On Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2026, the Heritage Foundation published a report on marriage in families that, in summary, criticizes the tendency of the government to promote singleness, children born out of wedlock, or no children at all It distinguishes overbearing education needed for occupations, economic hardship and inability to afford marriage, and welfare programs’ bias towards single individuals as causes for this. Other causes this study points to, according to AP News, include online dating. 

The reasoning of the Heritage Foundation for pushing these criticisms is that, according to them, the cornerstone of a healthy society is monogamous marriages between a man and a woman with children involved. In this article, not only will an argument be presented for why the Heritage Foundation is right in its push for monogamous marriages, but also the possible negative repercussions of this new call for traditionalism.

Firstly, there is no issue with pushing monogamous, heterosexual marriages as the norm if you consider the fact that those marriages can more easily reproduce and build families. Traditional families create a simpler society where individuals are unified in their understanding of societal norms. On the other hand, a world with many different considerations of gender and marriage can create confusion, decreasing fertility for women, and divisive families at the larger unit. 

Recentralizing the social norm would make it easier for the government and private institutions to consider sex-based differences in equitably applying care to each individual in a population. It may also evoke new rises in religiosity, which is claimed to provide people with better health-related habits (such as non-smoking), community resources, and overall stability.

Additionally, less divisiveness would indicate better mental health amongst communities. Altogether, social capital through family production would support people who do not get it without marriage and family.

Still, issues arise when you consider previous discriminations faced when traditional family units were the social norm. Women being denied access to economic power in their marriages, along with the power to pursue education and work opportunities, means that half of the American population will be at a loss if the ‘ideal’ family unit does not seek to look different. Women today rely on their ability to work and be independent from men to protect themselves against gender based discrimination from their own partners within the family unit. 

We must choose to reinstate the family unit without the need to go backwards and reverse progress, as women’s rights to choose what the family unit looks like alongside a man would promote healthy marriage in the first place. It’s arguable, then, that healthy, communication-based marriage and a lack of it are reasons to leave or stay in a relationship, and might be an entire reason for women’s need for hyperindependence and singleness in the first place.

Lastly, there are occasions in which sex does not conform to typical biology. In those cases, we must understand that socially forcing an individual to hide their biological differences will not change their differences. Rather, it will turn social conformity into oppression. Overall, reinstating the traditional family unit will only be societally beneficial with necessary changes to gender-based dynamics and an understanding of exceptional cases.