Why Marriage Matters: The Case for Normal Marriage
Why Marriage (and Children) Matters: The Case for Normal (Father and Mother) Marriage by Maggie Gallagher
I. Why Marriage Matters
I am here today as an expert on marriage. I have devoted most of the last fifteen years to research and public education on the marriage issue , particularly the problem of family fragmentation: the growing proportion of our children in fatherless homes, created through divorce or unmarried childbearing.
Marriage is a key social institution, but it is also a fragile institution: with half or more of our children experiencing the suffering, poverty, and deprivation of fatherlessness and fragmented families. This is a crisis that was of course not created by advocates of same-sex marriage. But the marriage crisis is intimately involved with how committed we as a society are to two key ideas: that children need mothers and fathers and that marriage is the main way that we create stable, loving mother-father families for children.
After forty years of social experimentation, we now have enormous data on this question. There are not dozens, or hundreds, there are thousands of studies addressing the question of family structure, which control for race, income, family background, and other confounding variables. And the overwhelming consensus of family scholars across ideological and partisan lines is that family structure DOES matter. It is of course not the only variable affecting child well-being. But all things being equal, children do better when their mothers and fathers get and stay married. Both adults and children are better off living in communities where more children are raised by their own two married parents. 
Both adults and children live longer, have higher rates of physical health and lower rates of mental illness, experience poverty, crime, and domestic abuse less often, and have warmer relationships, on average, when mothers and fathers get and stay married. In turn, high rates of family fragmentation generate substantial taxpayer costs. According to a report by over one hundred family scholars and civic leaders released in 2000:
So we can say with a fair degree of not only common sense but scientific certainty that marriage matters a great deal for children and for society. Marriage is in fact a cross-cultural institution; it is not a mere plaything of passing ideologies but in fact the word for the way that, in virtually every known human culture, society conspires to create ties between mothers, fathers, and the children their sexual unions may produce. 
II. How will same-sex marriage affect marriage as a social institution?
Once we acknowledge the gravity of the marriage crisis we now face, and the importance of marriage as a social institution, the single most important question on unisex marriage becomes: will this legal transformation strengthen or weaken marriage as a social institution? For many Americans this translates into the question: how can Bob and James's marriage possibly affect Rob and Sue's marriage? There are long, complicated, and erudite answers to this question.
Fortunately, there is also a short, simple, and obvious answer. Marriage is not just a legal construct; it is socially and culturally a child-rearing institution, the place where having children and creating families is actually encouraged, rather than merely tolerated. In endorsing same-sex marriage, law and government will thus be making a powerful statement: our government no longer believes children need mothers and fathers.
Two fathers or two mothers are not only just as good as a mother and a father, they are just the same. The government promotion of this idea will likely have some effect even on people who are currently married, who have been raised in a particular culture of marriage. But this new idea of marriage, sanctioned by law and government, will certainly have a dramatic effect on the next generation's attitudes toward marriage, childbearing, and the importance of mothers and fathers. If two mothers are just the same as a mother and a father, for example, why can't a single mother and her mother do just as well as a married mom and dad?
The fallacy and temptation is the belief that if we allow unisex couples to marry there will be two kinds of marriage: gay marriage for gays and lesbians, straight marriage for straights. In reality, there will be one institution called marriage, and its meaning will be dramatically different, with deep consequences for children.
Many advocates of gay marriage recognize the importance of this transformation. As one advocate for gay marriage, columnist and radio personality Michelangelo Signorile put it in Out Magazine in December of 1994,
You may agree or disagree, but let us not fool ourselves that this is a minor amendment to marriage law. Why are courts contemplating a radical shift in our most basic social institution at a time when 25 million children sleep in fatherless homes? Here is the disturbing answer: in order to accommodate or affirm the interests of adults in choosing alternative family forms that they prefer.
Two ideas are in conflict here: one is that children deserve mothers and fathers and that adults have an obligation to at least try to conduct their sexual lives to give children this important protection. That is the marriage idea. The other is that adult interests in sexual liberty are more important than "imposing" or referring any one family form: all family forms must be treated identically by law if adults are to be free to make intimate choices. This is the core idea behind the drive for same-sex marriage. And it is the core idea that must be rejected if the marriage idea is to be sustained.
How to Make the Case for Marriage by Mary Jo Anderson
Answering Advocates of 'Gay Marriage' by Catholic Education Resource Center
The Marriage Debate from Catholic Answers
 See, for example, Maggie Gallagher. Marriage and Public Policy: What Can Government Do? Evidence from the Social Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National Fatherhood Institute); Maggie Gallagher, 2002. "What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law," Louisiana Law Review 62(3) (Spring); Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, 2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New York: Doubleday); The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles, 2000. (New York: Institute for American Values); Maggie Gallagher, 1999. The Age of Unwed Mothers: Is Teen Pregnancy the Problem? (New York: Institute for American Values); Maggie Gallagher, 1996. The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love (Washington, D.C.: Regnery).
 See, for example, William J. Doherty, William A. Galston, Norval D. Glenn, John Gottman, Barbara Markey, Howard J. Markman, Steven Nock, David Popenoe, Gloria G. Rodriguez, Isabel V. Sawhill, Scott M. Stanley, Linda J. Waite, and Judith Wallerstein, 2002. Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values). Available at www.AmericanValues.org
 The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles, 2000. (New York: Institute for American Values).
 "Marriage exists in virtually every known human society .... At least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage has been a universal human institution. As a virtually universal human idea, marriage is about the reproduction of children, families, and society....marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations and sharing or resources between men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce." William J. Doherty, William A. Galston, Norval D.Glenn, John Gottman et al., 2002. Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values).
Maggie Gallagher is president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, editor of www.MarriageDebate.com (a new webzine devoted to same-sex marriage debate), and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (Doubleday, 2000).
From the testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and property rights hearing: "WHAT IS NEEDED TO DEFEND THE BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT OF 1996?" (from September 4, 2003)
See also these scholarly books and debates on the subject:
The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love
The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier
and Better Off Financially
Debating Same-Sex Marriage (Point/Counterpoint)
What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense
Redeeming the Dream: The Case for Marriage Equality
Back to Philosophy Articles
Back to Home Page
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links