Suzanne Fields has written a great op-ed that covers the basic issue in the marriage debates: Good of the Offspring v. Close Relationship. Link. Excerpt:
In "close relationship" law there's a moral equivalence between marriage and cohabitation -- what society once derided as "living together." There's ample research to show that mere cohabitation to produce children creates a less stable environment for them than marriage. In "close relationship" law, a "partner" is the equal of a "parent" and conjugal marriage morphs into the generic neutrality of "coupledom." In "close relationship" law, marriage is just another "lifestyle choice" along with other economically and emotionally interdependent relationships comprising a kind of "family buddy system."
If this sounds far-fetched, fetch again. This reports shows how "close relationship" law moves in mysterious ways and often gets imbedded in law incrementally, without debate, because it operates under the public radar. The report cites secular chapter and verse where the legal formality of marriage is in danger of being replaced by other relationships described in mushy language as "indistinguishable from marriage." The result of such thinking undercuts the notion that a mother and a father should be the standard for measuring the best interests of a child, even if honored in the breach.
