On Tuesday, the United States Senate, rightly concerned with the sad status of the American family, made one of the most ill-considered, if unsurprising, decisions in its checkered history. The House of Representatives made the same choice in July, and the President says he will support their action fully. The same institutions that brought us the McCarthy hearings, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and, yes, Prohibition, are currently bringing the Defense of Marriage Act into law.

The act officially defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, making same-sex pairs ineligible for the same federal benefits, such as tax break and joint medical coverage, allowed married couples. It also allows states that prohibit same-sex marriages to ignore marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples in other states.

The decision is undoubtedly a major disappointment for homosexuals and others who support gay rights. Beyond that, however, it runs counter to the goals those who support it espouse. It is, in a word, foolish.

What, after, all, do proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act hope to achieve with it? To defend marriage and the family, of course. But what is it about these institutions (that could not be found in their-same-sex incarnations) that the government is obliged to defend?

Wednesday's USA Today quotes Senator Robert Byrd, D-Massachusetts, as saying of same-sex marriage, "Out of such relationships no children can result. Out of such relationships emotional bonding oftentimes does not take place." From this we may extrapolate that the families our government wishes to promote have at least two ends: the production of children and the formation of emotional bonds (as nebulous an idea as that might be).

In reference to the first goal, I wish Senator Byrd could explain why the government continues to endorse heterosexual marriages that will clearly not yield children - those between persons past childbearing age, persons who are sterile or infertile, or couples who simply do not wish to reproduce. I ask why legislators seem more concerned with the small number of same-sex couples who might not enjoy "emotional bonding" (Byrd's reason for believing this is quite inscrutable) than with the roughly 50 percent of heterosexual marriage that end in divorce - not to mention the untold number of unhappy marriages that stay together. Marriages marred by physical and emotional abuse, infidelity and divorce do not to me embody the kind of emotional bonding that makes for healthy adults and healthy children.

In other words, the kinds of marriage the bill defends us from are arguably no worse than most of those our government supports. There are, of course, religious reasons why persons might find homosexual marriage offensive, but they have no place in the operation of a government that supposedly disavowed itself of religious affiliation some two centuries ago.

I do not wish to malign the ideal of the traditional family here - it has suffered enough of late, and must be fiercely defended. It is, in my contestable opinion, the best environment in which children can be raised.

This is also not to marginalize single parents, blended families, or families with gay parents, though. There are innumerable happy, well-adjusted children who have emerged from them, and many parents are far more satisfied in those situations than they could be in a "normal" family. But as far as we can determine, the children of nuclear families have the best odds of becoming productive, self-actualizing and content adults.

In the best of all possible worlds, we might all be raised in nurturing, supportive, traditional families. We do not, however, live in such a world, and the majority of nuclear families are at best dysfunctional and at worst destructive to their members. The weakness of these families is not, moreover, due to the pressures exerted against them by persons such as gays and lesbians who have no wish to participate in them, or by those (such as single parents escaping from abusive households or those left to raise their children alone in the first place) for whom traditional families are not an option.

These families are instead collapsing under the irresponsibility, insensitivity and shortsightedness of many of the people in them. They are crumbling from within, not without.

Rather than wasting our time with condemnations of "alternative" families, then, we should at the same time support them (for their existence is an inescapable reality) and work directly to strengthen traditional families through counseling, educational programs, and the like. In other words, those who wish to Defend Marriage against the bugbear of same-sex marriage are shooting in the wrong direction entirely.

With the exception of those who would like to see every gay and lesbian American either coerced into heterosexual behavior or shipped to Australia, most Defenders of Marriage and the Family have at least one basic goal for homosexuals. They want them not to harm or offend the rest of society through outlandish sexual behavior, the spreading of disease, or any of the other nefarious activities commonly attributed to them. They want them to be "normal" productive citizens who fit smoothly into the American community.

Many of these people, however, are under the mistaken impression that homosexuals, if ignored, will eventually "normalize" themselves. Perhaps more importantly, they believe that the granting of "special" rights (such as the freedom to enter into federally recognized unions or protection from discrimination in the workplace) will hinder this normalization and encourage more flagrant violation of social and sexual mores. Better to leave it alone and let the problem work itself out, while preventing homosexuals from infringing upon others' rights (among which is presumably the inalienable right not to be offended by anyone, ever).

What they fail to realize, however, is that this "problem" will not go away. The homosexual community, and homosexual behavior, is here to stay. Continuing to marginalize gays and lesbians by ignoring their problems and demands only hinders their assimilation into mainstream society. The fact is, of course, that most homosexuals are already so assimilated. On average, they are more educated and productive than heterosexuals and many homosexuals would like nothing more than to lead such "normal" lives with their chosen partners.

There are, to be sure, many homosexuals who do not wish to lead such mundane lives, and enjoy flaunting their sexuality. For some, it is simply a matter of personal preference (as it is for promiscuous or exhibitionistic heterosexuals); for others, however, it may be more of an attempt to shock or offend the society that has ostracized them.

In the 1970s, in fact, many activists encouraged promiscuity and flagrant sexuality as a form of protest against straight America. The then-unforeseeable epidemiological consequences have proven devastating to the homosexual community at large. But most of those living irresponsible, dangerous, or obnoxious lifestyles aren't doing it out of moral turpitude of sheer libido; they're doing it because they're pissed off.

The take-home lesson, devoid of moral sensitivity, to those who oppose same-sex marriage is this:

You can't get rid of homosexuals, no matter how hard you try. You can't make them straight, and you can't kill them. They are going to continue being homosexual whether you like it or not.

If you want them not to offend you, though, or to pose a threat to your society, then try to make them act, in public life, more like "normal" people. Buy them off.

If you can't beat them into acting straight, let them join you. Marriage and families are not all about raising the interested parties' biological children; they are about lasting, stabilizing emotional bonds. Gays and lesbians are more likely to act morally, "decently" and responsibly if society recognizes the legitimacy of their commitment, and doesn't treat them as second-class citizens in second-class relationships.

It doesn't matter whether you like homosexuals, or believe their love is an abomination. It doesn't, in this context, matter so much whether they have a constitutional right to federally sanctioned marriages. What matters is how they feel they are treated by society, because, regardless of what is fair or legal or in accordance with divine law, how they feel determines how they act.

If you want to defend the family, stop fighting the windmills of same-sex marriage and go after the giants of irresponsibility and insensitivity among heterosexuals. These are the true threats.

If you don't think supporting gay marriage is right, I can't convince you. So don't do it because it's right. Do it because it's reasonable.