And, I'll add, while saddling employers with cost of benefits for adults who choose not to wed.
I asked Migden if she could name one child who has been denied benefits and would be helped by her bill. She could not name one. The best she could do was mention that a TV cameraman told her he would like to see the bill pass because his son had a child outside of wedlock.
Sorry, but when you want to change institutions that mold the American family, you should have in an arsenal that carries more punch than a weak anecdote and a couple of news articles on trendy couples.
Migden told me she sees in the Constitution a right "to determine your relationship." As a lawmaker, it is her job to accommodate people living in the relationships they choose.
Does that include polygamy? After all, some families in America practice polygamy. Migden answered that she is not focusing on "people that live in the frontiers with their animals." That poses a bit of a problem. You see, people in San Francisco may not care about the polygamous practices of Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints or polygamous Muslims. But that won't stop polygamists from using Migden's arguments in impartial courts to change the law to accommodate their misogynist brand of marriage.
Last year, former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin commissioned a study to prove that Canada's same-sex marriage law would not lead to polygamy -- only to see the legal panel call for a repeal of Canada's anti-polygamy law.
Now for the sake of uncommitted heterosexuals, Migden is ready to weaken the institution of marriage. I guess she thinks it's the government's job to help unwed parents stay uncommitted.