Fixing Marriage Once And For All

Just about everybody seems to agree that marriage is broken. Progressives see it as discriminatory by design, inappropriately regulated by the government, or too limiting to encompass the full spectrum of loving commitment between people. Conservatives see it as plagued by divorce born of temptation and vice, under siege by sinners who wish to disgrace it, and not defended or supported ardently enough by governmental bodies. Just about everybody seems to have an opinion.

One of the key assertions currently being used by conservatives to argue their perspective in the media, courts, and legislatures, is that marriage is a sacred institution designed to create children. That the one man, one woman tradition and federal and state recognition, protections, and responsibilities they wish to have exclusive access to are justified by the Nation’s interest in promoting the rearing of new generations.

Frankly, I don’t have any way to dispute this. But I was raised thinking that marriage was about love, not procreation. As such, I feel that the contemporary function of marriage is to bond with a chosen mate for life more than it is to rear offspring. However, I recognize that the health of economies is tied closely to population growth rates. And so beyond my own personal belief that marriage’s function is for acknowledging love rather than creating a support structure for child rearing, I can’t really argue against conservatives on that particular point.

(Of course, I also think that birth rates in the US might actually go up if marriage were abolished. While the quality of child rearing might also drop, I imagine the value to our economy of a population surge would outweigh any dip in deficits in child upbringing.)

Despite this, I still feel that current marriage laws unfairly discriminate against gays and lesbians. Nowhere in marriage laws does it state that marriage is defined for purposes of raising children. Furthermore, lots of heterosexual couples get married with absolutely no intent of birthing or adopting a single child. Not one. So where’s the equity there? Marriage is for raising children, but people who never intend to have kids can reap the benefits? Aren’t they abusing a loophole in the system, in that case? They’re taking advantage of benefits designed to support those raising children without contributing to society as expected, and this puts an undue burden on legitimately married people, singles, and couples that cannot be married.

My thinking on this matter has brought me to the point at which I feel I can propose a reasonable solution:

Marriage is defined as a union of no more than two persons who are primarily responsible for the rearing of at least one child, for the duration that children are dependent, and no longer. All marriages performed prior to the conception, adoption, or other acquisition of a child for rearing are void. All marriages persisting past the termination of child dependency are also terminated. This law is retroactively effective on all current marriages one year from its passage and all those henceforth.

That may be harsh but it’s totally fair. If marriage and all benefits of marriage are for the purpose of raising children, then this protects all couples raising children, regardless of whom they are, for the duration of the dependency of the children. This means that both John and Mary and John and Mark can get married if they’re raising a child, and they are assured of all the protections of marriage for the duration of their parenting.

And yes, this means that both couples’ marriages terminate when the bouncing babies grow up (unless they’re dependent for life due to various factors) or die. Remember, the benefits of marriage are there for supporting the rearing of children. Love alone is not justification for government benefits, and 18 years worth of tax breaks, hiring preferences, and special treatment aught to be enough reward. Thank you for your service, Parents, but your service is complete.

Not only does this ensure that marriage is conferred only on those who really need it, it prevents the abuses of the system that are currently rampant. Childless couples – even those who are infertile through no fault of their own, unfortunately – do not deserve the assistance of the government that couples with children have earned.

Of course, we could always set up civil unions for childless couples, but those would be mostly for feel-good purposes and the assignment of power of attorney in medical and financial matters associated with death or disability. Childless couples don’t deserve any more protection than that, and they shouldn’t have it.

Unless, of course, everybody can get in on the action.