CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- What is marriage? Some today would doggedly contend that it is a union between a man and a woman - only. Political platforms utilize this as a springboard for deciding elections and for polarizing groups. Religious groups want to make it their gospel. It seems everyone wants to define marriage. But is the definition of marriage really the issue? Why does marriage have to be defined? Moreover, why do we have to have marriage at all?

Statistics show that the majority of young people are enjoying the benefits of marriage without the legality of marriage. No one has pronounced them man and wife, yet they can buy a house together, establish a life together, and even fight together. Children are being born to couples without a marriage certificate, so there is obviously no contraceptive quality to the lack of a marriage certificate. This might even be the way of 21st -century family values.

Look at it from another point of view. If marriage were abolished, the divorce rate would drop to zero. Of course, there would be a lot of divorce lawyers on unemployment. Without the constraints of marriage, divorce would not have to exist - marriage and divorce do go hand in hand.

Above all, no children would ever have to be from a broken home. Children would not have to feel different just because their parents were not married. Nor would they have embarrassment because their parents lived together without being married. Also, children from single-parent households would not face scrutiny based on their parents' living arrangements.

A positive effect on the national economy would be the rise in income tax revenues. This would greatly reduce the national deficit. There would be one tax table - a solitary "single" column. The government would not be pressured to offer a discount to those couples who feel they must have a piece of paper that declares them a corporate unit.

This dissolving of marriage would have a ripple effect throughout the economy. Specifically, insurance companies would garner higher premiums since all people would be charged a uniform rate as single individuals. The companies would no longer have to track those who have a spouse and offer them a discount on premiums.

Much freedom would be allowed without the constraints of marriage. Instead of staying married for the economic advantage of discounts on taxes and insurances, people would be free at last to live for love, and love only.

Now that is a novel idea: people living together because they love each other, living together without the incentive of tax reduction and insurance discount, living together without the need to have a sanction by church or state. But would people really go so far as to live together because they love each other and want to be together - in spite of no discounts, no sanctions, no government document?

So, if we really wanted to get to the bottom of the issue of defining marriage, we should look at the ultimate goal of loving and sharing life instead of trying to define who should be together. America did away with legislating discrimination a long time ago.

Shamblin, of Charleston, is a parent and educator.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- What is marriage? Some today would doggedly contend that it is a union between a man and a woman - only. Political platforms utilize this as a springboard for deciding elections and for polarizing groups. Religious groups want to make it their gospel. It seems everyone wants to define marriage. But is the definition of marriage really the issue? Why does marriage have to be defined? Moreover, why do we have to have marriage at all?

Statistics show that the majority of young people are enjoying the benefits of marriage without the legality of marriage. No one has pronounced them man and wife, yet they can buy a house together, establish a life together, and even fight together. Children are being born to couples without a marriage certificate, so there is obviously no contraceptive quality to the lack of a marriage certificate. This might even be the way of 21st -century family values.

Look at it from another point of view. If marriage were abolished, the divorce rate would drop to zero. Of course, there would be a lot of divorce lawyers on unemployment. Without the constraints of marriage, divorce would not have to exist - marriage and divorce do go hand in hand.

Above all, no children would ever have to be from a broken home. Children would not have to feel different just because their parents were not married. Nor would they have embarrassment because their parents lived together without being married. Also, children from single-parent households would not face scrutiny based on their parents' living arrangements.

A positive effect on the national economy would be the rise in income tax revenues. This would greatly reduce the national deficit. There would be one tax table - a solitary "single" column. The government would not be pressured to offer a discount to those couples who feel they must have a piece of paper that declares them a corporate unit.

This dissolving of marriage would have a ripple effect throughout the economy. Specifically, insurance companies would garner higher premiums since all people would be charged a uniform rate as single individuals. The companies would no longer have to track those who have a spouse and offer them a discount on premiums.

Much freedom would be allowed without the constraints of marriage. Instead of staying married for the economic advantage of discounts on taxes and insurances, people would be free at last to live for love, and love only.

Now that is a novel idea: people living together because they love each other, living together without the incentive of tax reduction and insurance discount, living together without the need to have a sanction by church or state. But would people really go so far as to live together because they love each other and want to be together - in spite of no discounts, no sanctions, no government document?

So, if we really wanted to get to the bottom of the issue of defining marriage, we should look at the ultimate goal of loving and sharing life instead of trying to define who should be together. America did away with legislating discrimination a long time ago.

Shamblin, of Charleston, is a parent and educator.