“We observe [the impossibility of neutrality in government] perhaps most clearly in the question of marriage and the status of women. Here, too, opinions completely diverge. In one perspective, man and woman are only two names for what we commonly call human being, and because there must not be inequality between one person and another, no distinction between the two is warranted. Conceptually, then, marriage is something that cannot be permitted to persist. Or, if we still want to call it marriage, it is in fact nothing other than a contractual agreement between two equal individuals that in no case may be binding any longer than they themselves want it to be. Nor may such contractual living together be considered more honorable than living together without contract. In this way, “free divorce” and “free love” stand on the same level as marriage. With this the foundation of the family collapses, and the care for the children falls to the state. Diametrically opposed to this new—or, in fact, warmed-over pagan--thinking stands the other view, which acknowledges an essential difference between man and woman, sees marriage as arising from this essential difference, permits divorce only in very specific cases, and places—thanks to the permanent character of marriage—the children under the care not of the state but of the parents. How is government to remain neutral in this? And is it not clear that “neutrality” would in fact mean being partial to the first perspective? If the government is not involved with marriage and does not regulate its permanence and its consequences, then the men and women who advocate “free love” get what they want. Their will and desire become the law of the state, and marriage acquires the character of a private pastime. Here then a choice must be made and is always made. Government, if it is responsible in its choice, must know why it chooses the first over against the second approach.”--pg. 207
"The same must be said of the matter of public decency. To a greater or lesser degree, everyone still expects that the government will maintain a measure of decency in the public realm. Order and safety are not enough. Human honor must govern the public realm, and it is simply contrary to any notion of the role of government for it to allow human beings to live like animals. But, of course, in order to maintain “decency,” government must have a conception of what is honorable and what is not. Here, too, “neutrality” would be nothing but surrendering all decency, and the most shameless individual would attempt to have his base instincts become the law of the land." pg. 209, Common Grace Vol. III
