The State’s obligation towards the Family

In modern America, we have an implicit social sentiment that tells us marriage is a deeply personal, individual decision in pursuit of happiness.  Almost everyone abhors governmental overreach into our family lives, and we all demand that decisions pertaining to the family be in the hands of the family.  There is a sharp contrast, though, in what this translates to for each citizen.  For some, this translates to things such as “the government ought to have no say in matters of bodily autonomy.”  Others are fine with such apparent impositions of government, but decry such things as forcing education requirements on families.  In short, it seems as though everyone agrees the government has no place imposing itself on the family, but simultaneously does allow for some level of governmental regulation.  This begs the question: is the family owed complete autonomy, or does the state have a legitimate right to a say in matter of family life?  As usual, the truth is a little of both.

Though we spend a lot of energy talking about rights as pertains to individuals, individual rights really stem from the family.  It is a community of love and solidarity, in which the flourishing of personhood in relation to other persons is the focus.  Because of this, the family is the society where, at the smallest level of human interaction, the rights of the person is central.  In other words, only in the family is the needs of each individual person truly seen, encountered, and met.  Any other program is merely a tool or a best-attempt replacement for the encounter with personhood that is in the family.

It is important to note that marriage and the family is not as private of an institution as we Americans would like to think.  The state has a vested interest in families that are healthy, happy, functioning, and oriented properly, because “the family, a natural society, exists prior to the State or any other community (charter of family rights, preamble, D).”  When the family operates as it should (oriented towards upholding the flourishing of every individual person), the State and society at large also operates as it should.  Because of this, “society, and in a particular manner the State and International Organizations, must protect the family through measures of a political, economic, social and juridical character, which aim at consolidating the unity and stability of the family so that it can exercise its specific function (preamble, I).”  This is the first thing the family is owed: protection from the State, so that it can operate according to its nature without fear of danger, death, or catastrophe.

There is a certain level of autonomy owed to the family.  If the family is truly to function as a society aimed at the needs of each individual member, then it must be free to address the needs of those members.  Thus, the family is owed a guaranteed freedom in matters of its composition, formation, growth, and education.  In other words, a family must be free right from its inception.  Articles 2-7 of the charter for family rights lists these out progressively, beginning with the assertion that citizens must be free to marry the eligible person whom they choose.  The family oriented towards life must be free to have children, and those children have a right to life and to have their needs met.  The family must be free to educate all of the family members at the rate and according to the needs of those members.  Likewise, the formation of the person must be an inalienable right of the family.  In short, if the family is to be oriented towards life, existence, and personhood, the family must be guaranteed the ability to focus on the person.

The family predates the State, and is the rightful beneficiary of the State’s protection and support.  In many ways, the needs of the family rightly override the needs of the individual in a properly formed State.  The State has no competence in addressing the needs of an individual; it can only see the needs of the many.  Thus, ensuring the freedom and guaranteeing the economic, social, and political support the family needs to survive is the most personalistic action the State is required to take.  Attempts at the State level to address the needs of the individual necessarily place the State in place of the family.  The sad state of affairs is that sometimes, the State must intervene and take the place of the family.  It is paramount, however, that these interventions are seen for what they are: at best a temporary band-aid, and at worst an attempt at systemically replacing the family for a State.