By Jaclyn Geller and Lisa J. Ehrlich

Americans are gearing up for the 2008 elections, and the pundits are, of course, prognosticating about the recent crop of presidential hopefuls. It seems that this will and will not be an election year unlike any other. It is common to hear that this is a year of landmarks and "firsts." Whether she succeeds or not, Hillary Clinton remains the first "First Lady" to run for and win a seat in the United States Senate. Whether he earns a nomination or not, Barack Obama is the first African American to serve as President of the Harvard Law Review.

Real as they are, these landmarks can lead to a false complacency, a belief in inexorable progress accompanied by the misconception that, in the political arena, all major barriers have been removed and a meritocracy prevails. If this were the case, there would, of course, be unmarried candidates throwing their hats into the ring. There are none. James Buchanan, who served from 1857 to 1861, was our nation's last – and sole – unmarried president. Today, each political candidate is married in the conventional sense, with a license, a gold wedding band, and a public promise to remain monogamous to a spouse until "death do them part."

Americans assume – and demand – that each presidential hopeful and each president, vice president, and even senator and congressperson beam from the podium with an adoring spouse at his or her side. Demonstrations of marital bliss are the rage in American politics. Who could forget the lengthy, cinematic kiss between Al and Tipper Gore at the 2000 Democratic National Convention? The message of such theatrical moments is as unmistakable as it is irrational: as a happily married man I am the candidate best-suited to manage the nation's economy, select judges, oversee foreign policy, and safeguard national security. It is an assumption so deeply embedded in our culture that it is all but invisible.

Journalists seem eager to enshrine the candidates' marriages. In 2000 a celebratory article in People Magazine contrasted Laura Bush and Tipper Gore, proclaiming, "One's reserved, the other's outspoken, but Laura Bush and Tipper Gore have one thing in common: a commitment to family and their husbands' ambitions." In 2006 The New York Times featured a glowing portrait of Hadassah Lieberman as Joseph Lieberman's "closest advisor," a "doting wife and mother" who addresses her spouse publicly as "Joey." That same year the Times ran a lengthy piece examining Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage in absurd detail, as if the couple's conjugal habits (fourteen days per month together on average in 2005 including a Valentine's Day date) were indicators of Mrs. Clinton's ability to govern. In 2007 Ebony Magazine named Barack and Michelle Obama "the hottest couple in America." In the piece Obama characterized himself a reasonably "well-trained" husband who, nevertheless leaves his socks on the floor and hangs his pants on the door. Putting a positive spin on the multiple marriages she and Rudy Giuliani had both experienced prior to their own union, Judi Giuliani recently told The New York Daily News that she and her husband "believe in the institution of marriage."

What's beneath candidates' pro-marriage rhetoric? Often it's just cynical pragmatism. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and his wife, Janet, received media attention in November 2006 for creating wedding registries at Target and Dillards even though they had already been married for 32 years. The registries were clearly a means to circumvent Arkansas' $100 cap on gifts to political leaders.

In the face of the blandishments it is important to remember that American marriage is anything but neutral; its laws and customs contain inherently political assumptions about sexual behavior, gender roles, and conjugality as the organizing principal of American society. The pro-marriage bias that cuts across the American legal system, offering and withholding very real benefits, is an expression of these beliefs. For example, just look at something as basic and all-encompassing as the tax code. (See sidebar.) Perhaps we should not be surprised that the existing system of taxation blatantly favors the married, providing powerful incentives to relationship conformity. Our elected representatives pass laws that benefit the way of life that they themselves have chosen.

Another expression of these beliefs can be seen in the jeremiads against women on welfare, which have become commonplace in our political landscape. Low-income women are often castigated for their unmarried status and their willingness to accept governmental assistance to provide for their dependents. Ironically, political pundits rarely target the married, who receive government subsidies simply because they are...married, and therefore assumed to be virtuous and deserving of help.

In fact, politicians and pundits want more Americans to get and stay married. Huckabee has repeatedly bemoaned no-fault divorce; during his tenure as Governor of Arkansas he supported that state's "Covenant Marriage Act," which allows couples to divorce for only a limited number of reasons and requires them to seek counseling and wait two years before the divorce is granted. In a May 2007, New York Times opinion piece, journalist David Brooks urged the promotion of marriage as "the best educational institution we have." Brooks offered no analysis or statistics to substantiate this claim. He assumes it is self-explanatory that the married are (magically!) intellectually and professionally fortified, hence "better." His view expresses a popular prejudice that tends to go unchecked.

This bias probably prevents myriad worthy unmarried political candidates from attempting to penetrate the higher echelons of national politics. Americans appear willing to consider only leaders who conform to the matrimonial mold.

The nation faces very real, very polarizing issues: reproductive rights, the war in Iraq, the environmental crisis and more. Perhaps the Democrats' and Republicans' tacit agreement on marriage as a timeless civic good enables consensus, providing an apparently neutral, apolitical zone in which politicians can agree on something.

When we begin to support unconventionally partnered, uncoupled, unmarried candidates, things may start to change. Until then, we should at least demand that our public officials acknowledge that there are different kinds of households, unions, and families, all of which need support, all of which should be taxed fairly. And when a politician blithely announces that he or she is "pro-marriage," we should interrogate this candidate's rhetoric, pointing out that many of us no longer wish to vote for a society that celebrates only one model of relationship.

Jaclyn Geller (right) and Lisa Ehrlich Photograph by Carlos Arias

Jaclyn Geller is an assistant professor in the English Department at Central Connecticut State University, where she specializes in Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Studies. She is the author of Here Comes the Bride: Women, Weddings, and the Marriage Mystique. Lisa J. Ehrlich is a New York State-certified C.P.A. with fifteen years of experience in institutional financial services. Their mutual love and respect has created a deep and enduring bond, a friendship that has enriched both their lives immeasurably but, sadly, will not qualify either of them for a tax deduction.