Chicago Tribune reporter Rex Huppke recently wrote an article titled “Marriage benefits costly for gay couples” in which he addresses the economic costs for gay partners to legally protect their relationships. The article failed to address the underlying issue in this debate: the public purpose of marriage.
Marriage is not a relationship that society created in order to give some people benefits and deny them to others. Marriage is the institution that societies worldwide have recognized and encouraged because this unique relationship between a man and a woman provides particular benefits to society, chief among them, the procreation and nurturing of the next generation.
If marriage were centrally or solely about affirming love between individuals, the government would have no reason to be involved in the business of sanctioning marriage. Government sanctions the type of relationship into which children may be born and raised because the government recognizes that that institution which best serves the needs and rights of children is the institution that best serves a healthy society.
Of all the criteria that define marriage — number of partners, blood kinship, minimum age, and sexual complementarity — the one that has been historically and cross-culturally the most fixed is sexual complementarity.
The social science is clear and irrefutable: children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad. The government acts in the interest of children and society when it protects the institution of marriage through legal benefits.