This morning we heard from several readers, including the family scholar Bradford Wilcox, about the data correlations between marriage and poverty. Now a few readers start moving the conversation past the numbers. Here’s Michael Brewer:
Statistical correlations between marriage and poverty are important and interesting, but alone I don’t think they can serve as a basis for family or state policy. “How do I increase my income and lower my tax burden?” is a simple question of economics, easily answered with available data. And it’s a red herring. When I hear some new argument about how marriage will improve my finances, it doesn’t make me want to get married; it makes me wonder why single people like me aren’t worth a tax break, or aren’t as respected by employers. The system favors nuclear families because that’s how it was built. These are not laws of nature.
The economics and statistics are just data, not answers. The real debate should be about ethics and justice.
As a single guy in my early 30s who doesn’t want to get married any time soon, if at all, I’ve often wondered why the tax code should so heavily favor married couples when the simple act of cohabitation already has so many financial advantages. If you’re unmarried and feel the same way and want to rant about it, drop me an email. Here’s another reader who questions the centrality of marriage in modern life:
As a single woman who has no particular desire for dating or marriage (if I meet someone and it happens, great, but I can’t see making it a goal for myself when much of it is out of my control), I was really interested by the reader who said that one advantage of marriage is that “when disaster strikes, and you are alone, it really is a disaster.”
This is true; being alone does make it harder to deal with the storms of life. But why is marriage, a specific romantic relationship between two people, the only way to deal with this?