Love, Joy, Feminism
A lot has been said about the Republican Party’s 2016 platform. It is, for example, the most anti-LGBT rights platform in the history of the Republican Party. There’s one thing I’ve seen less attention drawn to, though, and that is the platform’s wishful thinking when it comes to the family—or to be specific, the platform’s fairy tale contention that marriage magically fixes everything it touches. The Republican Party platform’s section on marriage and the family rests on some really bad science—or rather, on a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. It’s as though no one ever taught the platform’s authors the difference between correlation and causation. It’s an elementary mistake. It’s data science 101.
I grew up in the Republican Party. Even as I eventually entered the Democratic Party, I assumed that both parties agreed on the most basic facts and had experts who, while they might disagree with each other, at least knew what they were doing. When I read things like this platform section, though, it doesn’t look like that at all. It looks, instead, like one party has experts who have at least some grasp on the problem and the issues involved while the other party has loads and loads of wishful thinking and magical assumptions. Do you want to know why that’s a problem? That’s a problem because having at least two, healthy political parties (with some grasp on basic facts and science) is important for a functional democracy.
Let’s have a look, shall we?
Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman.
Holdup. Why is the cornerstone of the family “natural marriage”? Historically, the family has looked very different from culture to culture and time to time, and even today people disagree on how to define the term “family.” It simply can’t be taken for granted or asserted as though t’s self-evident that “natural marriage” is “the cornerstone of the family.” Check out this bit from an old article about the 1980 White House Conference on the Family, which conservatives made great efforts to fill with their supporters:
Besides polarity on issues, there is a big difference even in the groups’ definitions of the family.
The pro-family groups want government approval for their definition of a family as persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The more moderate groups recognize a broader definition of families as anybody in a loving and caring relationship, sometimes including unmarried and homosexual couples.
It’s odd, isn’t it, that those who focus on blood are described as “pro-family” while those who focus on love are not? I see this framing a lot, and the Republican Party platform is rife with it. Well you know what? I’m a progressive and I’m pro-family. That I disagree very strongly with conservatives on how family is defined does not mean I don’t support or believe in families (in their many forms). I do.
Now back to the platform’s discussion of the family:
Its daily lessons — cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance — are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Strong families, depending upon God and one another, advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives. Conversely, as we have learned over the last five decades, the loss of faith and family life leads to greater dependence upon government. That is why Republicans formulate public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, with attention to the needs and strengths of the family.
I’m honestly not sure why faith is relevant here—I thought we were talking about the family—but I would point out that African Americans, who have by far the highest number of out of wedlock births as a percentage, are also significantly more religious than other groups. But again, I really thought this section was about the family, and bringing faith into it adds a variable.
The platform claims that “strong families . . . advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives.” So let me give you a scenario. A man loses his factory job and struggles to find work; he has a high school diploma and no skills or work experience beyond those gained during his time at the factory. The woman he is married to dropped out of high school when she got pregnant with their first child, and has stayed home with their children ever since; her employment prospects are limited. The family struggles, going on unemployment and then food stamps. Their extended family lives nearby and their family bonds are strong, but everyone is struggling and no one has much to spare. Hmm. It looks like “strong families” do not de facto lessen “the need for government” aid. Or perhaps the platform writers are defining “strong families” as those with financial means?
That’s actually a really important question—what does the platform intend to convey when speaking of “strong families”? Conservatives often seem to equate “family” with “marriage,” but extended African Americans families often have strong bonds irrespective of such a contract. What is a “strong family”? But wait—I think we’re about to get closer to a definition.
It is also why everyone should be concerned about the state of the American family today, not because of ideology or doctrine, but because of the overwhelming evidence of experience, social science, and common sense.
Note the appeal to social science, and the claim that this isn’t about ideology.
All of which give us these truths about traditional marriage: Children raised in a two-parent household tend to be physically and emotionally healthier, more likely to do well in school, less likely to use drugs and alcohol, engage in crime or become pregnant outside of marriage.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hang on there!
We oppose policies and laws that create a financial incentive for or encourage cohabitation. Moreover, marriage remains the greatest antidote to child poverty.
Whaaaaaat.
The 40 percent of children who now are born outside of marriage are five times more likely to live in poverty than youngsters born and raised by a mother and father in the home. Nearly three-quarters of the $450 billion government annually spends on welfare goes to single-parent households. This is what it takes for a governmental village to raise a child, and the village is doing a tragically poor job of it.
This is not how it works.
So first of all, I was right—this is about marriage. It’s not about strong family bonds at all. It’s about marriage. It’s not about fostering loving, caring relationships. Nope. It’s about getting people to sign a piece of paper. This should be obvious, but a piece of paper isn’t going to make kids any better off. And that’s the claim, isn’t it? If only kids’ parents all got married, child poverty would end! No wait. It wouldn’t. It turns out that the marriage rate and the child poverty rate don’t correlate—at all.
Anyone who has studied history at all knows that child poverty was significantly higher in the past, when marriage rates were far higher, than it is today. Do you know what tends to guard against poverty? Education and access to resources. Marriage doesn’t make poor people suddenly financially sound. Now yes, marriage in some cases means combining two incomes (though conservatives tend to be in favor of stay-at-home mothers, which eliminates an income). But so does cohabitation, which this platform specifically inveighs against. In other words, this isn’t about the combination of two incomes into one household.
Remember, though, that the claim isn’t just about child poverty. The claim is that children growing up in two-parent families are “physically and emotionally healthier, more likely to do well in school, less likely to use drugs and alcohol, engage in crime or become pregnant outside of marriage.” Well you know what? Married couples on average have higher incomes and more higher education unmarried couples, and having a higher income and more higher education correlates with all of those things! Why do married couples have higher incomes? Because individuals with higher incomes and greater educational attainment are more likely to marry than those with lower incomes and lower levels of educational attainment—and more likely to stay married!
Take a look at this data, for instance:
This data would suggest that one way to promote healthy, long-lasting marriages is to encourage women to attend college. Of course, there’s the causation v. correlation issue here, too—what is it about having a bachelor’s degree that makes a woman’s marriage likely to last longer? Perhaps it has to do with income—i.e., perhaps couples with higher incomes are more likely to stay married. In other words, it appears to go the other way around—higher incomes lead to longer-lasting marriages, rather than vice versa (i.e. the Republicans’ claim that marriage results in higher income and greater economic stability).
There’s another issue too, though. Children benefit from growing up in a loving and stable family environment, but marriage does not automatically or always create this. This is why you can’t compare the outcomes of children with divorced parents to the outcomes of children with married never-divorced parents—couples who get divorces almost by definition did not provide a loving and stable family environment before the divorce, or else they wouldn’t have gotten a divorce. Just as forcing couples to marry would not magically create money that does not already exist, even so forcing couples to marry would not magically create loving and stable family environments where they do not already exist.
But there’s still a bit more in the platform.
The data and the facts lead to an inescapable conclusion: Every child deserves a married mom and dad.
Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait. The data and facts prove that? Really? That will be news to social science, because the data and facts actually suggest that children with same-sex parents do just as well as other children!
Also? I’ve spoken with plenty of adults who grew up in divorced households who said they were glad their parents got a divorce, because it was better than what came before, and with plenty of adults who grew up in homes without divorce who wish their parents had gotten a divorce, because that would have been better than what they had. Oh, and I also know young adults whose parents got married because of them—because they got pregnant—who grew up feeling like they were the reason their obviously incompatible parents ended up stuck together, living miserable lives. So no. I’m going with no.
Do you know what every child deserves? Parents and caregivers who love them and care for them, while also meeting their own needs. You know why? Because children do better when their parents and caregivers are happy and fulfilled (i.e. not in a marriage that is making them miserable). Do you know what else every child deserves? A stable food source, adequate clothing, basic healthcare, and a roof over their head. Do you know what doesn’t magically provide these things? Marriage. Do you know what does provide these things? Affordable college and vocational training for their parents. Access to food stamps, Medicaid, and other government programs in case of need.
But we’re still not done.
The reality remains that millions of American families do not have the advantages that come with that structure. We honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the burdens of parenting alone and embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with dignity and respect. But respect is not enough. Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.
What the hell does “respect is not enough” mean? I’m honestly curious. Because it looks like the platform is saying that gay people should be treated with respect, but that “respect is not enough,” so gay people need to be actively discriminated against in our country’s marriage law, and frankly, that logic flow makes absolutely no sense.
Also? You can either “recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman” or “actively promote married family life” but you cannot do both, as the first rather gets in the way of the second. Namely, confining marriage to one man and one woman actively prevents a segment of the population from marrying at all which by definition gets in the way of efforts to “actively promote married family life.” Unless, of course, we remember that to those who wrote this platform, “family” means man + woman + children, and absolutely nothing else. Which of course it does.
Let me take you back to the main point I want to make here, though, because I know the anti-LGBT rights aspects of this platform have already been covered in depth. Namely, note once again the assumption that inducing people to get married will automatically create stability and prosperity. It does not work that way. When relationships show promise of being stable and prosperous, couples tend to marry. Those who don’t marry generally do so for reasons—reasons that won’t just go away if some external force convinces them to marry anyway.
If you want to know more about the problems with conservatives’ belief that marriage is the solution to every social and economic ill, start reading sociologist Philip Cohen’s blog, Family Inequality. Check out this post, for instance.
Yes, the children of single parents face steeper odds of success than their fellow citizens whose parents are happily married. Many single parents – the vast majority of whom are women – experience chronic shortages of money, time and social support. Their children are less likely to be closely supervised, to be well prepared for kindergarten, to graduate high school, and to make it through young adulthood free from entanglements with the criminal justice system. The intuitive case for more marriage is easy to see.
…
[But] single parenthood doesn’t just cause these social ailments, it also reflects them. Some of these problems are merely the consequence of whatever caused their parents to be single in the first place: poverty, illness, incarceration, weak relationship skills, and so on. In other words, successful people are more likely to raise successful children and to have successful marriages. Research on marriage among poor Americans clearly shows that the majority want to be married, but they aren’t for a variety of reasons related to their poverty.
Marriage does not make poor couples middle class. Marriage does not impart education on people ill-prepared for today’s job market. Marriage does not create stable, loving relationships where they do not already exist. And if conservatives are so damn worried about marriage, they should be asking why people aren’t getting married. Because—frankly—that’s what social scientists actually do. Republicans, though? Republicans engage in magical wishful thinking. Apparently. And you know what? Magical wishful thinking is a terrible thing to base policy on.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In