With June comes wedding bells. Though, numerically, the fall recently has overtaken summer as the peak wedding season, June remains a popular, as well as traditional, month for tying the knot. In the next few weeks, most of us will attend a wedding (or three) in a church, garden, home, or courthouse.

Most of these contexts make sense for such a ceremony. Christians (and many other faiths) see the institution as established by God and thus to be solemnized in houses of worship. A garden gives a beautiful backdrop for the special moment. A home provides a context both sentimental and familiar, the abode of an established family facilitating the creation of a new one.

The last venue, a courthouse, creates the most pause. Why would a courthouse ever come to mind for such an event? But a courthouse displays that, regardless of venue, marriage is a contract defined and regulated by law. Even if you do not get married on its steps, you still must enter that courthouse beforehand to obtain the marriage license.

Some think this should not be the case at all. In the lead-up and aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, many , especially libertarians , sought to privatize marriage. They argued that we should leave it to the individuals or non-governmental institutions involved to engage in and define it for themselves.

That argument largely faded as the new legal order settled into power. Still, we continue to debate the public, legal role for marriage. We now debate the legitimacy of polyamorous relationships or whether Jack Phillips in Colorado must bake cakes in celebration of gay marriages or Lori Smith must serve as a photographer at same-sex weddings.

We can’t quit these discussions because we can’t follow the libertarian dream of privatizing matrimony. To understand this point, we should think of the institution from the perspective of citizens, not just as friends, family, and co-workers. We should think of its public purposes, not just private or religious goals.

Marriage remains one of the greatest educators of citizens. The rules and conventions of a household comprise one of the most formative schools for “We the people.” How concepts such as equality, liberty, virtue, and law get treated within the family unit establishes a ground for how persons will see them in the public sphere. The original platform of the Republican Party in 1856 expressed opposition to “those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.” Polygamy, they argued, taught the same principles as slavery. They modeled and thus inculcated tyranny and servitude rather than the self-governing virtues of republican citizenship.

We also must remember how the Declaration of Independence defines the purpose of government as securing natural rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Marriage constitutes a context wherein some of the greatest realizations or violations of these rights can take place. A healthy marriage can greatly enhance one’s life, be a fruitful exercise of liberty, and a centerpiece of temporal happiness. An abusive marriage can result in death, physical abuse, and emotional misery. Government thus has a great obligation to regulate the nature of marriages and conduct within them to ensure the protection of its citizens.

Finally, historically, most of human civilization also made marriage a legal institution due to the potential for the begetting of children. Though that has become less central in our day, it still remains the norm for the majority of marriages.

This is as it should be. The public has a deep interest in children. Without them, our civilization would die out. The state thus has an interest in their creation and their continuation. It also has an interest in their education, since the values they learn in the home will redound to the public sphere. There certainly are limits to the government’s role in children’s education since the primary responsibility remains with parents. Still, the state does have some role, especially to ensure against neglect and abuse that, as in bad marriages, threaten the life, liberty, and happiness of citizens, however small.

In this month of weddings, let us celebrate the new nuptials on personal, familial, and religious grounds. But let us think as citizens, too, about the public import of this institution, one so essential for the continuation and well-being of our society.

Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.