Marriage should be privatized

1) The resolution of the debate - marriage should be privatized - does not imply or require the separation of church and state as a condition for acceptance. As such, it is a debatable premise.2) My opponent concedes that marriage should be secular. My opponent's premise (the separation of church and state) is thus irrelevant, as the point of invoking the separation of church and state in the first place was to establish a separation between a religious institution (marriage) and the state. 3) My opponent falsely claims the state doesn't benefit from issuing government-sanctioned marriage contracts. My opponent is well-aware of the legal benefits granted by marriage, so let me go through a list of extra-legal benefits established by marriage: Married people report greater sexual satisfaction than people in single or cohabiting relationships [1]. Married people report higher levels of physical and psyhological health [2]. Married people are more likely to volunteer [3]. Marriage increases the likelihood of affluence [4]. Marriage doubled the probability that a person would move from a poor to a non-poor neighborhood [5]. Married men earn, on average, 20 percent more in wages than unmarried men [6]. Marriage is associated with lower mortality risk [7]. 4) The benefits of marriage produce a more stable household. This is why marriage is the best framework for child-rearing, which my opponent has conceded is a legitimate state-interest. The state thus clearly has an interest in giving its citizens marriage contracts, as marriage produces benefits that coincide with the interests of the state, including physical and pyschological health, prosperity, and a more stable and nurting household for child-rearing.5) Other studies have shown that marriage reduces crime, increases social stability, and reduces antisocial behavior such as drug use [8].6) My opponent suggests two alternatives to marriage: to provide tax-breaks solely to mothers, or to provide socialized medicine. Socializing medicine would not lead to any of the above-mentioned benefits save for increased physical healthy. As for providing tax-breaks to mothers, that would be sexist, as it completely excludes fathers from the child-rearing process. My opponent is, at least in effect, arguing for a patriarchal, male-dominated society. Government-sanctioned marriage contracts seems far more practical, as well as better for the perpetuation of a society that values equality among men and women.7) My opponent continues to insist that marriage should be privatized so that the government can have the justification to socialize. The logic here is bizarre and contradictory. It creates more social programs, and uses the abolition of marriage as a justification for these programs. Why not preserve or reform state-sanctioned marriage, since it obviously fulfills the legal and social role of all the programs my opponent advocates in the place of marriage? 8) My opponent claims that state marriages strip marriage of "romanticism." According to the studies I cite, married couples report greater sexual satisfaction. This is evidence that, if anything, marriage is more romantic than not. In fact, historically, socially, and culturally, marriage is an institution that is considered extremely romantic. A quick look at most of the romantic books (Jane Austen, for example) and movies feature marriage as a romantic institution.9) My opponent claims marriage isn't valuable because of it's legal benefits. I disagree, the legal benefits of marriage are valuable, as they provide a better environment for raising children, they help young people settle down in stable relationships, and they provide as many people as possible (through the context of a legally-binding family) with caregivers. The legal benefits are enormously valuable.10) My opponent claims that marriage is a spiritual connection. I agree, but notice that people can have a spiritual connection without marriage. Marriage embodies this spiritual connection publically, so that it can be communicated and signalled to the larger community. This is a valuable social function of marriage, as it allows a couple to establish its spiritual connection and signal it to the public sphere. If the spiritual connection remained fully private, it would invite romantic advances from strangers and would pose constant threats to the connection. I argue that being able to signal a spiritual connection publically is a benefit of marriage that is valued by the government and is, a such, yet another reason for the government to give out marriage contracts. Sources [1] Christopher F. Scott and Susan Sprecher, “Sexuality in Marriage, Dating, and Other Relationships: A Decade Review,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 62, No. 4 (November 2000), pp. 999–1017.[2] Allan V. Horwitz, Helene R. White, and Sandra Howell-White,“Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 58(November 1996), pp. 895–907.[3] Corey L. M. Keyes, “Social Civility in the United States,” Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 72, No. 3 (2002), pp. 393–408.[4] Thomas A. Hirschl, Joyce Altobelli, and Mark R. Rank, “Does Marriage Increase the Odds of Affluence? Exploring the Life Course Probabilities,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65, No. 4(November 2003), pp. 927–938.[5] Scott J. South and Kyle D. Crowder, “Escaping Distressed Neighborhoods: Individual, Community, and Metropolitan Influences,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 102, No. 4 (January1997), pp. 1040–1084.[6] Kate Antonovics and Robert Town, “Are All the Good Men Married? Uncovering the Sources of the Marital Wage Premium,” American Economic Review, Vol. 94 (May 2004), pp. 317–321.[7] Stephanie A. Bond Huie, Robert A. Hummer, and Richard G. Rogers,“Individual and Contextual Risks of Death among Race and Ethnic Groups in the United States,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior,Vol. 43 (2002), pp. 359–381.[8] http://troublesofyouth.pbworks.com...;