The traditionalists who oppose same-sex marriage rights are losing the war, and they know it.

A few have a new strategy: instead of fear-mongering about gay marriage, they'll target single mothers and low-income women. Although they'll roundly trumpet marriage's social importance, they're simply moral scolds – uncomfortable with gender equality and dedicated to the values that cause higher rates of divorce, unwanted pregnancy, and poverty. They're calling it a "Call for a New Conversation on Marriage", but they've just dressed the same regressive arguments in new, gay-marriage-approving clothes.

At the heart of this call lies a hostility toward women and a reductive view of family and economics. Their "appeal" doesn't actually say much; it claims that marriage is an economic savior mysteriously dying off, and it implicitly blames single moms for the demise of the middle-class marital unit.

So, why are middle- and working-class Americans abandoning an institution that would make them wealthier and more stable? Why would they harm society, their children, and themselves? Perhaps marriage isn't a panacea. Perhaps the conservatives who champion marriage are incredibly hostile to women and have even crafted policies that harm lower-income women – giving them fewer options and changing their definition of marriage.

Highly-educated heterosexual women, meanwhile, have never had it better. Though college-educated white women tend to marry later, they're more likely to stay married. Black women with college degrees are more likely to get married than those without; and college-educated women, in general, report happier marriages than any other group. The reasons for that are surely complex, but it seems to come down to maturity of age and experience: some combination of a more developed sense of self, personal requirements for partnership, and the financial stability of a few years of work after school.

For these women, marriage offers the financial stability that makes conservatives say it's the best thing for everyone, or a ticket out of poverty. But that marriage between two financially independent, highly-educated people is better-off not because marriage equals stability, but because two people have a wide range of choices, relatively equal bargaining power, and the resources to weather the almost inevitable ups and downs (financial and otherwise).

The conservative argument for marriage has it exactly wrong. Marriage isn't a ticket to wealth or stability or education. Rather, it's wealth, stability, and education that make marriage a more reasonable possibility, and help sustain marriages for the long haul.

Income inequality in the US is extreme: the wealthiest 1% of Americans doubled their income share over the past 30 years, while 80% of Americans saw their share fall. A marriage can be economically beneficial insofar as its partners share expenses, like a mortgage, rent, and health insurance – but that's only the case if there are two incomes, and a partner with a stable income isn't a given in our current economy. Financial instability means a higher likelihood of divorce, which can be financially ruinous to women in particular.

Marriage confers tangible benefits to men, and far fewer to women. Married men spend significantly fewer hours on housework and childcare, particularly if their wives stay home, but even if they're married to working women.

In addition to that free labor, married men with children get paid more, simply for being that. They're offered higher starting salaries than single women or mothers, are more often excused for missing work, and are perceived as more committed and competent. Women, and mothers in particular, aren't just penalized by the pay gap, but receive fewer promotions and are perceived as less competent.

In other words, a heterosexual marriage helps a man's career thrive. For women, it means more work and less pay, or the financially tenuous position of staying home full-time and hoping your marriage (and only source of income) lasts.

Women today expect more egalitarian relationships than they did a generation ago; and while men are more pro-feminist than ever before, plenty haven't caught up. (My advice to women is "Don't marry a man who doesn't pull his own weight.") For the many women married to sexist men, a little money can ease the disputes: hiring a nanny or a housekeeper, for example, doesn't just mean a clean house, it lets the couple gloss over the assignation of women to the domestic sphere. It helps them believe the relationship is relatively equal.

The nanny or the housekeeper doesn't usually have that option, and may simply prefer independence to marriage with someone she needs to clean up after. Outdated notions of masculinity (like the man as breadwinner) also prevent many working-class men from seeing themselves as marriage material.

For women for whom college isn't a possibility or was never on their radar – a reality for many Americans – there isn't the same incentive to wait until they're 30 to get married and have children. Years in a low-income job won't make life more stable, and might lead to only a marginally higher income. Marrying a partner with worse prospects will cause greater instability, if not ruin. But having a baby, even while young and single, can bring social status, love, and attention – not to mention temporary help with things like health insurance and housing.

If you're highly-educated, financially stable, and marrying later in life, your marriage likely has few roadblocks. If you're not – if you're part of the demographic that many conservatives say has "fled" marriage – staying single may actually be the rational choice.

The problem, then, isn't that many Americans aren't getting married. It's that too many Americans are constrained by outdated gender roles and financial insecurity.

So why not advocate for policies that promote prosperity and happiness regardless of marital status? Why not try to put more Americans in the same economic position as the people whose marriages are thriving?

Because those policies are liberal. And because they don't involve shaming single moms or poor people.

If the marriage advocates calling for a "new conversation" actually want progress, let's do what works. Strengthen the social safety net so that a layoff or a pay cut doesn't push any family over the cliff. Require equal pay for equal work, so that women can give as much as they've earned to their household. Reform traditional gender roles so that a man's value isn't just his paycheck, and a woman's value isn't trapped in the house. And support birth control and abortion access, so that women can prevent the unwanted pregnancies that so often upset financial and relationship stability.

Most importantly, end the cultural mythology around marriage.

Marriage is great, if you want it – but it's best begun out of love, not societal pressure. We should care about the security and happiness of our neighbors regardless of their marital status. The decline in marriage rates for low- and middle-income Americans is alarming not because marriage should be a universal goal, but because it reflects the current state of marriage as a luxury good, a way for the upper classes to perpetuate their wealth and power.

The answer isn't "Get married and you'll be rich and powerful." The answer is to break down the extreme inequalities that incentivize marriage for some and make it seem out of reach for others. Marriage should simply be one model among many for human kinship and a strong family. Let people do what they want.

"Traditional marriage" has never really existed: marriage has always been an evolving institution, from an economic unit in which women were bought and sold, to Leave it to Beaver, to Adam and Steve. In that tradition of constant change, this isn't a "traditional" suggestion. If conservative commentators actually want stability for children, economic prosperity, and happier families, I invite them to get on board for the well-being of all Americans, whether or not they have, or want, a wedding ring.