Is the Traditional Family a “Privatization Scheme”?

by Francisco Gonzalez ~ September 8, 2008

To provide some background on why it is that those on the far left hold such views about marriage, listen to a self-described “progressive” bring the implicit connection between the expansive state and the deconstruction of marriage out of the shadows. New York University Queer Studies Professor Lisa Duggan critiques the marriage promotion portion of welfare reform:

“Women and children… [according to the welfare reform model] should depend on men for basic economic support, while women care for dependents—children, elderly parents, disabled family members, etc. Under such a model-couple households might “relieve” the state of the expense of helping to support single-parent households, and for the cost of a wide range of social services, from childcare and disability services to home nursing. Marriage thus becomes a privatization scheme: Individual married-couple households give women and children access to higher men’s wages, and also, “privately” provide many services once offered through social welfare agencies. More specifically, the unpaid labor of married women fills the gap created by government service cuts.”

This statement brings the statist world view of liberals like Obama out of the closet. The modern progressive view believes that the most basic relationships are not those between husband and wife, parent and child, but between individuals and the state. They believe that the family is not the natural unit of society. For them, the most basic unit of society is not even the libertarian individual, embedded within a complex web of family, business, and social relationships. Rather, the natural unit of society is the naked individual, the isolated individual, standing alone before the state, dependent upon the state.

Describing marriage as a “privatization scheme” implies that the most desirable way to care for a dependent is for the state to provide care. This view seems to be implicit in recent liberal attempts to offer state-sponsored pre-schools and state-sponsored universal health care. An appreciation of voluntary cooperation between men and women, young and old, weak and strong, so natural to the American way, is completely absent from the progressive world view.

This is why it is no accident that the advocates of laissez-faire sexuality, like Barack Obama, are among the most vociferous opponents of laissez-faire economics. Advocates of so-called “same-sex marriage” are quick to point out that civil marriage confers more than 1,049 automatic federal and additional state protections, benefits and responsibilities, according to the federal government’s General Accounting Office. If these governmentally bestowed benefits and responsibilities are indeed the core of marriage, then this package should be equally available to all citizens. It follows that these benefits of marriage should be available to any grouping of individuals, and any size or combination of genders, of any degree of permanence.

The American political tradition does not start with the belief that what the government chooses to bestow or withhold is the essence of any social institution. When we hear students from other countries naively ask, “If the government doesn’t create jobs, how will we ever have any jobs?” most Americans know how to respond. Just because the government employs people and gives away tax money does not mean it “created” jobs. Likewise, the fact that the government gives away bundles of goodies to married couples does not prove that the government created marriage.

Granted, the state may still need to protect, encourage, or support permanence in married couples, just as the state may need to support the sanctity of contracts. The presumption of laissez-faire economics means that the government cannot ignore violations of property rights, contracts, or fair exchange. Enforcing laws and contracts is one of the basic functions of government. With these standards for economic behavior in place, Americans can create wealth and pursue their own interests with little or no additional assistance from the state. Likewise, formal and informal standards and sanctions create the context in which couples can create marriage, with minimal assistance from the state.