Of the current major social issues, the survival of the family is one of our greatest concerns. Our children are being ignored because of the social pressures that disrupt family life. However, the repressive solutions of the right-wing Family Values cannot ultimately work. Their fears that the family is threatened are unfounded because humans by nature require and create families. It is only one form of family that is no longer functional - the nuclear family. In today's world, strengthening the nuclear family is the worst solution for the concept of family in general. Only if we turn back the clock and create economic arrangements so that one parent could remain at home might it survive. The nuclear family is too isolated and small a unit to survive the assaults of our society. Both parents usually must work, often far from home, and may have other involvements, leaving little time for their children. Parents must rely on schools, day care centers and babysitters to provide for their children when they are at work. Or children may be sent to special non-school classes and other extra-curricular activities. These are expensive solutions. This problem is compounded by the increase of single parent families that earn minimal income to care for children and offer half the chance for parental supervision.

The nuclear family fissions. We are suffering family problems because we have only one, limited concept of family and cannot see what the family might be. What we need is a new concept of the family that can fit the fast pace and dislocation of our technological society. But this new concept turns out to be an old one. We need to recreate extended families. These families might not be like the ones of the past, based primarily on kinship, having relatives - uncles, aunts, grandparents at home or close friends in the neighborhood. The stable village is gone, but the old idea that it takes a village to raise a child - many people of differing temperaments and viewpoints to care for and influence childrens development - is a sound one.

The government, as the legally instituted representative of society, should have an interest in the welfare of children. Children are humans, having rights and citizenship and so should not be considered the sole responsibility of the family. Thus parenting should be considered a social responsibility rather than the current one that is akin to ownership. This concept is already enshrined in law, but it doesn't go far enough. What we owe to children is that they become free, autonomous human beings, not chips off the old block. The family should have only limited control over but much responsibility for children until they are able to take that responsibility on their own. Children must be shared with the larger community and taught many different viewpoints that represent the diversity of the society, giving them more opportunities than a single family could provide and therefore creating the best citizens.

Then how do we change the concept and reality of family life? The most difficult task is to convince ourselves to reconceptualize family. There is no one ideal way to structure a family. I suggest creating intentional extended families. But there are two big problems we face in our society - overcoming jealously and the belief that there is a limited amount of love to go around, so we can only love one other person exclusively. These families would not need the same restrictive commitment vows as traditional marriage. Perhaps we should consider marriage as a special commitment only for those who want to have children, therefore, marriage laws would have to be revised. Domestic partnership laws would be a good start, but they are only a beginning. However, there should be laws regulating parental responsibility to children. Parenthood would have to be redefined. There could be many kinds of relationship agreements, economic, labor and sexual within them - bound by legal agreements. It could offer to children a home where at least one parent figure is always present and the benefit of a broader concept of the world. This solution should reduce the pressures of parenting by spreading it among several adults of different ages and backgrounds, thus giving children more attention, and also be a curb to population growth by sharing children - not every adult couple needs to be biological parents to have children and there are those who should not parent. Rethinking and reducing the social pressure that everyone must marry and parent would be better for some individuals, children and society at large. These families might not share one household, but should live in close proximity. The elderly need to be reincluded in this formula, offering their wisdom and solving the problem of the excluded elders put out to pasture in retirement villages or nursing centers.

The greatest resistance to changing marriage laws will be religious ones. But why should marriage be enshrined in law? If it is religious, it should be between two people (or more) and their God. What business should the state have in that except as a protector of children? For all others, private legal arrangements should suffice. The next difficulty would be changing the tax laws to reflect the new family organization. Only those having children or other dependents should have tax benefits. All others should be treated as singles whether they are in a family arrangement or not.

Anthropological research suggests that humans are not naturally monogamous, but some religions insist that humans maintain monogamy and strict, narrow family structures, thus opposing scientific evidence. Many human problems are caused by these false beliefs. I suggest that the family be structured to conform to the behaviors of the human animal. Then, it will be healthier and meet our needs.