By Hunter McCord

Tradition, often conceived of as an ingredient of cultural diversity and social stability, is just as likely to become a fetter upon society, shackling it to its past in a vain attempt to stop or even reverse the flow of time. By definition, tradition is not meant to welcome the new, but to fortify the old against it. In the hands of those who fear change, tradition is a shield. In the hands those who resist change, tradition is a sword.

The tradition of marriage varies across cultures, but is typically believed to have originated in response to concerns for the perpetuation of the human species and its property relations, giving it an inherent child- or future-orientation. Anthropology tells us that marriage, or at least monogamy, may have arisen to provide for the division of labor necessary to feed and shelter each new generation, while political scientists enrich this theory with the notion that marriage also facilitated the process of property and/or title transference between generations. We can foresee the basis, then, for the licensing of marriage by government, as the pillars of government are also cemented in the foundation of property relations, especially in the liberal/Lockean tradition upon which the United States of America (US) was founded, which champions above all else governmental protection of the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and property.”

Following the Enlightenment, however, marriage in the West began to be considered from a different perspective. Rather than being extrinsically beneficial and pragmatic, it began to be regarded as intrinsically beautiful and romantic. With this change came the shift away from marriage being considered as entirely child-oriented into a more couple-oriented institution, whereby individuals affirm their love and commitment to one another before family, friends, god, and government.

Today, it is viewed in much the same way. Arranged marriages are seen as backward by people throughout the West in contrast to marriages on the basis of love. In regards to children, they are largely regarded as an option rather than an assumption for the betrothed, and we joke about “shotgun weddings” as increasingly more children are being born out of wedlock and raised by unmarried individuals and couples. If it has had any influence shaping public opinion on families and marriage, popular culture has only increased our awareness of, if not tolerance for, the diversity of relationships today.

But there are some who claim that this diversity has been to the detriment of today’s youth, and that marriage must revert back to its child-oriented roots in order to better their life-chances. Unlike the child-oriented past, however, these advocates are directly concerned with child well-being, rather than questions of paternal lineage and patrimony. Citing journals and statistics, they attempt to support their hypothesis by showing how children living in stable households with their married biological parents have a greater propensity for “success” across a number of variables than those who are not. “Marriage may not a be panacea,” they say, “[b]ut it is a sine qua non” for those who wish to give children the security and stability needed to live a fulfilling life. They veer from the scientific path in their interpretation of these data as indicating causation, rather than simple correlation. In doing so, they fail to recognize the spuriousness of marriage next to more tried-and-true indicators of childhood well-being such as the educational attainment and socioeconomic status of his or her parents.

If we are to take these doctrinaire marriage proponents at their word, then we must assume that marriage certification in and of itself possesses the properties to bestow upon couples sound parenting skills that are otherwise unattainable. This assumption, however, is contradicted at every turn in today’s world, proving itself as bankrupt from an empirical standpoint as it is theoretically. One need not look far to uncover instances of emotional, physical, and even sexual abuse perpetrated by married men and women against their children. The same can be said about finding instances of unmarried men and women dedicating themselves wholeheartedly to provide for their children, whether adopted, biological, or otherwise, which debunks the consideration of marriage as being an essential ingredient to a child’s healthy upbringing. It is not marriage, then, that determines parental quality, but the character of parents themselves. Therefore, we can adjust the previously cited statement to more accurately read, “Marriage is not a panacea, and good character is a sine qua non.” This is not to say that good character is sufficient, but only that it is necessary. Myriad other variables, many of which tied in one way or another to economic resources available to parents, increase the life-chances of children and provide for more material needs. It is ironic, then, that these very resources are what they are being denied by the diversion of welfare funds intended for poverty relief into marriage-promotion programs.

So, what is to be done? First and foremost, we must broaden awareness of the diversity and size of the unmarried population among the general public as well as those in government, if for no other reason than to de-stigmatize those who cannot or chose not to marry. Second, we must popularize empirical and theoretical works that debunk the theory of marriage as an essential ingredient to one’s own success and to child well-being, while simultaneously promoting alternatives to marriage such as cohabitation. In doing so, we are bound to be confronted by those who reference the economic and legal incentives to marry, to whom we must introduce the long-term goal for equal rights without regard to marital status as well as more short-term policy proposals. Third, we must unite with other progressive elements both nationally and internationally to form a broad coalition based on the common belief that families and other relationships come in many different forms, and so long as they are not inherently oppressive, they should be respected and supported. Fourth, and finally, we must dig in and prepare for a fight, for, with history as our guide, we must rely on the fact that the old seldom yields to the new of its own accord. All the while, we must be flexible in our approach, but steadfast in our resolve until the coalition achieves victory.

Hunter McCord is a Marxist political activist and theoretician. He is currently living in Brooklyn, NY, where he is pursuing a master's degree in social research through Hunter College (CUNY).