I thought this was an insiteful and interesting approach to this whole issue. It was written by a local talk show host (talk radio) in his daily "dispatch" which I get by email every day. He certainly brings up some valid points!

Not all marriage is equal



While the rest of the nation mires itself in what is likely going to be an endless debate over same-sex marriage, I'm going to change the subject, and begin a new, equally unpopular campaign on a related issue. I expect no success whatsoever, and very little moral support from people of any political ilk, whether they are liberal, conservative or anything in between.



I don't care because my goal is just and right and fair.



I start with the premise stated simply and succinctly last week in an opinion column published by the Wall Street Journal. The author is Mary Ann Glendon, a professor of law at Harvard University. She stated, "Society gives married couples special benefits because most of them are raising or have raised children -- and research shows that intact families are the most desirable for raising children."



You will find very little disagreement with that statement, either in whole or in part.



1. Society does give special benefits to married couples. That's why other couples want the same benefits. No one likes to be left out.

2. Most married couples either are raising, or have raised children. Not all, but most.

3. Nearly all pertinent research does in fact show that intact families are the most desirable for raising children. The key word there is "intact."



Each of the parts of Ms. Glendon's statement is true and the whole statement is likewise true. Society gives married couples special benefits because most of them are raising or have raised children -- and research shows that intact families are the most desirable for raising children.



Therefore, if society insists on adopting laws for the purpose of benefiting children, it should narrow, not expand, the body of people upon whom it chooses to confer those benefits. In other words, we need to start taking benefits away from many married people, because they don't fit the mold.



The most obvious people who would lose the benefits are those who divorce - people like me. The same research that sings the praises of intact families warns of the destructive nature of divorce. Therefore, divorced parents should lose the child tax credits in the tax code and should not be able to claim their children as exemptions. People should get one shot at the benefits that accompany childrearing. If you stay married to your first spouse, you get lifetime benefits. If you don't, you lose them forever. You can't remarry and recapture your benefits.



What other benefits would you lose? How about inheritance advantages? Why should a man who marries one woman, raises children with her, and then dumps that woman for his young secretary be able to leave his new wife all of his worldly possessions without having to pay inheritance taxes. What did she do for society to deserve that special treatment?



I don't have a complete list of all of the special benefits that society gives to married couples, but it wouldn't take long for a good researcher to find all of them in our laws and for Congress or the states to reserve them for those married couples who meet some objective criteria. Politically, this is next to impossible. It would be like trying to take meat away from a pack of mad dogs. But, it's the only policy that actually fits the consensus reason that society gives benefits to married couples.



A better approach would be for society to mind its own business and quit using laws as leverage for social engineering. But that's even less likely to happen, so we should at least strive for the reward system to make sense. Giving all couples the same benefits based on their marital status makes about as much sense as giving all teachers the same pay based on their degrees.