The towering mountains surrounding Kananaskis, Alberta lend themselves well to the contemplation of a cornerstone of civilization, the immensity of which has shaped humanity since life began.

Such contemplation was the task before 40-some participants attending the “Illuminating Marriage” conference sponsored by the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture in late May.

The focus of the papers and the discussions that ensued were devoted to the institution of marriage broadly conceived, the confusion over which makes Bill C-38, the bill redefining marriage, merely symptomatic.

Well-known academic figures such as sociologist David Popenoe, his co-presenter, social historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead (both of Rutgers University) and the esteemed theologian/ethicist Don Browning from the University of Chicago set rigorous standards as bookends to the agenda.

These luminaries were complemented by lectures from a wide variety of academic disciplines and representatives of family agencies in the U.S. and Canada. Some spoke from a variety of faith perspectives but others shared their research from no obvious religious tradition at all. This diversity contributed to a scholarly climate that was at once collegial and careful.

As a newcomer to this long-standing debate, I was struck by a number of elements. Great emphasis was placed on the moral obligations we have toward children in our society. Katherine Young (McGill University) and John Miller (University of Waterloo) explained how the weight of anthropological and historical studies shows that marriage emerged early in civilization as the way to provide children with long-term and consistent parentage and protection. The family functioned as the matrix out of which children learn what it means to be truly human.

Margaret Somerville (McGill) pointed out how shifts in terminology from “natural parents” to the proposed “legal parents” threaten to dissolve this organic parent–child bond. The alarming ability of reproductive technologies to disengage the genetic, birth and social function of parents lends itself to further dissolving these natural relations.

If some social theorists and legal experts have their way, Canada will be, in the words Douglas Farrow (McGill) as he reflected on the sentiments of Rousseau, a “nation of bastards” where everyone is born legally a ward of the state.

Often our discussions led to political philosophy and the relationship between family and civil society. David Cere, director of the Institute for the Study of Marriage, argued that even from the perspective of Lockean liberalism—the prevailing political theory of our day—marriage exists prior to the state and the state must recognize this priority. This means policy legislation must exercise a posture of restraint, acknowledging that it is in families that persons are formed to fulfill social roles, including that of citizen. Cere explained that it is possible to be fully liberal and continue to respect the most basic natural relationships that constitute our humanity.

Given the faith commitments of many of the delegates, we wondered together about the ongoing role of religion in public debate. Don Browning pointed out how religion provides humans with the stories and framework to give meaning to their lives and shapes the convictions and beliefs out of which we act. As such, the religious heritage of western civilization cannot be separated from the public meaning of marriage in North American society.

Where the voice of religion is restricted at the outset, unconscious “religious metaphors” continue to permeate even those theories supposedly derived from social scientific data alone, Browning said. All data must be interpreted and the veneer of neutrality only serves to silence legitimate questions about the interpretation of that data.

The “Illuminating Marriage” conference was not intended to resolve the marriage debate. What it did do, however, was to create space for discussion and discernment among those of us who care about the family and who have received the task of contending for it. That task, by the way, is for all of us.

Dustin Resch is the director of Distance Learning for Briercrest College and Seminary and teaches theology. He is particularly interested in the theology of the family and Christian moral discourse in the public realm.