Why is government in the marriage business?

A federal judge answered that question Aug. 8 consistently with how it’s long been answered: Government can "rationally conclude that, other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex."

The court was right and in line with what most Americans believe. Hawaii’s law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman can and does exist for good and rational reasons. It doesn’t exist to unlawfully "discriminate" against anyone. This is especially true in light of how long the existing definition of marriage has been understood by societies everywhere.

Because of this, the court ruled in accordance with how it is duty-bound to rule in such circumstances, saying that "as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional."

In other words, it is not the job of judges and courts to impose a redefinition of marriage on everyone else. When 62 percent of Americans and 32 states, including Hawaii, define marriage as one man and one woman, the court is correct that it should not engage in "judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation."

But don’t people have a right to "marry the person they love," as we’re so used to hearing? Again, the court got this right by pointing out that "there is a difference between the individual interests in marriage and the social or public interests in marriage." It’s a critical distinction.

When two people apply for a marriage license, the government doesn’t ask them to prove their love for each other, their capacity to find happiness together, or even their ability to make a certain amount of money.

That’s because, at its core, the public purpose of marriage in a society is to promote the continued existence of that society. Therefore, marriage laws exist because children are the natural product of sexual relationships between men and women, and both fathers and mothers are important for children. That’s the reason diverse cultures and faiths have recognized marriage between a man and a woman as the best way to promote healthy families and societies.

The fact that some couples don’t have children doesn’t change this. The government makes laws to serve the greatest good for a society. It simply isn’t possible to change the rules for every potential exception. A driver may be able to drive safely at 10 miles an hour over the speed limit, and another may drive dangerously at 10 miles an hour under it, but that doesn’t mean the state can or should accommodate its speed limit laws for every potential difference in drivers. And it doesn’t mean that the speed limit laws are wrongfully discriminating against anyone.

Likewise, study after study has demonstrated that the best possible environment for children is a stable home with a mother and father. But advocates for redefining marriage are asking society to ignore the unique and demonstrable differences between men and women: no mothers or fathers — just generic parents. But as an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney testified before Congress in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last year, "there are no generic people. We are composed of two complementary, but different, halves of humanity."

The 9th Circuit will likely hear the Hawaii case on appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to hear other marriage cases — most notably the lawsuit over California’s marriage amendment and another lawsuit challenging the DOMA. We hope that these courts will use the same sound reasoning that the district court used in the Hawaii case.

As that court said: "It is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure."

James Hochberg is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney and local counsel for Hawaii Family Forum in its defense of Hawaii’s marriage laws in federal court. He previously served as one of seven commissioners on the Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law.