WASHINGTON, D.C., June 27, 2013 ( – In the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision striking down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that reserved federal marital benefits to heterosexual married couples, one family policy expert says it may be time for the federal government to change its approach to marriage incentives like tax breaks and entitlement benefits.

In a controversial 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot deny benefits to homosexual couples who have entered marriage contracts legally recognized by their state.

The court stopped short of extending the ruling to the 37 states that do not recognize gay “marriage,” but homosexual activists have pledged to mount a legislative offensive to make sure benefits obtained by same-sex couples who “marry” in the 10 states where it is legal will carry those benefits with them to all 50 states.

“The important philosophical question is, what were these benefits intended for? Why do they exist?” Dr. Allan F. Carlson, president of the The Howard Center, told


The federal government provides federal economic incentives for marriage – such as tax exemptions and Social Security survivors benefits – in order to encourage the institution as “a place for children to be born and raised and nurtured.”

Carlson suggested that since marriage has now been “stripped of its child-centered focus” by the legalization of homosexual unions, which are always naturally sterile, “maybe it’s time to abandon marriage as an important category for benefits and simply focus on giving benefits to parents, people with children.”

“If [federal incentives] are no longer fulfilling the proper function, which was encouraging the promotion of children, it’s possible that some of these benefits should no longer exist, perhaps,” Carlson told LifeSiteNews. “I think it’s time to rethink the whole concept of benefits in this regard.”

Carlson suggested “Instead of tying benefits to marriage,” the federal government might “tie them to the presence of children in the home. To me, that’s a much more important thing.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Although the media made little mention of it, homosexual activists said it was “essential that progressives across the United States highlight” the fact that gay couples are ineligible for tax breaks, and said it was “un-American” that homosexuals could not receive certain taxpayer-funded federal benefits. However, the government instituted benefits because it had a vested interest in creating stable families that naturally bring forth, raise, and nurture children – an environment that has social, as well as economic benefits for society.

But Carlson said, “Outside of a very small number of homosexual couples which through adoption, or in vitro fertilization, will have children, that’s just not a factor” for same-sex unions, whether legally deemed a “marriage” or not.

Getting government out of awarding entire classes of benefits may be beneficial, he said.

“Marriage between a man and a woman already has certain natural economic advantages,” Carlson said. “It’s possible that’s what we need to focus on, building up those that are natural and innate, and not something that the government provides.”


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.