The Battle for the Family and the Future of Freedom

Keynote Address of the Hon. William Wagner Presented to Right to Life Michigan March 18, 2026

We are in the midst of a defining moment in our nation's history. This is not merely a healthcare policy dispute. It is not merely a disagreement about education. It is not merely a clash between political parties. It is a battle over truth itself. It is a battle over whether marriage means what God ordained it to mean. Whether procreation remains a sacred gift rather than a matter of state management. Whether children belong under the loving authority of parents or under the ideological supervision of government.

And let me be clear from the beginning. When government presumes the authority to sexually confuse, morally form, medically redirect, or spiritually undermine children without the knowledge and consent of parents, government has crossed a line it has no right to cross. That is not education. That is not neutrality. That is not compassion. That is usurpation. And when that usurpation is hidden from mothers and fathers, it is not merely wrong. It is a direct assault on the family, on the Constitution, and on the created order itself. We are told that these developments are progress. We are told they are inclusive. We are told that parents who object are fearful, intolerant, or outdated. But truth does not become falsehood because the culture mocks it. And falsehood does not become truth because the institutions bless it.

So today I want to speak plainly. Boldly, yes. But also faithfully. Because Scripture commands us to speak the truth with compassion, respect, and in love. Love does not lie. Love does not surrender children to confusion. Love does not remain silent while government officials hide life-altering decisions from parents. Love tells the truth, protects the vulnerable, and resists evil with courage.

And that is where we stand.

The Family Is Not a Government Creation

The first truth we must recover is this: the family is not a creation of the state. Government did not create marriage. Government did not invent parenthood. Government did not author the natural bond between mother, father, and child. Long before there was an American republic, before there were constitutions, legislatures, bureaucracies, or school boards, there was the created order. In that order, God made man and woman. He joined them in marriage. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. And He entrusted to parents the responsibility to raise their children.

That means marriage, procreation, and parental authority are not political conveniences. They are foundational realities built into the moral design of human existence. The Founders understood this.

The common law reflected it. Natural law reason confirmed it. And for much of our history, American jurisprudence respected it. Why? Because a free society depends on the truth that some things are pre-political. Some rights do not come from rulers.  Some institutions do not depend on government permission. Some duties are so basic, so sacred, so woven into creation itself, that government exists not to redefine them, but to protect them. That is the essence of what I've called the unalienable worldview. And once a nation abandons that worldview, everything begins to unravel.

Marriage, Procreation, and Child-Rearing Belong Together

The cultural revolution has worked very hard to separate what God joined together. It has severed marriage from procreation. It has severed sex from responsibility. It has severed children from parental authority. And now it seeks to sever identity itself from biological reality.

But the truth remains whole even when the culture fragments it. Marriage is not merely a romantic arrangement. It is the covenantal institution that binds man and woman together as the natural foundation for family life. Procreation is not merely a byproduct of human desire. It is part of God’s design for the continuation of life and the flourishing of society. And children are not self-creating, self-governing autonomous units to be shaped by bureaucrats, therapists, activist teachers, or ideological administrators. They are sons and daughters entrusted by God first to parents. That is why the law historically treated these matters as profoundly connected.

The Supreme Court once recognized this plainly. In Maynard v. Hill, marriage was described as “the most important relation in life.” In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Court said marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. In Loving v. Virginia, the Court acknowledged marriage as one of the basic civil rights of man.

Whatever else later courts did, those earlier recognitions were rooted in a truth the modern age wants to escape: 1) marriage and procreation are not morally empty; 2) They are not infinitely malleable; and 3) They are not whatever autonomous desire wishes they are. They are part of an objective order. And once the law loses sight of that order, it soon loses sight of the child.

The Child Is Not the Mere Creature of the State

That brings us to the central issue today: parental rights. There are few lines in American constitutional law more important than this one from Pierce v. Society of Sisters, “The child is not the mere creature of the State.” That sentence should be engraved in every courtroom, every legislature, and every school board office in America. Because that sentence answers the crisis of our time. The child is not the state’s creature. Not the school district’s creature. Not the counselor’s creature. Not the ideology’s creature. The child is a human being made in the image of God, born into a family, entrusted first to parents.

For generations, the Supreme Court recognized that parents possess a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. In Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court protected the right of parents to control their children’s education. In Pierce, it rejected the state’s effort to force all children into government schools. In Prince, it recognized that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents. In Yoder, it reaffirmed the primary role of parents in the upbringing and religious formation of their children. In Troxel, it called parental authority perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Court. That is not a weak tradition. That is not an incidental footnote in constitutional history. That is a mighty constitutional inheritance.

And it rests on a moral truth that any fit parent instinctively knows. Parents are naturally, morally, and ordinarily best equipped to raise their children. Not perfectly. Not infallibly. But rightly. The law has long presumed this because it reflects reality. After you child was born and you held him or her for the very first time, you knew at that very moment whom God ha entrusted to control and direct the upbringing of that child; And you knew that person was not a local, state, national, or UN bureaucrat. A mother and father do not need a state-issued moral license to love their child. They do not need bureaucratic certification to know that their son is a boy and their daughter is a girl. They do not need ideological approval to protect their child’s innocence. And they certainly do not need government permission to object when school officials try to shape their child’s moral identity behind their backs.

What Is Happening in the Schools Is a Direct Assault on Parental Authority

We must stop speaking cautiously about what is happening. Government authorities in some schools are facilitating sexual transition, social transition, pronoun manipulation, secrecy policies, and identity formation practices involving minor children without parental knowledge or consent. That is not merely educational overreach. It is a direct challenge to parental sovereignty over child-rearing. These officials are not simply teaching math, grammar, science, or literature. They intervene in the most intimate sphere of family life, the formation of the child’s identity, morality, sexuality, and worldview. And in many cases they do so deliberately while excluding the very people God and nature entrusted with that responsibility. This is the logic of the modern managerial state. Parents are obstacles. Ancient moral truths are oppressive. Biology is negotiable. And children are to be emancipated from the convictions of their families by enlightened institutional actors.

But let us say what this really is. It is the replacement of parental authority with state-sponsored ideological formation. It is the state stepping into the role of moral tutor, spiritual counselor, and identity engineer. And it is profoundly dangerous. Why dangerous? Because children are impressionable. Because judgment matures slowly. Because adolescence is not wisdom. Because confusion is not liberation. Because secrecy breeds harm. Because false compassion can do permanent damage.

A civilization that tells children they are mature enough to reject their parents’ moral guidance but not mature enough to buy cough medicine without restrictions has abandoned reason. A government that hides a child’s sexual confusion from loving parents while treating those parents as threats has inverted justice. And a school that undermines the family is not serving the child. It is exploiting the child.

The Bible Speaks Clearly, and the Church Must Not Whisper

We should not be embarrassed to say what Scripture says. God established the family. God commands children to honor father and mother. God instructs parents to raise children in the training and admonition of the Lord. God does not assign this duty to Caesar. From Abraham, to Moses, to Proverbs, to the Gospels, to the letters of Paul, the biblical witness is clear. Parents hold a sacred duty to direct the upbringing of their children. Proverbs says, “Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching.” Paul says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” And in Luke, even Jesus in His humanity was obedient to Mary and Joseph.

The family is not a disposable social arrangement. It is part of God’s ordained means of transmitting truth, wisdom, discipline, and faith, from one generation to the next. That is precisely why the family is under attack. Because whoever forms the child shapes the future. If parents remain the primary moral educators of their children, the state’s power is limited. If the church and the family remain strong, ideological revolution meets resistance. If fathers and mothers continue to transmit truth, then the lie cannot fully reign. So of course the family is targeted. And of course the citizenry must speak. A silent citizenry in a moment like this is not compassionate. It is cowardly.

Natural Law Confirms What Fit Parents Already Know

Even apart from Scripture, reason confirms the same truth. Even before the founding of our nation, Natural law thinkers understood that children come into the world weak, dependent, vulnerable, and in need of formation. They recognized that parents are uniquely fitted for this work by affection, duty, proximity, and natural design. John Locke taught that parental authority exists for the good of the child. Pufendorf recognized that children lack the judgment necessary to govern themselves and therefore require parental direction. Adam Smith acknowledged the deep tenderness nature places in parents for their offspring. Grotius understood that parental authority varies with the maturity of the child, but begins with total dependence.

This is simple common sense. Children are not born ready for life. They must be taught. Formed. Corrected. Protected. Disciplined or taught in love. Prepared for freedom by learning responsibility. That is what parents do. And this is why the modern move to elevate government preference under the guise of child preference over parental judgment is so destructive. It mistakes immaturity for wisdom and dependence for self-sufficiency.

To be sure, a child’s feelings matter. A child’s dignity matters. A child’s fears matter. But a child’s transient perception cannot be the final authority over medical, moral, educational, or spiritual decisions of irreversible consequence. Parents are to guide children toward maturity, not surrender them to passing confusion promoted by a governing regime.

The “Best Interests of the Child” Used as a Weapon Against the Family

One of the most dangerous phrases in modern law is "the best interests of the child." In principle, every decent person wants what is best for children. But when that phrase is detached from the natural family, from moral truth, and from constitutional limits, it becomes a weapon. Who decides what is in the child’s best interests? A judge? A social worker? A school administrator? A U.N. committee? A therapist shaped by ideology? A government agency with political incentives?

Historically in America, the state intervened in the child’s “best interests” only when parents had forfeited their role through abuse, neglect, or danger. That is a narrow and proper principle. But modern legal regimes increasingly use “best interests” to place fit parents in the same legal posture as abusive parents whenever officials simply disagree with parental judgment. That is not child protection. That government subordination of the family.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child embodies this danger. It shifts the center of gravity away from parental primacy and toward state-supervised child autonomy. It elevates the child’s voice against the family and empowers international actors to second-guess the natural authority of parents. That is not a model America should embrace. We do not need U.N. bureaucrats to explain what any loving mother already knows. We do not need international committees to teach us that a father’s duty is to protect his children. And we do not need international theories of child autonomy to dismantle the oldest and most fundamental human institution.

Worldviews Collide

At bottom, this is not just about doctrine or policy. It is about worldview. One worldview says rights are unalienable because they come from God. The other says rights are constructs, managed and redefined by those who hold power. One worldview says the family is prior to the state. The other says the family is useful only so long as it aligns with state-approved norms. One worldview says freedom must be tethered to truth and responsibility. The other says freedom means self-definition unconstrained by moral order. One worldview protects the child by strengthening the family. The other claims to protect the child by weakening the family. That is the collision. And once a society abandons the unalienable worldview, there is no principled stopping point. If marriage can be redefined, if procreation can be severed from moral order, if parental authority can be displaced by institutions, if identity can be detached from the body, then liberty itself becomes unmoored from truth.

And liberty unmoored from truth does not remain liberty for long. It becomes license. Then confusion. Then coercion. Then bondage. That is always the path.

Mahmoud and the Reminder That Parents Still Matter

One reason recent parental-rights battles matter so much is that they reveal the fault line clearly. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court confronted a school system that required young children to be exposed to material contradicting their parents’ religious beliefs about gender and sexuality, while also withholding notice and denying opt-outs. The principle at stake was not obscure. It was the ancient American principle reaffirmed in Yoder. The state may not force parents to surrender the religious formation of their children as the price of receiving public education. The Court recognized that when government requires children to undergo instruction that threatens to undermine the faith and moral convictions parents seek to instill, it burdens the free exercise of religion.

That matters. Because public schools are not sovereign over the conscience. The state cannot purchase ideological compliance by offering education. And parental rights do not evaporate at the schoolhouse door. If parents choose public education, they delegate a function. They do not abdicate authority. That distinction is crucial. A school may assist parents. It may not replace them. A teacher may instruct a child. He may not assume dominion over the child’s soul. An administrator may enforce order. She may not secretly steer a child into moral rebellion against his family.

Compassion Requires Clarity

Now let me say a word about compassion. We must be compassionate toward children who are confused. Compassionate toward families who are hurting. Compassionate even toward those who oppose us, because every person bears the image of God.

But compassion is not the surrender of truth. It is not compassionate to tell a child that confusion is identity. It is not compassionate to hide devastating decisions from parents. It is not compassionate to turn schools into clinics of ideological experimentation. It is not compassionate to treat moral dissent as harm while calling actual moral harm affirmation. Compassion divorced from truth becomes cruelty with a smile. Real compassion protects children from manipulation. Real compassion honors the bonds of family. Real compassion tells the truth about the human person. Real compassion refuses to sacrifice innocence on the altar of ideology.

So yes, we must be kind. Yes, we must be patient. Yes, we must be respectful. But we must also be unafraid. Because this moment does not call for timid whispers. It calls for moral clarity.

What Must Be Said, and What Must Be Done

We must say again, without apology that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Children are a blessing, not a burden. A mother is not a state surrogate. A father is not a constitutional afterthought.

Boys are boys. Girls are girls. Parents, not bureaucrats, have the primary right and duty to direct the upbringing of their children. And we must insist that the Constitution means what it long meant in this regard. Parental rights are fundamental, and government infringements upon them demand the highest level of judicial scrutiny. No school policy should survive if it hides life-altering information from parents. No state action should be tolerated if it intentionally undermines the religious formation of children. No court should treat fit parents as presumptively incompetent while treating ideological institutions as presumptively benevolent.

The burden is not on parents to prove they deserve their children. The burden is on government to justify every intrusion into the family. That is constitutional order. That is moral sanity. That is justice.

Let me close here. The family is the first government. The first school. The first church a child ever knows. It is where love learns duty, where freedom learns responsibility, and where truth is first named and lived. When government wages war against that institution, it wages war against the very conditions of liberty.

So we must not yield. Not in fear. Not in fatigue. Not because the culture sneers. Not because the institutions threaten. Not because the lie is fashionable. We stand because truth is still truth. We stand because children deserve protection. We stand because parents have duties no government may erase. We stand because God has spoken. And we stand because freedom itself depends on whether the family remains free.

So let us speak.

Let us defend.

Let us pray.

Let us litigate, if necessary

Let us legislate.

Let us teach.

Let us disciple.

Let us raise children in truth.

And let us do it with courage, conviction, and love.

Because the child is not the mere creature of the state. And the family does not belong to Caesar.