Beyond the Altar: Reclaiming Family from the State and Embracing a Future of Diverse Kinship

The American social and legal landscape, for all its purported dynamism, often operates under the heavy cloak of anachronism, particularly when it comes to defining and supporting its citizens’ most intimate bonds. A recent, incisive article in The New Republic compellingly argued that U.S. systems – public and private – remain stubbornly tethered to a nostalgic, narrow vision of the “traditional family”: a married heterosexual couple and their biological offspring. This model, the piece contends, is treated as the default, the ideal, and the primary recipient of societal and legal validation, despite rapidly shifting demographics that paint a far more diverse picture of American households.

While this critique is vital and long overdue, it arguably doesn’t venture far enough into the true, radical multiplicity of ways humans form families, show love, and build networks of profound interdependence. The reality is that countless families exist in forms that defy even expanded “non-traditional” categories, often invisibly, and almost always disadvantaged by a system that anoints one specific relational structure – state-sanctioned, dyadic marriage – as the principal gateway to over a thousand legal rights, benefits, and protections. This begs a fundamental question: Why does the state continue to wield such immense power in defining our most personal connections, and what is the profound human cost of this anachronistic insistence on a “one-size-fits-all” model in a world that so clearly doesn’t fit?

The Current Landscape – A System Built on an Outdated Blueprint

The evidence of systemic bias favoring the “traditional” married-couple-with-children household is pervasive, as The New Republic and other analyses have meticulously documented. Lawmakers proudly brand themselves “pro-family,” a term almost invariably understood to mean support for this specific configuration. Society is replete with “Family Day” at amusement parks, “family discounts” on everything from phone plans to automobiles, and “family-size” consumables that mock the budgets and storage space of single-person households. Restaurants often shunt solo diners to the bar, reserving prime tables for couples or larger family units.

The economic and legal disadvantages are even more stark. Single individuals often subsidize family health insurance plans through their employment. They can face higher effective tax rates than a married couple with the same joint income. Crucially, they are frequently denied fundamental dignities and protections automatically afforded to spouses, such as Social Security survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights in moments of crisis, or the ability to make critical healthcare decisions for an incapacitated partner if not married. Even “family-friendly” corporate policies can translate into single, childless employees being expected to consistently cover nights, weekends, and holidays.

This “fix,” as The New Republic rightly calls it, has been in for a long time, favoring those who marry and have children. In past eras, when societal pressures and economic necessities made marriage an almost universal life stage (often occurring in one’s early twenties, as in 1970), this bias was perhaps a less acute irritant for a smaller segment of the population. But that demographic landscape has irrevocably shifted. In 1970, 71% of U.S. households consisted of married couples; by 2022, this figure had plummeted to 47%, making them a minority. “Non-family” households soared from 19% to 36% in the same period. Married couples with children, once the plurality at 40% of homes, now constitute a mere 18% – strikingly, just slightly more than women living alone (16%). Americans are marrying later, if at all. By 2010, only half of adults over 18 were married, while a startling 31% had never married, a trend that has only continued.

Despite this clear demographic evolution, policymakers, particularly those of a conservative bent, often appear to be in denial, clinging to what historian Stephanie Coontz, in her seminal work The Way We Never Were, calls the “nostalgia trap”—a yearning for a mythic 1950s family ideal that was never as universally idyllic or structurally singular as romanticized memory suggests. The response to declining birth rates or changing marriage patterns is rarely a thoughtful re-examination of how public policy could adapt to support the diverse ways Americans actually live, but rather misguided attempts to coerce or bribe the populace back into an earlier, narrower mold – through shaming rhetoric aimed at unmarried or childless women (as exemplified by comments from figures like Vice President JD Fuxacouch or media personalities like Kid Rock and John Mac Ghlionn targeting Taylor Swift), or through laughably inadequate financial incentives like President Felonious Punk’s proposed “$5,000 baby bonus.” As Daniel Cox of the American Enterprise Institute notes, such financial incentives rarely solve what are ostensibly cultural shifts, driven by factors like the rising cost of living and, significantly, women’s increased economic independence and desire for equality within relationships.

Expanding the Definition – The Myriad Faces of Modern Kinship

The critique of privileging the “traditional family” is essential, but to truly build a just and supportive society, we must acknowledge an even broader, often intentionally obscured, spectrum of human kinship and interdependence. “Family,” in its functional sense, is about love, care, mutual support, shared lives, and emotional sustenance. These functions are not exclusive to state-sanctioned, dyadic, heterosexual marriage.

Consider the vast array of LGBTQIA+ family constellations. For decades, queer communities have forged “chosen families” – deep bonds of love and mutual support that often become primary kin networks, especially for individuals estranged from their biological families due to bigotry. Same-sex couples, whether married (where legal) or in long-term unmarried partnerships, build homes and raise children. Polyamorous relationships and families, involving multiple loving, ethically-committed adults, are increasingly visible, challenging dyadic norms while providing stability and care for all involved. Asexual and aromantic individuals may form profound, non-romantic, life-partnering bonds that are no less significant in their supportive function. Co-parenting networks often emerge that defy nuclear family structures, built on shared responsibility and love for children. My own family, for instance, operates within a loving, stable polyamorous structure: my partner and I are deeply committed, I am “Dad” to her children in every functional sense, yet she also maintains a separate, loving relationship with another partner, with my full acceptance and support. Our social network largely perceives us as a “traditional” couple, a testament to the functionality of our unit, but the legal system offers virtually no recognition or protection for the full reality of our chosen family structure.

Beyond these, we must also confront the boundaries of our definitions. Historically, “Mormon variables,” such as the practice of polygyny in early Mormonism and its continuation in some small, breakaway fundamentalist groups today, while legally unsanctioned and often fraught with their own complex issues, starkly illustrate how deeply held religious beliefs have produced family structures radically different from the legally dominant dyadic model. These examples, not offered as endorsements but as sociological facts, demonstrate the historical and ongoing variance in how “family” is conceived and practiced.

And to push the conceptual boundaries further, as a means of questioning our societal priorities: what of the individual whose primary emotional support, daily caregiving responsibilities, and deepest bonds are with non-human companions? If an individual dedicates their life to caring for a “herd of cats,” providing them with shelter, sustenance, and love, does society owe any recognition to that unit for any purpose? A “pet credit” on tax forms, analogous to a child care credit, might seem whimsical, but it challenges the narrow, human-child-centric focus of most benefits designed to support “care” and “dependents.”

The common thread running through all these diverse structures – from LGBTQIA+ chosen families and polyamorous households to multi-generational non-conjugal units, deeply committed non-romantic partnerships, and even profound human-animal bonds – is the fulfillment of essential functions: love, care, mutual support, economic interdependence, and the creation of a sense of belonging and shared life. Our laws and social policies, however, remain fixated on form – specifically, the form of state-sanctioned marriage.

The State in Our Bedrooms and Benefit Plans – The Case for Decoupling Rights from Rings

The U.S. government, at federal and state levels, has become the primary arbiter of what constitutes a legitimate family, primarily through its power to issue marriage licenses. This single act unlocks access to, as Gordon Morris of Unmarried Equality points out, approximately a thousand distinct federal rights, benefits, and protections, with many more at the state level. These range from the intimate (hospital visitation, medical decision-making) to the economic (Social Security survivor benefits, joint tax filing, inheritance rights, access to family health insurance plans) and the civic (immigration sponsorship). This “marital privilege” creates a de facto caste system, where one specific type of relationship, legally formalized by the state, is granted overwhelming preference and material advantage over all other forms of adult interdependence and care.

This state of affairs demands a radical re-evaluation. There are strong philosophical and legal arguments for the disestablishment of civil marriage as it currently functions, or at least for a profound separation of its civil and religious components. For many, marriage is a deeply personal, spiritual, or religious commitment, and the state’s role in defining and licensing this intimate bond is seen as an overreach. From a perspective of individual liberty and autonomy, consenting adults should be free to define and practice their relationships as they see fit, without needing state sanction for their love and commitment to be “valid” or for their interdependent unit to be recognized for basic protections. The argument for separating church and state also applies: the state should not be in the business of enforcing or privileging a model of union heavily shaped by specific religious traditions.

The historical evolution of state control over marriage reveals it as a constructed, not an eternal, verity. Initially concerned with property, inheritance, and the legitimacy of children for social order, the state’s role expanded, often intertwined with less savory motives like controlling immigration, enforcing racial segregation through anti-miscegenation laws, and shaping social welfare policies. It is time to question whether this extensive state apparatus for defining and privileging one form of adult relationship continues to serve a just or rational purpose in a diverse 21st-century society. The core argument is simple: “We shouldn’t have to legally prescribe to a given definition and/or someone else’s opinion in order to show love for one another.”

Forging a New Framework – Recognizing Functional Kinship and Supporting Care

If the state were to step back from defining marriage as the sole gateway to rights, what would replace it? The focus must shift from formal structure to functional relationship. The state has a legitimate interest in recognizing and supporting relationships that fulfill essential societal functions of care, mutual support, and interdependence. Several models and proposals point towards a more inclusive future:

Universal Relationship Registries: Some legal scholars and activists propose systems where any two (or more, in some more radical proposals) consenting adults who share a household and an interdependent life could register their relationship. This registration could then grant access to a customizable bundle of legal rights and protections, chosen by the individuals involved to suit their specific needs and commitments, regardless of romantic or sexual involvement.

“A La Carte” Assignment of Rights: An even more flexible approach involves unbundling the myriad rights currently tied to marriage. Individuals could, through specific legal instruments like durable powers of attorney for healthcare, wills, and designated beneficiary forms, assign specific rights – such as hospital visitation, medical decision-making authority, inheritance, or certain financial benefits – to chosen individuals, be they partners, close friends, siblings, or other caregivers, irrespective of marital or biological ties.

Legal Recognition for Caregiving Relationships: There is a pressing need to legally recognize and materially support the immense amount of unpaid caregiving that occurs outside of marriage and traditional nuclear families. This includes adult children caring for elderly parents, friends caring for each other through illness, or individuals dedicating their lives to dependents with disabilities. Policies like paid family and medical leave, Social Security caregiver credits, and tax benefits for caregivers should be designed to be inclusive of these diverse caregiving constellations.

Learning from (and Expanding Upon) International Models: Many countries already offer forms of registered partnerships or civil unions that provide some or all marital rights to unmarried couples. While often a step forward, these are frequently still dyadic and may not encompass the full spectrum of polyamorous relationships or other multi-adult interdependent households. We can learn from these models, but we must be bold enough to push beyond their limitations.

Reforming Entitlement Programs: As The New Republic article touched upon, fixing the funding for programs like Social Security and Medicare doesn’t require a “forced baby boom” within traditional marriages. Removing the income cap on Social Security contributions or embracing the economic contributions of legal immigrants are far more direct and equitable solutions that don’t rely on coercing specific family forms.

A Society That Truly Values All Its Families

The profound disconnect between our anachronistic legal and social structures, which overwhelmingly privilege one narrow model of family, and the rich, lived reality of diverse American households, is no longer sustainable or just. The call is not to devalue marriage for those who freely choose it as their path, but to de-center it as the sole or overwhelmingly privileged gateway to legal recognition, fundamental rights, and societal support.

We must move towards a paradigm that recognizes and values love, care, commitment, and interdependence in all the myriad forms they take. This requires a radical rethinking of the state’s role, shifting from licenser and enforcer of a singular marital norm to a facilitator of support for functional kinships and care networks. It demands laws and policies built on principles of individual autonomy, true equality, and non-discrimination, reflecting a genuine understanding that “family” is not a rigid structure defined by a piece of paper from the courthouse, but a dynamic, evolving human experience defined by its functions of love and mutual support.

Embracing this future will not be easy; it challenges deeply ingrained assumptions and power structures. But it is a future that promises a more just, equitable, and genuinely inclusive society, one that honors the true diversity of human connection and allows all individuals and their chosen families to flourish with dignity and security. The new reality of American households, in all its beautiful complexity, has already arrived. It is time our laws and our societal mindset caught up.