re: #573 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

the Victorian-era nuclear family as we know it will end, that much is certain. It’s rate of growth, propped up by unearned social status, cannot be sustained. We can no longer afford multi-billion dollar tax benefits that often aren’t even requested by straight couples, and we certainly can’t afford marriage tax bonuses which we funnel money into year after year with no explanation, accountability, or apparent benefit except throwing movement conservatism a bone. i have no intention of throwing Republican values voters, frightened of their own shadows, to the wolves but our ideas about marriage and family must be greatly altered! ///

Marriage tax bonus? A married couple, two earners, equal earnings, pays more tax than it would if they could split the dependents and file each as single.

As to ideas about marriage and family, you are welcome to yours but the fact is that marriage is an ancient human institution and its longevity suggests that it’s a pretty good arrangement for the populations that have stuck with it for millennia. In a rough and ready way, it aligns individual interests with the wider societal interest in having a next generation that is fairly well socialized, fairly well educated, and fairly well provided for.

This isn’t just a Western thing. The Chinese set great store by marriage and family, for instance. And they seem to reap the rewards. There is a role for the State—-universal, free, compulsory public education is a big improvement on the old system of apprenticing children, for instance. But still, marriage continues as part of the answer to how to keep a civilization up and running.