Keep Government out of Marriage?

It is not uncommon to hear someone utter (especially in the middle of a hot debate about potential legal transformations of marriage) the opinion that government should just stay out of marriage and let religion take complete control over it. Sure, this might simplify some things, but I believe the ultimate outcome could be much worse for society. (Mind you, when someone makes an alarming claim as I just did, they don't mean that such an outcome will happen over night--it may take generations to fully manifest.)

Marriage obviously has a long Judaeo-Christian history, but it is about as universal as anything ever could be. Over 70% of all weddings in the U.S. include a religious ceremony. Marriage precedes any current, known government around, yet government plays a large role in it. Shouldn't we keep religion and government separate?

Some things to consider. Marriage is good for society in a variety of ways. It helps the individual citizens of a society. Mountains of research confirms that married people are (on average) happier, mentally healthier, physically healthier, wealthier, and more sexually satisfied than singles/cohabiters, divorcees, and widows. These statistic hold true for marriages as a whole (meaning these statistics are not just comparing people from happy marriages to unmarried or divorced people), though people tend to thrive even more in happy marriages. Marital status is one of the most robust predictors of healthy outcomes. Some of this is explained by the fact that healthier, happier people are more likely to marry, but taking that into account only explains a small portion of the gap between the marrieds and not-marrieds--most of the gap is explained by living differently once (and because) one marries. In short, marriage is a unique type of relationship governed by unique personal and social expectations that tend to foster a beneficial lifestyle.

Children benefit as well from having married parents. It is not just married versus single parents, but there are clear advantages for having married parents over cohabiting parents. Eleven percent of children born to married parents will see their parents split up by age 3; 49% of children born to cohabiting parents will see the same (and 3/4 by age 16). Even accounting for economic, demographic, and relationship quality factors, cohabiting parents are 2.5 times more likely than married parents to split. Poverty rates for cohabiters are twice as high than for marrieds, even when controlling for education, immigration status, and race. When cohabiters have a similar level of education, number of children, and income, they still have more material hardship (no food, can’t pay bills) and get less help from extended family when in hardship.

Cohabiting parents of similar economic circumstances as married parents spend less on education and more on alcohol and cigarettes than do married parents. These are not positive trends for kids, and research on children's behavioral and cognitive/academic outcomes lag behind for these children, and they have more problems with parental attachment. As a whole, children of divorce suffer similar lags and are more prone to adult relationship problems themselves. (I am not trying to make a judgment about anyone's decision about marriage, parenting, or divorce--I realize these are complex and deeply personal issues as well--I'm just talking numbers here from a scholarly perspective.)

A recent national report estimated that divorce and unwed parenthood cost U.S. taxpayers over $112 billion a year. Marriage is not just a private, emotional bond. It is and has fundamentally always been about procreating and linking generations under the most favorable and stable conditions. That of course isn't its only function, but on a social (and biological) level it functions to ensure the next generation is created, survives, and thrives. When it breaks down, society feels the burden. If government is to ever endorse something that benefits its citizenry as individuals and as a whole, marriage is a prime candidate. Government playing a role in marriage acts as a reinforcer that marriage is important and valued.

Marriage as an institution has struggled over the last 40 years particularly (though I think some positive trends have emerged as well, such as more equal partnership within the relationship) and it probably needs the government endorsement (esp. in light of how much of the entertainment and academic industries portray it). People are going to have children no matter what. Marriage is clearly the most promising setting (for the child and for society as a whole) in which to have children. This is not based on a religious or philosophical argument, it is based on compelling research--so compelling that the very progressive voices in the Marriage and Family discipline have finally conceded the point.

A governmental stance that is neutral or adversarial toward marriage will likely contribute to less marriage, more divorce, and more unwed parenthood--none of which has shown to benefit society but rather indicate the opposite. We are already seeing the effects of marital instability. Government did not invent marriage, but it plays a role in upholding it, supporting it, and working to protect the rights of citizens in matters that correspond with marriage, such as inheritance and custody (these are complicated issues that must be addressed in a civil society in which the actions of some can affect the outcomes for others).

However, because government is involved with marriage, it opens to door to plenty of controversy--often with religious undertones. This should not be unexpected because of the long traditions and stakes that both religion and government have in marriage, but not all controversy has to have a religious element to it. There are plenty of secular disagreements about who should be able to marry (or divorce) and under what circumstances. Taking government out of marriage may relieve some of the debate, but I think it would be a factor in larger, more profound consequences for future generations that make current controversies pale in comparison.

NOTE: Of course there are exceptions to the examples stated above--that is always the case. Such an observation in and of itself does not undermine the fact that on a societal level, such trends are still relevant and worthy of attention regardless of exceptional cases.