Where We Stand: Our Principles On Protecting the Institution of Marriage

A series of significant judicial decisions has challenged the societal consensus on the meaning and purpose of marriage. These court decisions reject the legitimacy of that consensus and circumvent the political process by which society endorses that consensus. Specifically, these decisions seek to redefine the institution of marriage by judicial fiat and affirm same-sex “marriage” as a fundamental civil right that states and the federal government have a constitutional obligation to secure nationwide. Faced with such a concerted legal effort to redefine and undermine one of the most basic institutions of civil society, policymakers must now take immediate steps at both the state and federal levels to protect marriage, prevent judicial usurpation, and uphold the rule of law.

Available research on common household forms strongly supports the consensus that the intact married-parent family is the best setting for the optimal development of the child and provides the best insurance for the future welfare of the nation. Thus, laws and regulations should continue to protect and promote intact married family life as the basis of a prosperous society. In addition, welfare policies should reinforce this conclusion and help to lead the next generation toward intact family life—and never undermine or penalize marriage. This same principle should guide our actions in international social policy discussions and in determining how we give aid to foreign governments and international bodies.

The capacity of the social sciences to contribute to the public debate on the sensitive policy issues related to marriage and family ought to be tapped more fully so that social and legislative discourse—the appropriate way of considering marriage—can be well-informed. Careful discussion based on solid research and a respect for social institutions, not judges inventing radical new “rights,” should be the basis of the legal framework for marriage.

The pressing threat to traditional marriage does not come from legislatures or from a profound change in the views of Americans, but from judicial decisions that step beyond the proper role of the courts to dismantle a primary institution of civil society. Congress sought to protect marriage through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but the current philosophy of many activist judges threatens to undermine that legislative protection and impose a new definition of marriage on the nation. A constitutional amendment is the only alternative that would protect the longstanding consensus on marriage. Such an amendment should recognize and preserve the institution of marriage and reserve marriage to the union of one man and one woman. In addition, it should block judges—state and federal— from redefining marriage, imposing “civil unions” on legislatures, or overriding a legislature’s decision concerning the benefits implicit in marriage.

Congress meanwhile should take steps to enforce the definition of marriage established in the Defense of Marriage Act when it reauthorizes federal programs and otherwise enforces federal policy, ensuring that all federal policies are consistent with that definition. Because of its role in overseeing the District of Columbia, Congress should pass legislation consistent with the federal DOMA that protects the institution of marriage in the District, which currently has no laws clearly defining marriage and no “state”DOMA. In addition,Congress should call on the states to clarify their marriage statutes and restate in state law, and in state constitutions if necessary, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Congress and the President should promote a comprehensive ban at the national and international levels on all forms of human cloning. Cloning would further separate childbearing from marriage, a disjunction that is already underway through the cultural and legal erosion of marriage and that has serious consequences for the welfare of children.

U.S. policymakers should lead a conference of international organizations to coordinate and combat trafficking in humans and sexual slavery, one of the most pernicious and well-organized attacks on marriage and family among the poor. Meanwhile, the United States’ global leadership in combating HIV/AIDS should continue to be guided by the Ugandan model for HIV containment, built on a commitment to the institution of marriage and the encouragement of abstinence outside of marriage.

The Administration should instruct all appointees to international organizations to resist efforts to create internationally recognized rights for adolescents at the expense of parental authority. Many of these proposed rights deal with sexuality and belong under parental direction. In addition, the Senate should continue to refuse to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women because CEDAW undermines the standing of marriage in family policy and law.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should disseminate the results from first-round evaluations of marriage preparation programs to formulate best practices that will guide the next round of grants.Congress should direct HHS to expand the marriage initiative, targeting areas with severe poverty and high crime rates. In addition, Department of Justice prevention programs for juvenile crime and domestic violence should begin to incorporate marriage preparation strategies. The Department of Housing and Urban Development can partner in identifying target areas and establishing outreach efforts.Meanwhile, Congress should commission the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to deliver a research-based report that outlines the most promising ways to reduce cohabitation among young adults.

Policymakers should conduct a comprehensive review of all federal programs involved in shaping the sexual behavior of citizens. The prime purpose of these programs should be made consistent with the national goal established under the Welfare Reform Act of decreasing the proportion of unwed births and reducing teen pregnancy by supporting marriage and abstinence before marriage.

Congress should remove disincentives to marriage in welfare regulations. Marriage penalties can reduce household earnings by as much as 25 percent if a low-income couple moves from cohabitation to marriage.

Congress should eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which is becoming this decade’s form of bracket creep, the very mechanism that in the 1960s and 1970s silently removed the tax protection that Congress had given families with children. The AMT is gradually enveloping more and more middle-class families, undoing the family tax reforms of the past decade, and putting more undue financial stress on married couples.

Policymakers should design a social science research strategy to help them and the public in the discussion of sensitive social policy issues, such as same-sex parenting and marriage. Such research should be based on large sample sizes to permit national generalizations on topics such as: (1) the effects on children of being raised by cohabiting same-sex couples; (2) the relative effectiveness of comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only programs in reducing teenage sexual activity and the relative efficiency of each in terms of costs to taxpayers associated with teenage sexual activity; and (3) the cost to taxpayers of family breakdown over the past 40 years and the relative efficiency and cost-effectiveness of intact married family life.