[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6812-6815]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                MARRIAGE

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, what I wish to talk about this 
morning is the overall issue of marriage, and I will go through some 
charts, factual information, and some data. It is a current topic. It 
is one of great interest in the country. What I want to do is back up 
and say, Why is this institution even significant to us as a country? 
Why would a governing body be interested in marriage at all? Isn't this 
just simply a private matter?
  What I want to do is go through, on a factual basis, and outline and 
make clear why marriage is so important to a government. At the end of 
the day, it comes back to raising children in a society to be 
productive, good, strong, healthy citizens, and the best setting to do 
that in is between two married biological parents, if at all possible, 
male and female. That is what all the statistical studies show. That is 
what the sociological studies show. I want to go through that because 
it lays the groundwork for why we are interested in marriage in a 
governmental body.
  It turns out that if you have strong families, at the end of the day 
you are going to need less government infrastructure and support for 
them. If you

[[Page 6813]]

have a very weakened family structure, you are going to need a lot more 
governmental structure to surround that child to make up for the lack 
of two dedicated male-female biological parents.
  This is not to say people cannot raise good children outside of that 
setting, because people do, and they struggle sometimes heroically to 
get it done, and they get it done. I want to recognize and honor them 
as well.
  I want to talk about the macro-
picture as a broad society. As a society of millions of people, why are 
we interested in it? The reason is that, by and large, it produces 
stronger, more capable citizenry.
  In the wake of all the recent debates about defending marriage from 
some of the new and unique challenges it faces and promoting marriage 
as an essential component in addressing some of our more intractable 
social problems in this country, I think it is important we come back 
to some fundamental questions: What is marriage? Why is it important to 
the health and continuance of our society? Why is the Government 
interested in marriage at all?
  The answers to these fundamental questions are no longer so obvious 
or self-evident, as is apparent from the fact that many today question 
our civilization's traditional understandings of the institution of 
marriage, its purpose, its necessity for society, and its role in 
preventing social breakdown.
  Before we can argue fruitfully about what marriage is not, we have to 
have a good understanding of what it is, why it is valuable, and why it 
must be defended as an essential bulwark of this great Nation of ours. 
The stronger the marriages we have between a man and woman in this 
country, bonded together for life, the stronger the country is going to 
be.
  Marriage has been central to the understanding of family in Western 
culture from the beginning, and central to our historical concept of 
marriage has been the rearing of and orientation toward children. It is 
in this setting that children have the most likelihood of coming out 
successfully. This traditional understanding is a far cry from a 
postmodern deconstruction of marriage by a large number of sociologists 
and academics today, many of whom hold that the unique character of 
marriage is simply ``public approval and recognition.'' In other words, 
marriage is whatever controlling public authority says it is, whatever 
current public opinion is.
  Our civilization's historical understanding of marriage and the 
consequent recognition by the State of the unique nature of this one 
relationship reflect the fact that the public recognition of the 
institution of marriage is not primarily about the granting of rights 
and liberties but about the imposition of burdens.
  Under the law, marriage limits rather than increases individual 
freedom. As family scholar Allan Carlson points out, marriage laws 
commonly mandate the sharing of earnings and debts, compelling 
obligations of mutual support, and limit rights to terminate the 
relationship. These are all limitations on the two people involved.
  Why is it that governments leave all other relationship between 
individuals free but continue to register and in a sense burden these 
heterosexual unions? The answer--and I will go through this in a number 
of charts and statistics--is children, beings at once highly vulnerable 
and essential for the future of every community. Strong and stable 
marriages receive public approbation because it is a source of citizens 
able to practice ordered liberty. So children are the key to the puzzle 
about the unique treatment of heterosexual unions and traditional 
marriage.
  As author Maggie Gallagher has written:

       Marriage is the place where having children is not only 
     tolerated but welcomed and encouraged, because it gives 
     children mothers and fathers.

  That should seem very basic. This is not to say that marriage is not 
important to society for a host of other reasons as well. Traditional 
marriage is a boon to society in a variety of ways, and Government has 
a vital interest in encouraging and providing the conditions to 
maintain as many traditional marriages as possible.
  Marriage has economic benefits, not only for the spouses but for the 
economy at large. Even in advanced industrial societies such as ours, 
economists tell us that the uncounted but real value of home 
activities, such as childcare, home carpentry, and food preparation, is 
still at least as large as that of the official economy. Not least of 
the reasons marriage is a positive social good is the fact that in the 
married state, adults of both sexes are vastly healthier, happier, 
safer, wealthier, and live longer.
  Here is an instance where social science, viewed honestly, confirms 
what common wisdom has always told us: Traditional marriage between a 
man and a woman is a good thing. It is not only good for the spouses, 
it is absolutely vital for the children.
  Now again, we know from study after study that the children of intact 
traditional marriages are also much healthier in body, spirit, and 
mind, more successful in school and life, and much less likely to use 
illegal drugs, abuse alcohol, or engage in crime. That is not to say 
people cannot raise healthy children in other settings. They can and 
they do, and they struggle mightily to get it done. This is the best 
setting.
  As a result, though, one can always confidently conclude that 
traditional marriage is also a social good because it dramatically 
reduces the social costs associated with dysfunctional behavior. 
Supporting and strengthening marriage significantly diminishes public 
expenditures on welfare, raises Government revenues, and produces a 
more engaged responsible citizenry.
  On the other hand, as seen today, most dramatically in modern 
societies such as ours, where the institution of marriage has been 
threatened and under attack for decades, with high rates of divorce and 
cohabitation, combined with low birthrates, there is a real question 
about the vibrancy of future societies that do not uphold traditional 
marriage. It is ironic, then, that the very governments that benefit 
from intact traditional unions have in recent years seemed determined 
to follow policies that have the effect of weakening marriage.
  There is a clear consensus about the benefits of stable marriages to 
children, and that consensus is growing. Child Trends, a mainstream 
child welfare organization, has noted that:

       Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters 
     for children, and the family structure that helps the most is 
     a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict 
     marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born 
     to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or 
     cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. 
     . . .

  Not that they do not have in many cases very good outcomes, but they 
face higher risk of poor outcomes.

       There is thus value for children in promoting strong, 
     stable marriages between biological parents.

  It is not just any relationship between any two adults that provides 
children with the stability and nurture they need to thrive; it is a 
strong, stable marriage between biological parents. Again, social 
science seems to confirm what our common sense tells us: Children need 
a mom and a dad.
  We cannot lose sight of the importance of fathers in this discussion 
of marriage. While it has become fashionable to champion a wide variety 
of alternative family forums, it is abundantly clear that children are 
much less likely to thrive in the absence of their biological father. 
Children who grow up without their fathers are two to three times more 
likely to fail at school and two to three times more likely to suffer 
from an emotional or behavioral problem. They are five times more 
likely to be poor. Nearly 80 percent of all children suffering long-
term poverty come from broken or never-married families.
  This is the first chart I wanted to show about developmental problems 
are less common in two-parent families, the red chart being single-
parent families and the second one being two-parent families. Virtually 
half the level, the lower half of class academically, developmental 
delay, emotional

[[Page 6814]]

or behavioral problems--all of those problems are nearly cut in half in 
a two-parent family.
  I want to show next, on the child poverty issue, nearly 80 percent of 
all children suffering long-term poverty come from broken or never-
married families. This is the number of children, total population, 
that are in the situation of poverty. Twenty-two percent are children 
of intact married couples, and the rest in the various other areas are 
children born in marriage subsequently divorced; children born out of 
wedlock, mother subsequently marries; children of never-married 
mothers. Virtually 80 percent are those involved in poverty.
  The crisis of child poverty in this country is, in large degree, a 
crisis of marriage. That is why in the welfare reform bill there has 
been so much push on the issue of marriage, because with marriage comes 
a much better chance that this child is not going to be in a situation 
of poverty. It is not saying that is going to be in all circumstances; 
it is not. But the odds get much improved. The percentage of children 
of intact families living in poverty is very small compared to those in 
families where the father is not present.
  Marriage has the effect of lifting families and children out of 
poverty. After the birth of a child out of wedlock, only 17 percent of 
poor mothers and children remain poor if the mother marries the child's 
father. More than half of those mothers and children remain poor if the 
mother remains single.
  I am saying this, and some people may be uneasy about what the facts 
say, but this is what the situation is. We have had this vast social 
experiment of fathers being removed from families or leaving families 
in an increasing amount over the past number of decades and we have the 
data now. It is important for governments that we have a two-
biological-parents traditional family.
  This chart indicates the impact of marriage on poverty based on the 
nonmarried father's actual earnings, percentage of mothers and children 
who are poor. If the mother remains single, it is 55 percent; if the 
mother marries the child's father, it is 17 percent. Divorce, on the 
other hand, impoverishes families and children. It has been estimated 
the average income of families with children declines by 42 percent 
after divorce. Divorce has hit my family. It has hit many families--
most families across this country. I know the impact of it, in siblings 
in my family.
  Children who grow up fatherless are also at a much increased risk of 
serious child abuse. A child whose mother cohabits with a man who is 
not the child's father is 33 times more likely to suffer abuse than a 
child living with both biological parents in an intact marriage. What a 
tough situation for that child.
  Married mothers are also half as likely to be victims of domestic 
violence than mothers who have never been married. As teenagers, 
fatherless children are more likely to commit crime, engage in early 
and promiscuous sexual activity, and to commit suicides.
  It is clear both children and societies as a whole pay an enormous 
price for fatherless homes. The American people realize this. There is 
a Gallup poll from several years ago that showed almost 80 percent of 
the public agrees with the proposition that ``the most significant 
family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the 
father from the home.''
  It is a problem that requires urgent attention in our country. Nearly 
25 million children today reside in a home where the father is absent--
25 million children. Half of these children have never stepped foot in 
their father's home--12.5 million have never stepped foot in their 
father's home.
  Less than half of all teenagers currently live with their married 
biological mothers and fathers. On this chart, that is the point I just 
made: Less than half of all teenagers live with their married 
biological mothers and fathers.
  This year, approximately 1 million children will endure the divorce 
of their parents and an additional 1.2 million will be born out of 
wedlock. Altogether the proportion of children entering broken families 
has more than quadrupled since 1950.
  This is a crisis for both our children and our country, the fact that 
so many children are growing up without dads. It has been exacerbated 
by the decline of the institution of marriage.
  In the year 2000, the proportion of never-married women between the 
ages of 25 to 29 reached 39 percent; in 1965 it was less than 10 
percent. Among men, the proportion who have never married from that age 
group went from 18 percent to 44 percent in the same time period. 
According to the Census Bureau, the number of cohabiting couples has 
increased from half a million to almost 5 million in the last 30 years. 
The number of households with neither marriage nor children present has 
gone from about 7 million in 1960 to just under 41 million in 2000. 
While married-couple families were 76 percent of all households in 
1960, they constitute barely 50 percent today. Divorce rates have 
doubled every decade between 1960 and 1990, and while now they appear 
to have leveled off, they are still at historically high levels.
  This is the percentage of adults in the population that is married 
compared to the percentage of the population that is divorced. You can 
see what it was in 1970: married 72 percent, divorced 3 percent; in 
2002, 59 percent married, 10 percent divorced.
  Public policy must focus on reinforcing the institution of marriage 
if we are to make progress in addressing many of the most difficult 
problems we face as a society. While welfare reform, for instance, has 
been an undeniable success in cutting half the caseloads, it is clear 
the next step must include addressing what is the core issue, the 
decline of marriage and the absence of fathers from families. We 
certainly cannot mandate the involvement of biological fathers with 
their families, but we can do everything possible to support the most 
proven and effective pathway to responsible parental engagement, and 
that is marriage. We must continue to work to change the policies that 
in effect punish the decision to marry, such as welfare rules that make 
it more difficult for married couples with children to qualify in 
comparison to single-parent families.
  We must work to address the decline of traditional marriage. Unless 
we provide, as a society, cultural reinforcement for the often 
difficult path of loyal, committed, monogamous, heterosexual unions, we 
should not expect to see the institution of marriage thrive.
  If society says the family structure does not matter, what is the 
incentive to get or to stay married when the road gets rough, which it 
often does? As one marriage expert has said, ``If marriage is just a 
way of publicly celebrating private love, then there is no need to 
encourage couples to stick it out for the sake of children. If family 
structure does not matter, why have marriage laws at all? Do adults or 
do they not have a basic obligation to control their desires so that 
children can have mothers and fathers?''
  That, my colleagues, is the real question in the marriage debate. 
That is why we have a vital interest in defending the institution of 
traditional marriage from attempts to define it out of existence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the period for 
morning business be extended by 10 minutes on each side.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 
Democratic leader wanted to speak. He yielded to the Senator from 
Kansas. If the Senator from Texas will withhold for a minute, he should 
be coming here.
  Mr. CORNYN. I am sorry, Madam President, is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes, there is, until the Democratic leader gets here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Texas has 
the floor.
  Mr. REID. How much time is remaining on----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7 minutes, 15 seconds that remain.

[[Page 6815]]


  Mr. REID. I would say, Madam President, we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. CORNYN. For a question? May I ask how much time we have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. There was an objection to the request for extension on 
each side for morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that objection was heard.
  Mr. CORNYN. There was objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

                          ____________________