Following the government shutdown over the budget and funding of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, our Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has taken what seems to be a big hit in his standing, even in Utah, one of the reddest states in the Union. In October, a BYU poll found that his popularity had dropped to 40 percent during the shutdown. Following that debacle, it seems that Sen. Lee is working to change his public image, moving past the issue of Obamacare, telling Politico that “different circumstances require different strategies” from Republicans. It certainly seems that he hopes to offer some of those new strategies, new solutions and options for Americans facing challenges, specifically poverty. But while his new agenda sounds like it is designed to help all Americans, it raises the question of how same-sex couples will be treated under his proposed legislation. If Sen. Lee truly wants to help end poverty, he must be willing to treat same-sex relationships the same as any heterosexual relationship in the eyes of the law.

He recently spoke at the Heritage Center, as part of their Anti-Poverty Forum, where he gave a talk entitled “Bring Them In,” highlighting what he thinks can be the conservative ways to help end poverty. Much of what he said is not only common sense, but something that gives even me a sense of pride to see coming from my elected representative (disclaimer: I did not vote for him). He argues for reform, in areas from education to prisons. As he puts it, “if we are serious about access for all, then we have to put ‘rehabilitation’ back into the vocabulary” of our prison system. As I have addressed in a previous column, the rates of recidivism in this country are shocking, and the number of imprisoned citizens for nonviolent crimes is even higher. Whether or not Republicans embrace Sen. Lee’s agenda has yet to be seen, but it seems to offer a chance for more intraparty cooperation than we have seen in recent years on a multitude of issues.

While his platform is hard to argue with, and his argument that marriage is one of the best ways to help fight poverty, that “a stable, intact family remains the greatest incubator of economic opportunity,” is even reasonable, he seems to only be referring to a family consisting of a mother and father. He argues that, “to say that children tend to do best when raised by their married mom and dad is not a political opinion,” but instead a fact, but it is entirely a political opinion. There is no evidence that supports the idea that couples consisting of mothers and fathers are necessary for a good upbringing. Studies have found that children raised by married couples do tend to have the highest rates of academic achievement, but the why has never been fully explained. More recent literature and studies, such as a meta-study by University of Michigan professors found evidence “suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.” Michael Rosenfeld, a Stanford professor of sociology, used census data to study children of different upbringings, and argues that since married couples are often the most economically prosperous types of family, that can account for a significant part of the apparent higher rates of success of their children.

Sen. Lee is right. Marriage can often offer extra support for a child’s future. But there is a glaring lack of data to support the idea that it only comes from a married man and woman. He may have moral disagreements, but if he truly wants to “welcome them and their children home to an America that leaves no one behind,” he must address the issue of gay marriage, and not leave the children of same-sex couples behind.

[email protected]