(#3) A Call for Consistency: American Government Should Gear Policies Toward Children, Not Marriage

Introduction

For years, the American government has used legal and economic incentives to encourage and reward marriage in our society, on the basis that the institution fosters the most stable environment for childrearing and family development. By allocating over $150 million per year to promoting marriage and by designating over 400 state and 1000 federal rights, benefits, and protections exclusively to that institution, the government aims to encourage couples to get and stay married.

But criticizing alternative environments’ inferior conduciveness to rearing healthy children—after denying their so-called underprivileged children the protections and benefits it offers to children via married parents—reflects circular reasoning. Since doing so inevitably hinders alternatives from so much as an opportunity to compare with the marital environment, reasoning behind current American policies begs the question of whether or not marriage is even the ideal institution for successful American family development.

If American policymakers’ true intention is to promote the wellbeing of children, they appear to be taking the wrong approach. Instead of designating exclusive benefits to an institution (i.e. marriage) indirectly associated with childrearing on the mere basis that it seems most conducive for it, they should instead direct policies toward all institutions in which childrearing occurs (e.g. cohabitant, same-sex, and single parenting). They should gear their policies toward making any existing situation that children are growing up in as conducive as possible to healthy childrearing.

Literature Review

Based on the 1996 finding that “Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children,” the Bush administration passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, providing $150 million per year to the promotion of healthy marriages and fatherhood.[1]

"Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures . . . By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home."[2]

Republican Kansas Senator Sam Brownback wrote a commentary expressing similar views as the above, spoken by President George W. Bush. In it, he declares that the government treats heterosexual unions with special interest over any other relationship because doing so “ensures a stable environment for the raising and nurturing of children.”[3] The value in promoting stable marriages between biological parents stems from understanding that children raised by single parents, step-families, or cohabiting couples face higher risks of poor developmental success. He further asserts, “Redefining marriage is certain to harm children and the broader social good.”[4]

But BeyondMarriage.org includes a statement on its website calling for American policy to acknowledge other familial forms besides marriage and include policies geared toward all families and relationships. The organization’s overall aim is to influence strengthening of security and stability of diverse family structures, in recognition that “families and relationships know no borders and will never slot narrowly into a single existing template.” It points out that U.S. Census findings inform us every year that diverse households are already the norm in our country, as the majority of citizens do not live in traditional nuclear families. Therefore, their statement insists that with this growing indication that marriage is not the only family form worth acknowledging, it should not be legally and economically privileged above other forms, which currently endure disservice due to their subordinate status to marriage:

All families, relationships, and households struggling for stability and economic security will be helped by separating basic forms of legal and economic recognition from the requirement of marital and conjugal relationship.[5]

Discussion

President Bush’s above claim that, “Research has shown that, on average, households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures,” is not indicative of a reason to benefit marriage over other institutions as he asserts. It is, instead, indicative of a reason to benefit the alternative institutions in which children are inevitably and increasingly being raised.

A 2002 study, by Robert Lerman of Urban Institute, did find that married parents overall met fewer hardships and had a less difficult time overcoming the hardships they did meet, than did any other families with children. Even among the poor, married families with children faced material hardships at a substantially lower rate than any other, even when all couples compared were at or below the poverty line, even when the parents in either familial structure lacked a high school diploma, and even when the alternatives to marriage included two incomes.[6]

However, crediting greater financial success in childrearing to an institution that currently receives more aid than any other begs the question of whether or not that particular institution is most conducive to childrearing. Rather than prove that marriage really is more conducive to childrearing than any alternative, these and similar findings signify cause and effect ambiguities.

It's possible that the correlation between marriage and the ability to overcome financial hardship does not necessarily result from the institution of marriage itself, but from the opportunities that the rights and benefits the government associates it with make more feasible. We must realize that the possibility exists that the many rights and benefits already associated with marriage are the very reason these unions are (allegedly) so much more successful in childrearing—not vice versa. Undoubtedly, a positive correlation exists between marriage and successful childrearing, but the root of the cause and effect chain—especially relative to alternative institutions— remains unclear until we can strip away the privileges and extra resources now associated with marriage, and determine who fares best in childrearing then.

Furthermore, the question of whether or not marriage truly is the most conducive structure for childrearing is not only unsettled—it is ultimately irrelevant. If the government truly aims to promote the wellbeing of children by providing and encouraging stable environments for them to grow up in, regardless of what institution is most stable for them to grow up in, or allegedly best for them, the presence of allegedly “lesser” alternatives will remain. Policies should not penalize children of those “lesser” alternatives for the circumstances imposed on them, but should instead cater to their needs to ensure they are provided for as maximally as possible.

One might argue that both the claimed conduciveness of marriage and the exclusivity of its legal benefits are important since part of the reason the legal benefits for marriage exist is not to benefit children directly, but to counter the decline in marriage, which would ultimately land America’s children in the maximally beneficial institution. In the eyes of this hypothetical idealist, the children will gain more when the benefits finally shift the trends in their favor, than they would gain if the government directly provides a crutch for whatever insufficient alternative institution he might otherwise grow up in.

My response to that potential insistence, that the perks will bring marriage back in favor, is brief: it won’t, because it hasn’t. And there’s nothing in our society that indicates any chance that it will. If the plan was, in fact, to incite a shift in the trends by designating economic incentives to the favored institution, then the plan has failed miserably and it’s time to set a new one in motion. Despite the thousands of economic benefits associated, the decline in marriage persists while cohabitation, divorce, and unmarried childrearing increases.[7]

Over the span of 1990 and 2002, marriage rates decreased in 47 of our 50 states,[8] carrying on the trend of the decrease in the U.S. marriage rate by a third between 1970 and 1996. Meanwhile, the rate of unmarried, cohabiting couples grew nearly tenfold between 1960 and 1998[9]; divorce rates more than quadrupled between 1970 and 1996[10]; and between 1965 and 2002, the number of births outside of marriage has risen from 12% to 33%[11].

At the root of these statistical trends lie societal and historical trends that compounded to incite them. According to the co-directors of the National Marriage Project, the emergence of birth control that eliminated worry of pregnancy from sexual relations; women’s dramatic entry into the workforce; growing postponement of marriage until both partners become more settled and established financially and career-wise; and the shift in marriage for love instead of economic stability, allowing couples to marry voluntarily and for pleasure instead of obligatorily and for economic stability—all contributed, along with other factors over time, to the growing decrease in marriage.

It seems clear from these causes that have become ingrained in our society, that ignoring current trends in favor of benefiting a preferred ideal (i.e. marriage) is not going to make them disappear, or even decrease significantly. Again, if the ultimate concern regards America’s children, the focus of related policies should be on them and not on the union to which they’ve been subjected. Yet our government continues to hinder the potential childrearing success of any institution other than marriage.

Our government especially steps on its own toes when it comes to the gay marriage debate. Aiming to promote marriage, yet excluding a slew of couples who wish to take advantage of it on the basis that they don’t fit the traditional mold of man and woman, is possibly the most blatantly contradictory stance the government has taken in the matter or promoting marriage and healthy childrearing.

Whether same-sex couples fit that mold or not, Census 2000 findings reflect a reality that politicians and policymakers seem to intentionally ignore: Same-sex couples are raising children in at least 96% of all U.S. counties. And not only are 25% of all same-gender couples raising children, but they also have a significantly better rate of lasting commitment to one another than do heterosexual unmarried couples who are raising children. According to the findings of a 2006 study conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 41.1% of childrearing same-sex partners have been together 5+ years, compared to only 19.9% of heterosexual childrearing unmarried couples.[12] Thus, if the government so strongly believes that marriage would strengthen the environments for the children of heterosexual cohabitating partners, the same would be true for the many children that unmarried same-sex couples are raising throughout the country. Personal beliefs and so-called tradition do not change the fact that same-sex couples are raising children; and if the concern is with the best possible environment to bring children up in, then the government has no room to discriminate against this group of parents.

Again, I state these findings to call attention to our policymakers’ lack of consistency in pursuit of their so-called goal to strengthen American childrearing homes. In order to emphasize the need for reconsideration and consistency in our policies, it is important to point out such contradictions between our government’s stated aim and their actual course of action.

By excluding a large number of the very people who seek to solidify their union via marriage—our government’s “solution” of choice—the government screeches inconsistency with their alleged concern with the wellbeing of children. The blatant exclusions of committed same-sex partners who seek the allegedly stable, familial-conducive environment of marriage seem boldly counterproductive to Bush’s alleged cause of “seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home.” One would think that if legal marriage yields the healthiest children, then Bush would be furthering his cause by legalizing same-sex marriage and thus making the associated securities available to the increasing number of children being raised by same-sex parents.

More findings of the study emphasize success in childrearing by same-sex parents. The researchers note, in their context for their own findings, that “…few differences have been found in research conducted over the last 3 decades comparing same-sex versus heterosexual parents’ levels of self-esteem, psychological adjustment, and attitudes toward child rearing.”[13] Their study, along with others, consistently failed to observe any differences between children raised in either circumstance, in regard to measures of personality, peer-group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success, or warmth and quality of family relationships.

The same study found that same-sex couples had more childrearing success than single parents:

…parents who raised children alone reported greater stress, increased severity of parent-child conflicts, and less warmth, enjoyment of parenting, and imaginative play than did parents in a couple relationship, whether lesbian or heterosexual. Teachers reported more behavioral problems among children in single-parent families than among children who had 2 parents in the home irrespective of their sexual orientation.[14]

Yet despite these and other findings that same-sex unions provide an environment just as stable and conducive to childrearing—if not more—as do unions between heterosexual parents, our policies continue to deprive same-sex parents of so much as the option of taking advantage of the rights and protections that serve to benefit children of married couples.

Again, I say all that to highlight the inconsistencies in our government’s current policy of rewarding marriage to strengthen childrearing environments, not to say that all families should have access to the institution in order to do so. I still maintain that the policies should focus on the children themselves, separate from the institutions in which they are raised.

The best way to encourage more stable childrearing environments all-around would be to end the indirect associations of beneficial policies for children through marriage, and instead designate them directly to any circumstance actually involving the upbringing of children. By strengthening any institution on the basis that children are involved, and not simply on the basis of a marriage, the government is much more likely to successfully encourage healthier, happier, more stable environments for our country’s children, across the board.

Terence Dougherty explored financial circumstances of real and hypothetical same-sex couples, comparing them to the possibilities that access to the same rights as married couples currently could offer them in comparison. By imagining the presence of children in their circumstances, and by broadening the context of the deprived individuals we’re considering beyond same-sex couples to any unmarried couple with children, be it a matter of cohabitation or single parenthood, we should be able to understand the effect these discriminatory benefits could have if refocused toward children instead of marriage. What parents would actually use the lost or gained funds for is irrelevant; the point to understand is the extent to which parents that our current policies penalize could gear their money toward increasing their children’s financial resources for food, shelter, clothing, education, etc.

The General Case
Dougherty first references a couple that must file their taxes separately, unlike married couples who have the option of filing jointly to lower tax liabilities. This option allows them a multitude of benefits including tax-free dependent health benefits, while members of same-sex or cohabitating couples pay taxes on the value of dependent health benefits they’ve utilized in the past year, which is one factor that may further increase their tax liability. Single parents must also pay taxes on any benefits he/she may have utilized toward the child on his/her own in the past year.

As a result of the couple’s exclusion from this privilege, their combined federal and state income tax liability was 25% higher ($2689 more) than it would have been had they been able to file a joint return.[15] Over the span of 18 years an averaged excess payment of $2689 represents $48,402 a couple could have saved toward their child’s college education.

The Death of a Parent
Next, Dougherty explored the application of social security survivor benefits, the result of designating a portion of all social security payments toward survivor’s insurance, to be given to a surviving spouse in the event that his/her mate dies. The couple he referenced in this example would have had a social security benefit of $1952 per month for the survivor if his partner died. But currently, with this benefit only associated with married couples, the survivor would receive nothing, left to fend for himself and his child on a single income where they’d previously had access to two. Associating that right with the presence of a child instead of the presence of a marriage certificate ensures the child in this hypothetical situation the continuation of the deceased parent’s income rather than suddenly leaving him completely reliant on the income of the one surviving parent. And again, in consideration of the college fund, making that association would represent $421,632 more to set aside for the child over 18 years.

Inheritance
The final example Dougherty explores involves gift taxing, using a hypothetical example this time, of a lesbian couple Susan and Mary. If Susan wishes to invest her $3,000,000 worth of investment assets in a mutual fund for herself and Mary, federal and state law would classify that transaction as a $1,500,000 gift to Mary and tax her a total of $285,360. But if they were entitled to the same breaks as legally married couples currently have, they would have paid nothing in gift taxes, and that much more money would exist for the children’s potential benefit.

These examples represent only a few of the opportunities that unmarried parents have no access to despite the governmental claim that these benefits serve to aid the establishment of a more financially stable environment in which families are being raised. One couple facing all these hindrances have their financial liability to the government compounded to a hindering amount in comparison to those of married parents, who can and will use much of the money they save, on their children. Combined, the three families above represent a total potential loss of $755, 394. A family facing the combination of these possible hindrances plummets below the playing field by the same amount that the family with these benefits advances above it. This may seem like an extreme case, but these examples only account for three of the thousands of benefits that our current policies deny unmarried parents, and could easily reflect a real potential circumstance: general tax liabilities combined with a sudden death of one parent that leaves behind an inheritance. For no reason should a child be denied $755,294 that another child has access to, simply because he has unmarried parents. This drastic difference in tax liability that penalizes unmarried families’ children greatly indicates a dire need to level the playing field if our government is truly concerned with the wellbeing of America’s children.

Conclusion

I realize that more contributes to children’s wellbeing than their financial circumstances. According to another analysis, there are plenty more factors besides more stable finances that contribute to making marriage the ideal circumstance for childrearing. The analysis claims that cohabitating relationships yield greater rates of unhappiness, dissatisfaction, and dysfunctional relationship behavior.[16] Heather Long, Community Director for Families.com, references marriage’s common association with stability in our society. According to her, this association exists because married people tend to lead longer, healthier, more financially stable lives that yield the most confident and secure offspring.[17]

However, even if those assertions are true, I see no productive potential in the government only further hindering alternative structures in comparison to married families. Marriage as an institution may offer significant benefits of its own, but there is no need for the government to contribute to the gap between married families’ potential success in childrearing, to non-married families’ potential. Ignoring the reality that alternatives are on the rise, in favor of wishful thinking that the ideal of marriage will resurface as the norm, is unfair to the children our policymakers claim to be so concerned about. They should not jeopardize the wellbeing of our society and its children simply on the basis of its bias toward the undeniably faltering institution of marriage.

[1] Administration for Children of Families. “ACF Healthy Marriage Initiative.” (2007). 12 April 2007 .
[2] Administration for Children of Families.
[3] Brownback, Sam. “Defining Marriage Down.” National Review Online. (2004). 12 April 2007 .
[4] Brownback.
[5] Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships. BeyondMarriage.Org. (2006). 12 April 2007 .
[6] Lerman, Robert I. “How Do Marriage, Cohabitation, and Single Parenthood Affect the Material Hardships of Families with Children?” Urban Institute. (2002). 12 April 2007 .
[7] Marriage Statistics. Chicagoland Marriage Resource Center. (2007). 15 April 2007 .
[8] Marriage and Divorce Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2002. Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 15 April 2007 .
[9] Marriage Statistics.
[10]Divorce Rates. Americans for Divorce Reform. (2006). 15 April 2007 .
[11] Sigle-Rushton, Wendy, and Sara McLanahan. “For Richer or Poorer? Marriage as an Anti-Poverty Strategy in the United States.” Population, Vol. 57: 509-526. (2002). 12 April 2007 .
[12] Pawelski.
[13] Pawelski.
[14] Pawelski.
[15] Dougherty, Terence. “Economic Benefits of Marriage: Under Federal and Connectitcut Law.” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. (2005). 12 April 2007 .
[16] Marriage Statistics.
[17] Long, Heather. “American Society Favors Marriage.” (2006). 12 April 2007 .

Comment on Well-Written Blog: SaveTheMarriage.Com

Yes, it's true... I am advocating a blog that aims to perpetuate these unions that I so often deem as silly:

Lee Baucom, a marriage counselor with a PhD., maintains his SaveTheMarriage blog, based on his best-selling eBook of the same title.
His is a well-written blog that enlightens or simply reminds husbands and wives about the reality of what their union demands. He addresses common myths and hypocrisies partners impose on one another, and offers reality checks in terms of expectations and the best way to handle inevitable issues that arise in an institution that evolves from romance to companionship simply because it's its nature to do so. He addresses the instincts that can often lead to more trouble in marriage than a couple originally meant to address and correct by applying logic, as an outside party, that people involved in unions tend to become blind to when their emotions are in the picture.

His explanations are not textbook, bland, or distant, but based in anecdotes, examples and observations that virtually anyone could relate to.

For instance, I'm not married, and never intend to be, yet I still benefit from this important reminder and perspective he offered in his February 13th post:
"Someone can love you, and not meet your needs. You can love someone and not meet their needs."

And from there, he goes on to detail a woman whose husband gave her early Valentine's flowers for her in demonstration of his love and thoughtfulness, but later dismissed her need to be heard because she was interrupting a television program to talk. Easily, a woman in that instant feels unloved. But in this simple assertion and that basic example, Baucom reminds his readers of reasoning that we can easily forget in the midst of our own relationships, particularly, in this entry, by offering as proof, the simple reality that we cannot deny: we do it to others all the time.

With the same simple and basic approach to various other relationship topics--such as why weekend getaways aren't panaceas and the flaws in the declaration "We need to talk"--he does a wonderful job in his entries, of clearing up common misconceptions that could otherwise spin a marriage or relationship out of control. It's free counseling and it's quality. His effectiveness is rooted in his ability to keep it simply and comepletely honest with his readers.

Comment Repost: "Walking Marriages"

Definitely enjoyed this read on Walking Marriages -- my comment's reposted below:

I'm always excited, for comparison's sake, to learn about alternatives to our tradition of marriage as a lifelong union...

The Mosuos' concept of the relationships between man and woman seems so much more realistic than ours, in many ways; but of course, that may simply be because I'm still relatively uninformed and thus imposing our own cultural norms, which may not even be factors in terms of what actually matters to them. Ignorance aside, however, my own belief is that it's not even within the capacity of human nature to be solely bound to the same individual for the entirety of one's life in the way we like to imagine in America. Our expecations seem to have been too deeply influenced by fantastic tales of true love and romance in books, films, and other works of fiction. (All the grown-ups around me tell me that this belief is fine for now because I'm young and a few more years of life will convince me otherwise. We'll see.)

Your blurb also raises a number of questions, though. For instance, how did this form of marriage arise among these particular people? What about their culture and their lifestyle made this the most conducive marital form in the midst of the prevalent others, nothing at all like it? What forms had preceded it and why did this one emerge and evolve?

I'm also curious about how commonly women do find themselevs attached enough to commit to the same man forever... Often? Typically? Never? Do they wish they could live with the men of their choosings whether than with their own blood relatives? How do they men feel? Do they occasionally lash out in attempt to pursue a woman for themselves rather than be stuck with only the women who come to him? Do the Mosuo only mate this way for reproductive purposes, or also for pleasure? How prominent is homosexuality?

I also wonder whether the Mosuo feel there's anything "missing" from their relationships, in the absence of our own standards of courtship... The answers to that particular question could speak to how much of a necessity our standards actually are in terms of human nature versus to what extent our own culture just wedged them in for some other reason. I'm willing to believe we force ourselves into grand attempts at monogamy for a good reason--I just need to see that reason at its root for myself, to even begin to fully understand it.

Thanks for introducing such an interesting alternative--I definitely want to learn more about the Mosuo and their "walking marriages." I find it interesting, too, that they still refer to them as marriages, considering that my understanding of "marriage" by definition is that it necessarily indicates some form of lasting committment... So I also wonder what about these unions warrant that designation as "marriage"...

Comment Repost: Religious Marriage versus Civil Marriage

Comment to Religious Marriage versus Civil Marriage, reposted below:

This article points out an important idea that ties in to my own demand that the government be consistent if it insists upon having a say in marriage....

You're right, the many defenses for the illegalization of certain unions is inherently hypocritical.

As you said:

Moral does not necessarily mean legal and immoral does not necessarily mean illegal.

And the government's own actions back that claim. If it is going to ban some practices under the guise that they're immoral, then it can't allow legalization of other matters considered immoral by the same (religious) system. Clearly, they have a ulterior agenda (i.e. a prejudice), or something to hide when alcohol is fine... premarital sex isnt unlawful... gambling is condoned in scattered areas of the U.S.--but same sex marriages are unlawful--because it's immoral...? There has to be more to it than that.

Another underlying issue with the government's line of reasoning: usage of the Bible's morality in application for the country is unacceptable in the context of an alleged promise often referred to as "separation of Church and State." If homosexuality is immoral, then the government leaders will need to reference a basis stronger than personal prejudice and aside from religion upon which they've drawn that conclusion. Often, in this instance, an individual may revert to claims of tradition. But rather than subject you to my own tangent against such claims, I'll direct you to Stephanie Coontz, who explains it best. (Although I'm sure, you're familiar with her already through your work in this field.)

Besides, as you state immoralism is not the pre-requisite for something considered unlawful either, such as speeding, which, to me, is another indication that the claim, that homosexual relationships are immoral, is a mask for ulterior motive the government has for exluding same sex unions from legal recognition.

Even when you point out the difference between divine law and civil law, divine law commits the same inconsistencies--acknowledging marriage of fornicators, no questions asked and acknowledging divorce, etc. Neither of them should actually involved themselves in validating a marriage in the first place because at its root, marriage is a union determined by the two people involved. But if the Church and the Government insist on being involved, again, I ache for consistency in their alleged motivations and the reality of their actions.

Position: Government Policies Should be Consitent with Alleged Intentions

Our society is constantly in the midst of various debates involving the use of public policy to preserve, strengthen, and encourage the tradition of the insitution of marriage, particularly in the name of perpetutating marriage as the basis of the familial environment. Included within this debate are the controversies over the legality of same-sex marriage, adoption policies for same-sex couples, the role of the government in mandating marriage, and countless other issues.

Policy-makers continually cite as the basis for the value of marriage, that married people lead longer, healthier, happier lives--and most importantly provide the most stable environment for developing a family, particularly when it comes to childrearing.

But too many inconsistencies arise when considering this claim in the context of policies as they actually, currently exist.

It is no longer the case that marriage and childrearing necessarily go hand in hand. Marriage means something different in society now than it did in the past, and married couples do not necessarily have children in mind when they form their own eternal union--yet they can still benefit from the rights associated with marriage for the alleged purpose of strengthening childrearing environments. So to say that rights are associated with marriage to indirectly benefit children is misleading, especially while trivializing any other childrearing institution in comparison.

Currently, legally recognized marriages only include unions between a man and a woman. But there are many other circumstances (such as single-parent homes, cohabitors, same-sex couples, and even polyamorous relationships) under which children are raised, and further disadvantaging those institutions is not going to eliminate them from our society but only further hinder the maximally successful development of the children of those families. If the primary concern really is the good of the developing children in our society, if the government believes children are already at some disadvantage by being raised in non-married homes, then they would not further deprive them of rights and benefits that would only aid their upbringing. They would instead adapt policies to benefit these alternative circumstances.

This observation and (consideration) brings me to the conclusion that many of these motivations and policies are based on a prejudices and bias that marriage is really the most conducive situation for childrearing, when this really may not be the case.

IF this is the case, the government should focus on strengthening the possibilities that the alternatives offer, so that they may offer the same success as that which we associate with our "traditional" sense of marriage.

The government cannot enforce policy solely on wishful thinking, but needs to actually consider the reality of the situation at hand. It needs to get away from the obsession with marriage--which may not even necessarily be most conducive for family anyway. It's not nearly as much about pragmaticism as it was in the past as it is about love and personal fulfillment at this point--and the law cant dictate that. The law still speaks to something that's past, and the wellbeing of society should not be jeopardized simply because of the government's bias toward a faltering institution.

Comment Repost: Should the Government Have a Say in Marriage?

Comment to Should the Government Have a Say in Marriage? reposted below:

Let's not forget that the tenth amendment also states as an option that powers not delegated to the federal government could be delegated "to the people." The respective states are not the only other option for that responsibility, and the government should either have no place in marriages, or--if it insists upon carving out a place for itself--it should at least establish a consistent one.

Sure, "The government recognized marriage as an important part of civilized society," but let's consider why: I've heard and read claims that the institution gained such recognition due to the alleged association it has with longer, healthier lives for all those involved. But most importantly, it seems to have gained that status due to the stable environment it allegedly provides for families, especially those with children, who apparently grow up healthier and happier and more psychologically stable than those of unmarried parents.

But if the pubic policy's concern is to create environments more conducive to healthy childrearing, then benefits should apply to alternative sects as well, because other types of families do raise children, and at a rate that is rapidly emerging as the norm. Favoring an ideal circumstance through public policy is not going to eliminate the growing reality of those alternatives. The government should instead enforce policies to actually cater to any family with children present.

The use of these privileges to benefit only unions between man and woman perpetuates a prejudice that seems inherent in our government's agenda. If childrearing is their genuine concern, they would adapt the allowances to include all those who contribute to that cause of raising healthy children.

Until the government is ready to consider all family-inducing unions equal, they should stay out of the business altogether. It confuses the meaning of marriage to attach governmental benefits to it--marriage was never meant to be a government sactioned institution, but one to serve the varying needs and preferences of the couples and families involved. If the government is not going to "protect" everyone to whom that all-inclusive description applies, it should bow out, protect no one, and leave such institutions as marriage "to the people" engaged in them.