Doug Kmiec on the Colbert Report

Doug Kmiec was on the Colbert Report recently. He was there to get some publicity for his book, entitled "Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama".

I shared Colbert's initial thought, "I assume it's a very short book, and the answer is no". I'm not sure if Colbert really believes that (I pray to the Lord that he does), but Colbert's Catholic authenticity is a question for another time.

The interview focused on the issue of gay marriage, and Kmiec presented his view that government should remove themselves entirely from the business of marriage. His opinion is that marriage is a matter of faith, like baptism and confirmation, and therefore should be handled by religious institutions. In this scenario, the government would no longer provide marriage but instead merely provide the legal/contractual benefits of what we typically call marriage in the form of civil unions, which would be open to all people, and include same-sex couples.

Kmiec states that state has an interest in officially recognizing "some relationships" (marriage) in order to make sure that society is well organized. I agree with him here. However, he goes on to say that the state's interest is just that "property is owned properly, that it's distributed well at death, that people can make decisions for each other in health circumstances".

Colbert correctly jumps in to note that while those are all benefits that come along with marriage, the state's REAL interest in supporting and recognizing marriage is the fact that the union of a man and a woman is the only way in which we can reproduce our society. We can have all the laws making sure that property is passed on correctly at death, but it will do no good if we have no one to pass it on to.

This is where my real issue with those who would seek to compromise with those in favor of gay marriage lies. Many intelligent people with good-intentions see getting the government out of the business of marriage as a good way to give our homosexual brothers and sisters "equality", and still retain our sacred institution of marriage.

Colbert also correctly points out that if all government does is provide contractual and legal unions to couples, then why should they not provide these same benefits to larger groups (for example, polygamous unions)? Many do not see that the same stigma that they have for polygamous unions is akin to the reservations many have about homosexual ones.

Marriage is not a right, it's a vocation. Not all are called to marriage. If the government decided that they were no longer going to provide marriage, to anyone, I would not say that I have had a right taken away from me. However, the government does have many good reasons to recognize and provide incentives for marrying, and I would fight on the basis that I believe they should continue to do so, in the best interest of the nation. The basic family unit, a man, a woman, and their children, is the most basic building block of any successful society. To alter that is to alter the very foundations that civilization rests upon.

The United States is the only Western nation at replacement rate, and just barely. Do we really want to follow the example of Europe, as so many in our country think we should? These are the nations that have lost their history, lost their faith, and are now losing their citizens. I don't think that's a good model for the United States.

So no, I do not believe that government should get out of the business of marriage. I believe the government should continue to be a firm supporter of this sacred and ancient institution, as it was in the past. Only through strong pro-life and pro-family policies can we secure a future for our great nation. To aim for anything less is to aim for national suicide.