…”[10]

Enacting Gender Equality: What were those “transformations” to ensure gender equality? A report published by the CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society in London explains, “Sweden quickly took to twentieth century collectivist notions of the rule of ‘expert’ elites, possessed of a superior knowledge, of how best people should live”. A perfect example of the “village raises the child” philosophy, the Swedish state has replaced individual responsibility and freedom for decision-making with government-controlled policy in virtually every area of life, particularly in ensuring that children are inculcated with the state-sanctioned values around non-differentiation of gender and sexuality. In Sweden, the National Academy for Education conducted an extensive review of school material and schools were ordered to “integrate gender equality and sexual orientation issues into their operations and everyday tasks. Research is meant to focus upon how ‘norms and attitudes make homophobia possible’ even where there are ‘no statistics or consistent studies which can pinpoint discrimination due to sexual orientation'”.

State Control: Some examples of state control, toward efforts of ensuring uniformity: the illegalization of homeschooling, compulsory state education of children in which values around issues such as sexuality are taught, penalties of prison for people who are deemed to have made offensive statements about homosexuality,[11] phenomenally high taxation (approximately 70% of the average Swede’s monthly salary goes to the taxes), a decent portion of which goes toward governmental child welfare entities, the criminalization of corporal punishment, and even having an official list of approved names from which Swedish parents must name their children.[12]  Compulsory sex education begins, in the Swedish system, at age 7, where, according to the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, the curriculum addresses “intercourse, self-pleasuring, contraceptives, fertilization, pregnancy, and childbirth”, among other topics. Sex ed for ages 10 to 13 includes “physical development at puberty, venereal diseases, homosexuality, exhibitionism, and pedophilia”, and 13-16-year-olds learn about “petting, different views of sex roles, premarital relations, marriage and family including the views in some non-Christian cultures, abortion, pornography, prostitution, HIV/AIDS and “’safer sex'”.

One study on the sociopolitical influences of sexual education in Sweden found, “Sweden’s equality body works to ensure that employers, universities and schools implement measures to prevent discrimination, and is charged with promoting equal rights. Participants frequently credited equality policy with facilitating ‘good’ and ‘inclusive’ sexuality education.” Participants in the study explained, “It’s much easier to work if you can like [say], ‘Yeah, the legislation says you have to work with this’ or ‘this policy says you have to work with this’….so in the event that, you know, parents come in and say, ‘I don’t want you teaching my child about homosexuality’ – well, you know, I’m sorry, the law says I need to do it.”

Sweden also engages in what human-rights activists are calling “state-controlled child trafficking”: in a population of about 8 million, 10-20,000 children are taken into state custody each year.[13] These children are often not taken for legitimate reasons of parental abuse or neglect, but because parents did not, in some way, precisely follow the expectations of the state for how their children should be raised. Lawyer and founder of The Nordic Committee for Human Rights, Siv Westerberg, explains the realities of the corrupt Swedish social system in which, “during the last twenty or thirty years Swedish families step by step have lost the basic human right to family life and private life”. Westerberg, who has litigated many of these cases before the European Court of Human Rights, notes that “the ordinary middle class family in Sweden is living under a real threat that if they do not do exactly what the authorities tell them. They risk losing their children.”[14]

Sweden provides an important litmus test for the correlation among the shift away from traditional marriage, the movement toward a liberalized sexual philosophy and an emphasis on gender neutrality, and increased control by the government over family relationships. A healthy marriage culture, based on mothers and fathers committing to one another and the children they produce, is the best means by which to secure the foundational freedom of family relationships.

The issue of state control, and additional evidence as to the threats to freedom same-sex marriage invites, will be addressed in even more depth in Part 8 of this series.

Conclusion

The state has an obligation to protect and promote conjugal marriage, for the well-being of society. It is the grounding of marriage in nature – the potential to create a family – which makes the marital union unlike any other, and which elevates the institution from simply being in the sphere of private life into the sphere of public policy. Marriage, quite simply, is ground zero for the creation and nurturing of future society. And although marriage is, because of its generative nature, something the government has a vested interest in regulating, this biological tie roots marriage to something greater and more fundamental than the state. The state may support it and protect it, but, because the state did not create marriage, the state may not redefine it or manipulate it.

Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, severs the critical tie of marriage to nature, and by doing so, weakens marital norms. By depriving marriage of its connection to gender complementarity and procreation, same-sex marriage confuses the relevance of the other marital norms – monogamy, exclusivity and permanence. It consequently damages the already-suffering institution of marriage by exchanging an institution grounded in the natural connection to family and children with one based simply on personal choice. A weakened marriage culture will ultimately lead to a weakened society.

Same-sex marriage also invites state control over family relationships. Through divorcing marriage from its roots in nature, same-sex marriage makes the institution nothing more than a creation of the state, which can then be used by the state for its own purposes. As biological bonds no longer determine the attachment between parents and children, the state will be required to define and arbitrate parenthood. In addition, as social problems increase from weakened marital norms, government must exert more influence to control those problems.

Conjugal marriage, an exclusive, permanent union between a man and a woman (and the family that might arise from that union), is far and away the least costly, most expedient, least intrusive, and most effective structure for the well-being of society. It is for this reason the state has been, and must continue to be involved in promoting and protecting the institution of marriage, in order to promote the common good and ensure its own future and the future of those it governs.

Read the rest of the series here:

Sources:

Alvare, H. (2011, December 6). “Traditional Family Law: Connecting Marriage With Children”. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4397/

Farrow, D. (2012, Jan/Feb). “Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?”. Touchstone. Retrieved from http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f

Franck, M. (2012, July 30). “Truth and Lies, Nature and Convention: The Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage.” Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5905/

Gallagher, M. (2011, August 23). “Defend Marriage: Moms and Dads Matter”. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/08/3761/

General Assembly of the United Nations (1948, December 10) “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Girgis, S., Anderson, R. & George, R. (2013, February 11). “Marriage and Politics”. E-mail subscription from Ryan T. Anderson of Public Discourse. Can also be downloaded from https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/338682/marriage-and-politics?utm_source=Copy+of+RTA+Bradley+Paradox+of+Persons&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

Lee, P., George, R. & Bradley, G. (2011, March 30). “Marriage and Procreation: Avoiding Bad Arguments”. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637/

Mainwaring, D. (2013, March 20). “Same-Sex Marriage: We’re Playing Chess, Not Checkers”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/

Miller, B. (2012, November 5). “Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons From Canada”. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

Morgan, P. (2006, March 27). “Chapter 2, Sweden: Socialist Engineering in Family Policy”. Family Policy, Family Changes. CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London. Retrieved from http://www.nkmr.org/english/book_tips_sweden_socialist_engineering_in_family_policy.htm

Morgan, P. (2013, March 1). “What Happens to Marriage and Families When the Law Recognises Same-Sex Marriage?” Submission to HoC Marrriage Bill Committee. Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, 3 Whitacre Mews, London SE11. Retrieved from http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301

Morse, J. R. (2012, April 3). “Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State”. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5071/

Tomasson, R. F. “Modern Sweden: The Declining Importance of Marriage”. (1998). Scandinavian Review. Retrieved from http://houstonhs.scsk12.org/~mrobinson/Mr._Robinsons_Web_Site_at_Houston_High_School/Contemporary_Issues_Resource_Page_files/The%20declining%20importance%20of%20marriage.pdf

Warren, C. M. (2012, May 7). “From Sweden Without Love: Domenic Johansson, Homeschooling, Mother India and the Swedish Gulag”. American Daily Herald. Retrieved from http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/christopher-c-m-warren/item/from-sweden-without-love-domenic-johansson-homeschooling-mother-india-and-the-swedish-gulag

Warren, C. M. (2012, August 3). “Why is the Swedish State so Cruel and Heartless?” American Daily Herald. Retrieved from http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/christopher-c-m-warren/item/why-is-the-swedish-state-so-cruel-and-heartless

Westerberg, S. “The Folly of Sweden’s State-Controlled Families.” (1999, June 19). From Homeschooling in Sweden. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/homeschoolinginsweden/sweden—the-next-germany-/state-controlled-children-of-sweden

The Witherspoon Institute (2008, August). “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles”. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CE0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winst.org%2Ffamily_marriage_and_democracy%2FWI_Marriage.pdf&ei=WtoiUc3rOeb4yQGxg4GABA&usg=AFQjCNEU_K0LV0qWWg23JOmn3tzb_xQspw&sig2=0uD9wfUk_8HbguntX7rGHw&bvm=bv.42553238,d.aWc


[1] Alvare, H. (2011, December 6). “Traditional Family Law: Connecting Marriage With Children”. Public Discourse.

[2] General Assembly of the United Nations (1948, December 10) “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

[3] Farrow, D. (2012, Jan/Feb). “Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?”. Touchstone.

[4] Farrow, D. (2012, Jan/Feb). “Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?”. Touchstone.

[5] Mainwaring, D. (2013, March 20). “Same-Sex Marriage: We’re Playing Chess, Not Checkers”. Public Discourse.

[6] The Witherspoon Institute (2008, August). “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles”. Princeton, NJ.

[7] Girgis, S., Anderson, R. & George, R. (2013, February 11). “Marriage and Politics”. E-mail subscription from Ryan T. Anderson of Public Discourse.

[8] Morgan, P. (2006, March 27). “Chapter 2, Sweden: Socialist Engineering in Family Policy”. Family Policy, Family Changes. CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London.

[9] Morgan, P. (2006, March 27). “Chapter 2, Sweden: Socialist Engineering in Family Policy”. Family Policy, Family Changes. CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London.

[10] Morgan, P. (2006, March 27). “Chapter 2, Sweden: Socialist Engineering in Family Policy”. Family Policy, Family Changes. CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London.

[11] Morgan, P. (2006, March 27). “Chapter 2, Sweden: Socialist Engineering in Family Policy”. Family Policy, Family Changes. CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London.

[12] Morgan, P. (2006, March 27). “Chapter 2, Sweden: Socialist Engineering in Family Policy”. Family Policy, Family Changes. CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London.

Morgan, P. (2006, March 27). “Chapter 2, Sweden: Socialist Engineering in Family Policy”. Family Policy, Family Changes. CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London.

[13] Warren, C. M. (2012, May 7). “From Sweden Without Love: Domenic Johansson, Homeschooling, Mother India and the Swedish Gulag”. American Daily Herald.

[14] Westerberg, S. “The Folly of Sweden’s State-Controlled Families.” (1999, June 19). From Homeschooling in Sweden.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *