In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
For more than a decade, Democrats have cycled through would-be breakthrough figures in Texas, each representing a new theory of how to crack the state’s Republican dominance. First came state Sen. Wendy Davis, also known as Abortion Barbie, whose 2013 abortion filibuster turned her into a national progressive icon and the face of a hoped-for suburban realignment. Then, Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) rode grassroots energy and charisma to within a few points of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in 2018, convincing many that demographic change was finally arriving. More recently, in 2024, Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) embodied a different strategy: a low-drama, center-left profile aimed at peeling away educated suburban voters uncomfortable with GOP politics.
Now, state Sen. James Talarico is emerging as the latest model: a Bible-quoting, social-media-savvy former teacher from Austin whom Democrats hope can speak about faith and public life in a way that feels authentic to Christian voters who dominate the state. Talarico frequently frames progressive priorities in explicitly Christian moral language, arguing that expanding public education funding reflects a biblical call to care for children and the vulnerable. He has cited Jesus’s teachings about serving “the least of these” when defending social safety net programs, invoked the moral duty to protect life when advocating gun violence prevention, and described environmental stewardship as a faith responsibility to protect God’s creation.
Talarico also has a unique take on cultural issues. Asked by Ezra Klein of the New York Times why “politicized Christianity is so worried about gender and sexuality,” Talarico responded, “the Bible is all over the place when it comes to marriage. Paul tells us not to get married, and you certainly see many different kinds of marriages throughout Scripture.”
Parts of this statement are not entirely false. The Bible, encompassing the Old and New testaments, does show “many different kinds of marriages.” Abraham is married to Sarah but takes Hagar as a concubine. King David had at least eight named wives, including most famously Bathsheba, and other unnamed concubines. King Solomon led the league with a reported 700 wives and an additional 300 concubines. So yes, it would be fair to say there are “different kinds of marriages” in the Bible.
But turning to the New Testament, and to Paul, whom he names specifically, Talarico is dead wrong. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul does say, “I wish that all were as I myself am,” meaning he wishes Christians could all be celibate like him. But Paul never tells Christians not to get married. Quite the opposite.
Paul acknowledges that God did not intend for all men and women to be celibate. “But each has a particular gift from God,” Paul writes, “one having one kind and another a different kind.”
Because celibacy for all is impossible, Paul instructs that “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” No more extra wives or concubines in Christian teaching. Each husband and wife is to have equal control over their spouse’s body. “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”
As University of Oklahoma classics professor Kyle Harper details in his book, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity, the Church’s teachings on sexual ethics were truly revolutionary. Roman society put virtually no limits on a man’s sexual desires. It was against the law to have sex with a Roman citizen’s wife, but married Roman men were allowed and even expected to have sex with as many concubines, slaves, and prostitutes as they wanted. And as long as they were the penetrator and not the receptive partner, it was perfectly acceptable for Roman men to have as much sex with men and boys as they wanted, too.
The church’s teachings on sexuality changed all that. Not overnight. But over thousands of years, as the religion gained in popularity and spread, monogamy became the expected norm, even among the most powerful. It is because of the church’s teachings on sexual ethics, particularly its teachings on the necessity of consent in marriage and against cousin marriages, which were almost always arranged, that the power of extended clans fell first in the West, creating space for non-clan-based mediating institutions, such as guilds, universities, and charter cities, that laid the foundation for democracy and the industrial revolution.
Talarico, in his false reading of the Bible, seems blissfully unaware of all of this. And according to a slew of recent polling, most Democrats agree with him.
According to the American Family Survey, while 66% of Republicans agree with the statement that “marriages make society better off,” just 34% of Democrats believe the same thing. That same poll found that while nearly 80% of Republicans believe marriage is needed to create strong families, just 40% of Democrats agree. The Pew Research Center has produced similar results, finding that while 58% of Republicans believe married couples do a better job of raising children than unmarried couples, 73% of Democrats say unmarried couples do just as good a job at raising children as married couples. Pew also found that while most Republicans, 69%, say that “society is better off if couples who want to stay together in the long run get married at some point,” a majority of Democrats, 59%, say society is just as well off if couples don’t get married.
Democrats are also far less likely to believe marriage will improve their own lives. According to Gallup, while 67% of Republicans believe “marriage improves partnerships by strengthening commitment to one another,” just 30% of Democrats agree. And the American Family Survey has found that while 51% of Republicans believe marriage makes people better off financially, just 25% of Democrats agree.
Considering the low esteem with which Democrats hold marriage, it is not surprising that, according to Harvard’s Youth Poll, 75% of young Republicans consider getting married important, compared to just 56% of young Democrats. And Pew has found that while Republicans believe being married and having children are “important elements of a fulfilling life,” Democrats value “having a lot of money” instead.
Democrats’ negative views about marriage show up in their behavior. As recently as 1980, according to Gallup, Republicans and Democrats in the prime of their lives, ages 30-60, were equally likely to be married at 84%. Today, just 49% of Democrats in that age bracket are married, compared to 67% of Republicans.
Democrats are free to live their lives as they choose, but there is an objective truth when it comes to the value of marriage. Married couples are happier than their single counterparts. By sharing resources and planning their lives together, married couples are also better off financially than single people.
And the evidence on the benefits of marriage to children is overwhelming. Children raised by married couples are happier, healthier, more likely to finish high school, more likely to graduate from college, more likely to be employed, and less likely to be incarcerated or be addicted to drugs.
Talarico himself is not married, which, at 36, puts him in a minority among Christian men his age, but very much perfectly normal among Democratic Party primary voters. His opponent, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), is also unmarried. In this sense, they are both very much the future of the Democratic Party.
THE LEFT’S SOLUTION TO DECLINING BIRTH RATES
Until Democrats reckon with their anti-marriage bias, candidates such as Talarico will struggle to persuade culturally traditional voters that they share their moral framework. Marriage is not just a private lifestyle choice. It is a social institution tied to stability, prosperity, and child well-being. A party increasingly detached from that reality risks deepening its disconnect from families for whom faith, commitment, and lifelong partnership remain central to both personal life and public values.
Over the long term, it will also cease to exist as it fails to produce new generations.
