Is the Institution of Marriage Dead?
2007
It was the big news story Tuesday, January 16, 2007. Due to several factors, according to Sam Roberts of the New York Times, “51 percent of [American] women are now living without a spouse,” indicating we can no longer “assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives.”
As I heard the network news reports and read the New York Times article, it seemed the media presented only one side of the story. And if I were still single, the story would seem bleak if I were interested in getting married someday. Some of the findings from the article include:
- On average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage
- Women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage
- For many older boomer and senior women…marriage did not hold the promise they’d hoped for
- Most girls growing up today can look forward to spending more of their lives outside of a traditional marriage
The article featured several single women, including why they were single and how they felt about it, whether it was because they had never been married or were divorced (while the article briefly mentioned those who were widowed, they did not feature any women who fit that category). Generally, these women spoke of freedom, independence, and flexibility as factors in remaining single, even if they had the option to marry. I don’t know. It seems that the media is focused on traditional marriage falling out of disfavor in American society and the state of a declining marriage institution as being normal and desired.
The report further states, “[b]etween 1950 and 2000, the share of women 15-24 who were married plummeted to 16 percent, from 42 percent. Among 25-34 year olds, the proportion dropped to 58 percent, from 82 percent.” But there is another side to the story. Although the proportion has declined over the years, 49% of women are married (for some, this indicates the glass is half full, not half empty). Indeed, some of these marriages are happy ones. Nevertheless, how do couples stay married and fulfilled? And since the article mentioned benefits of being single (from several women’s points of view), what are the benefits to being married?
According to the July/August 2004 edition of Spirituality & Health magazine in an article entitled “His and Her Marriage Benefits”, “Happily married women…have healthier profiles than divorced or unhappily married women,” citing physical benefits to being married. There are some financial benefits as well. Zen Personal Finance blog finds the following:
“According to Laura Rowley of Yahoo Finance, ‘Economist Jay Zagorsky of OSU’s Center for Human Resource Research, tracked the financial and marital status of more than 9,000 people from 1985 to 2000. Married people amassed an astonishing 93 percent more than single or divorced people over the 15-year period.’”
The financial rewards of marriage abound!
Moreover, loving marriages have significant benefits for those whose spouses have passed away. According to Spirituality & Health (May/June 2005) in an article entitled “A Loving Marriage Outlasts Death; Alas, So Does a Lousy One,”
“A good marriage seems to have a protective impact on surviving spouses…” In fact, depression is less likely to have a profound impact on a surviving spouse in the case of a loving marriage.
Well, then, if we’re married (as I am), how do we remain happily married?” Many books and resources exist on marriage and how to do it. I discovered one (there are so many) that was straight and to the point. The last article to which I will refer comes, again, from Spirituality & Health (Winter 2002) in an article entitled “Happy Couples: Don’t Hate ‘Em, Join ‘Em” which reports that happy couples:
- Are committed to building long-lasting relationships based on shared visions and goals
- Are aware of the changing nature of relationships
- Support each other’s continued growth as individuals
- Create time for each other despite busy schedules
- Are blunt, honest, and direct in their communication
- Are unafraid of conflict, viewing fights (yes, they have them) as opportunities to grow
- Still have great sex, because their physical attraction and passion for each other haven’t diminished, and their sex lives get better as their relationship deepens with love, trust, and openness
So, is there another side to the story? I am, by no means, an expert; I’ve been married only six years and I’ve got a long way to go. Nevertheless, I choose to look at the glass as being half full.
How do you view the institution of marriage? Is it dead? Is it on its last leg? Or is it that the media spins its data to generate conflict and controversy? It definitely gets the conversation started. Let me know what you think…
1 comment
Trackback e pingback
No trackback or pingback available for this article
While marriage itself is not dead, women show themselves to be less willing to be subordinate to obtain the benefits of marriage, and men show themselves less willing to pay for the benefits of marriage – leading to a social impasse, and at least the appearance of marital jeopardy as the anticipated and expected outcome.
That women are having to live on less money than men by virtue of the income imbalance is an issue of critical importance within such a scheme since traditionally, men were paid more in order to support a family. The triggering of the 14th amendment is at least a concern as the fact that marriage, itself, may be at risk.
For society, family formation, not marriage is the issue of concern since highly paid taxpayers are the means by which societies sustain themselves. Without forcing women to get married, family formation cannot be considered an expected outcome; yet, force for either men or women is unacceptable. Hence, it is propaganda that society must rely upon, or economic incentives for marriage and family formation. Advocacy of gay marriage may be an equal opportunity but is not likely to produce the family formation society needs for sustainable longevity.
In addition, while marriage is less expensive for two as for one, having children is incredibly more expensive. Choosing to forgo that expense in an era of marital uncertainty with high divorce rates and no fault marriage greatly increases the odds of failure.
Compounded risk is likely to increase the adversity of marriage, and the complexities of blended families does not ease the burdens. If people gravitate toward what is easiest and most comfortable, they may just choose the single life instead, but is that really good for society?
When collectivism drives the nation and the couple, or single is insignificant, can marriage be expected to survive? Like individual rights, marital couple’s rights are equally challenged in such an atmosphere. Only Mormons who practice polygamy as domestic collectivism seem less concerned – bringing their own brand of sustainable life to the strategy of collectivism as the American choice for survival in a world increasingly willing to use social darwinism as its unrealistic ideal.
If marriage is to survive, it is likely that legitimate efforts toward marital equality, not the subordination of women, will promote marriage. But that will not cure the collectivism problem or expense of having children. Family formation deserves special consideration when society depends upon that status for survival, and it’s likely that the changes required will be in the area of taxes, benefits, and addressing the challenges that such a status requires.
If society is not willing to undertake that inquiry, or address its issues and complexities, marriage is indeed dead, and perhaps rightfully so, if human rights are the measure of what constitutes happiness. Why would not women as well as men be entitled to economic and social equality? By what right shall society commandeer women to produce the fantasy that marriage (and domestic violence, as revealed) constitutes an institution worth defending?