Published on namahatta.org (http://namahatta.

org) Home > The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today By phani Created Aug 28 2006 - 01:19

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

by the

itherspoon !nstitute

About Witherspoon:

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

Marriage " #onsidered as a legally san#tioned union o$ one man and one %oman " plays a &ital role in preser&ing the #ommon good and promoting the %el$are o$ #hildren. !n &irtually e&ery 'no%n human so#iety( the institution o$ marriage pro&ides order and meaning to adult se)ual relationships and( more $undamentally( $urnishes the ideal #onte)t $or the bearing and rearing o$ the young. The health o$ marriage is parti#ularly important in a $ree so#iety su#h as our o%n( %hi#h depends upon #iti*ens to go&ern their pri&ate li&es and rear their #hildren responsibly( so as to limit the s#ope( si*e( and po%er o$ the state. Marriage is also an important sour#e o$ so#ial( human( and $inan#ial #apital $or #hildren( espe#ially $or #hildren gro%ing up in poor( disad&antaged #ommunities %ho do not ha&e ready a##ess to other

sour#es o$ su#h #apital. Thus( $rom the point o$ &ie% o$ spouses( #hildren( so#iety( and the polity( marriage ad&an#es the publi# interest. But in the last $orty years( marriage and $amily ha&e #ome under in#reasing pressure $rom the modern state( the modern e#onomy( and modern #ulture. Family la% in all $i$ty states and most #ountries in the estern %orld has $a#ilitated unilateral di&or#e( so that marriages #an be easily and e$$e#ti&ely terminated at the %ill o$ either party. Changing se)ual mores ha&e made illegitima#y and #ohabitation a #entral $eature o$ our so#ial lands#ape. The produ#ts o$ Madison +&enue and Holly%ood o$ten appear indi$$erent to( i$ not hostile to%ards( the norms that sustain de#ent $amily li$e. ,e% medi#al te#hnology has made it easier $or single mothers and same"se) #ouples to ha&e #hildren not only outside o$ marriage( but e&en %ithout se)ual inter#ourse. Ta'en together( marriage is losing its preeminent status as the so#ial institution that dire#ts and organi*es reprodu#tion( #hildrearing( and adult li$e. The nation-s retreat $rom marriage has been parti#ularly #onse.uential $or our so#iety-s most &ulnerable #ommunities. /ut"o$"%edlo#' birth( di&or#e( and single motherhood are mu#h more #ommon among lo%er"in#ome +$ri#an +meri#ans and( to a lesser e)tent( Hispani# +meri#ans( in large part be#ause they o$ten do not ha&e as many material( so#ial( and personal resour#es to resist the deinstitutionali*ation o$ marriage. The latest so#ial s#ienti$i# resear#h on marriage indi#ates that minorities and the poor pay a disproportionately hea&y pri#e %hen marriage de#lines in their #ommunities( meaning that the brea'do%n o$ the $amily only #ompounds the su$$ering o$ those #iti*ens %ho already su$$er the most. The response to this #risis by a#ti&ist de$enders o$ marriage( %hile o$ten su##ess$ul at the ballot bo) in the 0nited 1tates( has had limited in$luen#e on the #ulture( and in many #ases those %ho deliberately see' to rede$ine the meaning o$ marriage or do%nplay its spe#ial signi$i#an#e ha&e argued more e$$e#ti&ely. Too o$ten( the rational #ase $or marriage is not made at all or not made &ery %ell. +ppeals to tradition are rarely de#isi&e in themsel&es in the +meri#an #onte)t today( espe#ially among those %ho belie&e that indi&iduals should #hoose their o%n &alues rather than heed the %isdom and %ays o$ past generations. 2eligious appeals( though important in the li&es o$ many indi&iduals and $amilies( ha&e limited rea#h in a so#iety that limits the role o$ religious institutions in publi# li$e. +ppeals to people-s $eelings or intuitions( ho%e&er strong( are easily dismissed as appeals to pre3udi#e( un3ustly &aluing some 4li$estyles5 o&er others. +nd in a so#iety %hose moral sel$"understanding has been $ormed by the struggle to o&er#ome ra#ial pre3udi#e and promote e.ual rights( su#h appeals not only $ail to persuade but seem to indi#ate bad $aith. !n this #onte)t( %e thin' there is a pressing need $or s#holarly dis#ussion o$ the ideal o$ marriage( de$ended %ith reasons that are #omprehensible in publi# debate and that dra% upon the $ull range o$ so#ial s#ienti$i# e&iden#e and humanisti# re$le#tion. +t issue is not only the &alue o$ marriage itsel$( but the reasons %hy the publi# has a deep interest in a so#ially supported normati&e understanding o$ marriage. Marriage is under atta#' #on#eptually( in uni&ersity #ommunities and other intelle#tual #enters o$ in$luen#e. To de$end marriage %ill re.uire #on$ronting these atta#'s( assessing their arguments( and #orre#ting them %here ne#essary. e are persuaded that the #ase $or marriage #an be made and %on at the le&el o$ reason. The prin#iples outlined belo% and the e&iden#e and arguments o$$ered on their behal$ are meant to ma'e that #ase. e are a%are( o$ #ourse( that the debate o&er the normati&e status o$ marriage in our so#iety ne#essarily a#.uires an emotional edge. ,o one is untou#hed by the issue in his or her

personal li$e( and %e #an readily agree %ith the #riti#s o$ marriage that .uestions o$ se)ual identity( gender e.uity( and personal happiness are at sta'e. !n arguing $or the normati&e status o$ marriage( %e do not suppose that all people ought to be married or that marriage and $amily are the only sour#e o$ good in people-s li&es. ,or do %e %ish to deny or do%ngrade so#iety-s obligation to #are about the %el$are o$ all #hildren( regardless o$ their parents$amily $orm.1till( %e thin' that( parti#ularly as uni&ersity tea#hers and on behal$ o$ our students( %e need to ma'e this statement( sin#e marriage is abo&e all a #hoi#e $or the young: they need arguments to #ounterbalan#e the dominant arguments no% atta#'ing marriage as un3ust and undesirable( and they need to 'no% %hat marriage is in order to sustain their o%n marriages and raise their o%n #hildren. 6ust as it did in earlier #ultures( the marital $amily pro&ides the basis $or a settled pattern o$ reprodu#tion and edu#ation that a large( modern( demo#rati# so#iety still surely needs. /ur prin#iples mean to summari*e the &alue o$ married li$e and the li$e o$ $amilies that is built upon marriage " a #hoi#e that most people %ant to ma'e( and that so#iety should endorse and support.

7 The

itherspoon !nstitute 899:

;: 1to#'ton 1t.( Prin#eton( ,6 9<=>9":<;? Tel. (:9@) :<<"<AA@ " $a) (:9@) :<<";98; eb site: %inst.org

Ten Principles of Marriage and Family in Society

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

By the

itherspoon !nstitute

About Witherspoon:

Ten Principles of Marriage and Family in Society

1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife
Marriage di$$ers $rom other &alued personal relationships in #on&eying a $ull union o$ husband and %i$e" in#luding a se)ual( emotional( $inan#ial( legal( spiritual( and parental union. Marriage is not the rati$i#ation o$ an e)isting relationB it is the beginning o$ a ne% relationship bet%een a man and %oman( %ho pledge their se)ual $idelity to one another( promise lo&ing mutual #are and support( and $orm a $amily that %el#omes and nurtures the #hildren that may spring $rom their union. This understanding o$ marriage has predominated in Curope and +meri#a $or most o$ the past t%o thousand years. !t springs $rom the biologi#al( psy#hologi#al( and so#ial #omplementarity o$ the male and $emale se)es: omen typi#ally bring to marriage important gi$ts and perspe#ti&es that men typi#ally do not bring( 3ust as men bring their o%n spe#ial gi$ts and perspe#ti&es that %omen typi#ally #annot pro&ide in the same %ay. This #o&enant o$ mutual dependen#e and obligation( solemni*ed by a legal oath( is strengthened by the pledge o$ permanen#e that husband and %i$e o$$er to one another"al%ays to remain( ne&er to $lee( e&en and espe#ially in the most di$$i#ult times.

2. Marriage is a profound human good, ele ating and perfecting our social and se!ual nature
Human beings are so#ial animals( and the so#ial institution o$ marriage is a pro$ound human good. !t is a matri) o$ human relationships rooted in the spouses- se)ual #omplementarity and pro#reati&e possibilities and in #hildren-s need $or sustained parental nurturan#e and support. !t #reates #lear ties o$ begetting and belonging( ties o$ identity( 'inship( and mutual interdependen#e and responsibility. These bonds o$ $idelity ser&e a #ru#ial publi# purpose( and so it is ne#essary and proper $or the state to re#ogni*e and en#ourage marriage in both la% and publi# poli#y. !ndeed( it is not surprising that marriage is publi#ly san#tioned and promoted in &irtually e&ery 'no%n so#iety and o$ten solemni*ed by religious and #ultural rituals. Modern biologi#al and so#ial s#ien#e only #on$irm the bene$its o$ marriage as a human good #onsistent %ith our gi&en nature as se)ual and so#ial beings.

". #rdinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result
Married men gain moral and personal dis#ipline( a stable domesti# li$e( and the opportunity to parti#ipate in the upbringing o$ their #hildren. Married %omen gain stability and prote#tion( a#'no%ledgment o$ the paternity o$ their #hildren( and shared responsibility and emotional support in the raising o$ their young. Together( both spouses gain $rom a normati&e #ommitment to the institution o$ marriage itsel$" in#luding the bene$its that #ome $rom $aith$ully $ul$illing one-s #hosen duties as mother or $ather( husband or %i$e. Couples %ho share a moral #ommitment to marital permanen#y and $idelity tend to ha&e better marriages. The marital ethi# en3oining permanen#e( mutual $idelity( and #are( as %ell as $orbidding &iolen#e or se)ual abuse(

arises out o$ the #ore imperati&e o$ our marriage tradition: that men and %omen %ho marry pledge to lo&e one another( 4in si#'ness and in health5 and 4$or better or $or %orse(5 ordinarily 4until death do us part.5

$. Marriage protects and promotes the well%being of children

The $amily en&ironment pro&ided by marriage allo%s #hildren to gro%( mature( and $lourish. !t is a seedbed o$ so#iability and &irtue $or the young( %ho learn $rom both their parents and their siblings. 1pe#i$i#ally( the married $amily satis$ies #hildren-s need to 'no% their biologi#al origins( #onne#ts them to both a mother and $ather( establishes a $rame%or' o$ lo&e $or nurturing the young( o&ersees their edu#ation and personal de&elopment( and an#hors their identity as they learn to mo&e about the larger %orld. These are not merely desirable goods( but %hat %e o%e to #hildren as &ulnerable beings $illed %ith potential. hene&er humanly possible( #hildren ha&e a natural human right to 'no% their mother and $ather( and mothers and $athers ha&e a solemn obligation to lo&e their #hildren un#onditionally.

&. Marriage sustains ci il society and promotes the common good

Ci&il so#iety also bene$its $rom a stable marital order. Families are themsel&es small so#ieties( and the %eb o$ trust they establish a#ross generations and bet%een the spouses- original $amilies are a 'ey #onstituent o$ so#iety as a %hole. The net%or' o$ relati&es and in"la%s that marriage #reates and sustains is a 'ey ingredient o$ the 4so#ial #apital5 that $a#ilitates many 'inds o$ bene$i#ial #i&i# asso#iations and pri&ate groups. The &irtues a#.uired %ithin the $amily"generosity( sel$"sa#ri$i#e( trust( sel$" dis#ipline"are #ru#ial in e&ery domain o$ so#ial li$e. Children %ho gro% up in bro'en $amilies o$ten $ail to a#.uire these elemental habits o$ #hara#ter. hen marital brea'do%n or the $ailure to $orm marriages be#omes %idespread( so#iety is harmed by a host o$ so#ial pathologies( in#luding in#reased po&erty( mental illness( #rime( illegal drug use( #lini#al depression( and sui#ide.

'. Marriage is a wealth%creating institution, increasing human and social capital

The modern e#onomy and modern demo#rati# state depend on $amilies to produ#e the ne)t generation o$ produ#ti&e %or'ers and ta)payers. This ongoing rene%al o$ human #apital is a #ru#ial ingredient in the national e#onomy( one that is no% in gra&e peril in those so#ieties %ith rapidly aging populations and belo%"repla#ement $ertility rates. !t is %ithin $amilies that young people de&elop stable patterns o$ %or' and sel$"relian#e at the dire#tion o$ their parents( and this training in turn pro&ides the basis $or de&eloping use$ul s'ills and gaining a pro$ession. More deeply( marriage realigns personal interests beyond the good o$ the present sel$( and thus redu#es the tenden#y o$ indi&iduals and groups to ma'e rash or imprudent de#isions that s.uander the inheritan#e o$ $uture generations. Families also pro&ide net%or's o$ trust and #apital that ser&e as the $oundation $or #ountless entrepreneurial small"business enterprises (as %ell as some large #orporations)( %hi#h are #ru#ial to the &itality o$ the nation-s e#onomy. !n addition( de&oted spouses and gro%n #hildren assist in #aring $or the si#' and elderly( and maintain the sol&en#y o$ pension and so#ial"insuran#e programs by pro&iding unremunerated #are $or their lo&ed ones( paying ta)es( and produ#ing the #hildren %ho %ill $orm $uture generations o$ ta)"paying %or'ers. ithout $lourishing

$amilies( in other %ords( the long"term health o$ the modern e#onomy %ould be imperiled.

(. )hen marriage wea*ens, the e+uality gap widens, as children suffer from the disad antages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers
Children %hose parents $ail to get and stay married are at in#reased ris' o$ po&erty( dependen#y( substan#e abuse( edu#ational $ailure( 3u&enile delin.uen#y( early un%ed pregnan#y( and a host o$ other destru#ti&e beha&iors. hen %hole $amilies and neighborhoods be#ome dominated by $atherless homes( these ris's in#rease e&en $urther. The brea'do%n o$ marriage has hit the +$ri#an"+meri#an #ommunity espe#ially hard( and thus threatens the #herished +meri#an ideal o$ e.uality o$ opportunity by depri&ing adults and espe#ially #hildren o$ the so#ial #apital they need to $lourish. Pre#isely be#ause %e see' to eliminate so#ial disad&antages based on ra#e and #lass( %e &ie% the #ultural( e#onomi#( and other barriers to strengthening marriage in poor neighborhoods " espe#ially among those ra#ial minorities %ith disproportionately high rates o$ $amily brea'do%n " as a serious problem to be sol&ed %ith persisten#e( generosity( and ingenuity.

,. - functioning marriage culture ser es to protect political liberty and foster limited go ernment
1trong( inta#t $amilies stabili*e the state and de#rease the need $or #ostly and intrusi&e bureau#rati# so#ial agen#ies. Families pro&ide $or their &ulnerable members( produ#e ne% #iti*ens %ith &irtues su#h as loyalty and generosity( and engender #on#ern $or the #ommon good. hen $amilies brea' do%n( #rime and so#ial disorder soarB the state must e)pand to reassert so#ial #ontrol %ith intrusi&e poli#ing( a spra%ling prison system( #oer#i&e #hild"support en$or#ement( and #ourt"dire#ted $amily li$e. ithout stable $amilies( personal liberty is thus imperiled( as the state tries to $ul$ill through #oer#ion those $un#tions that $amilies( at their best( $ul$ill through #o&enantal de&otion.

.. The laws that go ern marriage matter significantly

Da% and #ulture e)hibit a dynami# relationship: #hanges in one ultimately yield #hanges in the other( and together la% and #ulture stru#ture the #hoi#es that indi&iduals see as a&ailable( a##eptable( and #hoi#e%orthy. Ei&en the #lear bene$its o$ marriage( %e belie&e that the state should not remain politi#ally neutral( either in pro#edure or out#ome( bet%een marriage and &arious alternati&e $amily stru#tures. 1ome ha&e sought to rede$ine #i&il marriage as a pri&ate #ontra#t bet%een t%o indi&iduals regardless o$ se)( others as a binding union o$ any number o$ indi&iduals( and still others as any 'ind o$ #ontra#tual arrangement $or any length o$ time that is agreeable to any number o$ #onsenting adult parties. But in doing so a state %ould ne#essarily undermine the so#ial norm %hi#h en#ourages marriage as histori#ally understood " i.e.( the se)ually $aith$ul union( intended $or li$e( bet%een one man and one %oman( open to the begetting and rearing o$ #hildren. The publi# goods uni.uely pro&ided by marriage are re#ogni*able by reasonable persons( regardless o$ religious

or se#ular %orld&ie%( and thus pro&ide #ompelling reasons $or rein$or#ing the e)isting marriage norm in la% and publi# poli#y.

1/.0Ci il marriage1 and 0religious marriage1 cannot be rigidly or completely di orced from one another
+meri#ans ha&e al%ays re#ogni*ed the right o$ any person( religious or non"religious( to marry. hile the #eremonial $orm o$ religious and se#ular marriages o$ten di$$ers( the meaning o$ su#h marriages %ithin the so#ial order has al%ays been similar( %hi#h is %hy the state honors those marriages duly per$ormed by religious authorities. Moreo&er( #urrent so#ial s#ien#e e&iden#e on religion and marital su##ess a$$irms the %isdom o$ the +meri#an tradition( %hi#h has al%ays re#ogni*ed and a#'no%ledged the positi&e role that religion plays in #reating and sustaining marriage as a so#ial institution. The ma3ority o$ +meri#ans marry in religious institutions( and $or many o$ these people a religious dimension su$$uses the %hole o$ $amily li$e and solemni*es the marriage &o%. !t is thus important to re#ogni*e the #ru#ial role played by religious institutions in lending #riti#al support $or a sustainable marriage #ulture( on %hi#h the %hole so#iety depends. +nd it is important to preser&e some shared idea o$ %hat marriage is that trans#ends the di$$eren#es bet%een religious and se#ular marriages and bet%een marriages %ithin our nation-s many di&erse religious traditions.

7 The

itherspoon !nstitute 899:

;: 1to#'ton 1t.( Prin#eton( ,6 9<=>9":<;? Tel. (:9@) :<<"<AA@ " $a) (:9@) :<<";98; eb site: %inst.org

The )ell%being of Children

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

By the

itherspoon !nstitute

About Witherspoon:

2 idence from the Social and 3iological Sciences

!n the last $orty years( so#iety has #ondu#ted a &ast $amily e)periment( and the out#omes are in#reasingly #oming to light &ia s#ienti$i# in&estigations. hile no single study is de$initi&e( and there is room at the edges $or debate about parti#ular #onse.uen#es o$ marriage( the #lear preponderan#e o$ the e&iden#e sho%s that inta#t( married $amilies are superior"$or adults and espe#ially $or #hildren"to alternati&e $amily arrangements. + great deal o$ resear#h no% e)ists $rom the anthropologi#al( so#iologi#al( psy#hologi#al( and e#onomi# s#ien#es demonstrating the empiri#al bene$its o$ marriage. !n &irtually e&ery 'no%n human so#iety( the institution o$ marriage has ser&ed and #ontinues to ser&e three important publi# purposes. First( marriage is the institution through %hi#h so#ieties see' to organi*e the bearing and rearing o$ #hildrenB it is parti#ularly important in ensuring that #hildren ha&e the lo&e and support o$ their $ather. 1e#ond( marriage pro&ides dire#tion( order( and stability to adult se)ual unions and to their e#onomi#( so#ial( and biologi#al #onse.uen#es. Third( marriage #i&ili*es men( $urnishing them %ith a sense o$ purpose( norms( and so#ial status that orient their li&es a%ay $rom &i#e and to%ard &irtue.= Marriage a#hie&es its myriad purposes through both so#ial and biologi#al means that are not easily repli#ated by the &arious alternati&es to marriage. hen marriage is strong( #hildren and adults both tend to $lourishB %hen marriage brea's do%n( e&ery element o$ so#iety su$$ers.

The )ell%being of Children

The e&iden#e lin'ing the health o$ marriage to the %el$are o$ #hildren is #lear. Furing the last t%o de#ades( a large body o$ so#ial s#ienti$i# resear#h has emerged indi#ating that #hildren do best %hen reared by their mothers and $athers in a married( inta#t $amily. + re#ent report by Child Trends( a nonpartisan resear#h organi*ation( summari*ed the ne% s#holarly #onsensus on marriage this %ay: 4G2Hesear#h #learly demonstrates that $amily stru#ture matters $or #hildren( and the $amily stru#ture that helps #hildren the most is a $amily headed by t%o biologi#al parents in a lo%"#on$li#t marriage.5: /ther re#ent re&ie%s o$ the literature on marriage and the %ell"being o$ #hildren( #ondu#ted by the Broo'ings !nstitution( the oodro% ilson 1#hool o$ Publi# and !nternational +$$airs at Prin#eton 0ni&ersity( the Center $or Da% and 1o#ial Poli#y( and the !nstitute $or +meri#an Ialues( ha&e all #ome to similar #on#lusions. Marriage matters $or #hildren in myriad %ays. e $o#us here on the edu#ational( psy#hologi#al( se)ual( and beha&ioral #onse.uen#es $or #hildren o$ $amily stru#ture( beginning %ith edu#ation. Children reared in inta#t( married homes are signi$i#antly more li'ely to be in&ol&ed in litera#y a#ti&ities (su#h as being read to by adults or learning to re#ogni*e letters) as pres#hool #hildren( and to s#ore higher in reading #omprehension as

$ourth graders. 1#hool"aged #hildren are appro)imately ?9 per#ent less li'ely to #ut #lass( be tardy( or miss s#hool altogether. The #umulati&e e$$e#t o$ $amily stru#ture on #hildren-s edu#ational per$orman#e is most e&ident in high s#hool graduation rates. Children reared in inta#t( married households are about t%i#e as li'ely to graduate $rom high s#hool( #ompared to #hildren reared in single"parent or step"$amilies. /ne study $ound that ?A per#ent o$ #hildren born outside o$ marriage and ?; per#ent o$ #hildren %ith di&or#ed parents dropped out o$ high s#hool( #ompared to ;? per#ent o$ #hildren $rom inta#t $amilies headed by a married mother and $ather. Marriage also plays a #entral role in $ostering the emotional health o$ #hildren. Children $rom stable( married $amilies are signi$i#antly less li'ely to su$$er $rom depression( an)iety( al#ohol and drug abuse( and thoughts o$ sui#ide #ompared to #hildren $rom di&or#ed homes. /ne re#ent study o$ the entire population o$ 1%edish #hildren $ound that 1%edish boys and girls in t%o"parent homes %ere about =9 per#ent less li'ely to su$$er $rom sui#ide attempts( al#ohol and drug abuse( and serious psy#hiatri# illnesses #ompared to #hildren reared in single"parent homes. + sur&ey o$ the +meri#an literature on #hild %ell"being $ound that $amily stru#ture %as more #onse.uential than po&erty in predi#ting #hildren-s psy#hologi#al and beha&ioral out#omes. !n general( #hildren %ho are reared by their o%n married mothers and $athers are mu#h more li'ely to #on$ront the %orld %ith a sense o$ hope( sel$"#on$iden#e( and sel$"#ontrol than #hildren raised %ithout an inta#t( married $amily. Marriage is also important in #onne#ting #hildren to their biologi#al $athers and grounding their $amilial identities. 2esear#h by Jale psy#hiatrist Kyle Pruett suggests that #hildren #on#ei&ed by arti$i#ial reprodu#ti&e te#hnologies (+2T) and reared %ithout $athers ha&e an unmet 4hunger $or an abiding paternal presen#e5B his resear#h parallels $indings $rom the literature on di&or#e and single"parenthood. Pruett-s %or' also suggests that #hildren #on#ei&ed by +2T %ithout 'no%n $athers ha&e deep and disturbing .uestions about their biologi#al and $amilial origins. These #hildren do not 'no% their $athers or their paternal 'in( and they disli'e li&ing in a 'ind o$ biologi#al and paternal limbo. By #ontrast( #hildren %ho are reared by their married biologi#al parents are more li'ely to ha&e a se#ure sense o$ their o%n biologi#al origins and $amilial identity. Family stru#ture( parti#ularly the presen#e o$ a biologi#al $ather( also plays a 'ey role in in$luen#ing the se)ual de&elopment( a#ti&ity( and %el$are o$ young girls. Teenage girls %ho gro% up %ith a single mother or a step$ather are signi$i#antly more li'ely to e)perien#e early menstruation and se)ual de&elopment( #ompared to girls reared in homes headed by a married mother and $ather. Partly as a #onse.uen#e( girls reared in single"parent or step"$amilies are mu#h more li'ely to e)perien#e a teenage pregnan#y and to ha&e a #hild outside o$ %edlo#' than girls %ho are reared in an inta#t( married $amily. /ne study $ound that only = per#ent o$ girls %ho gre% up in an inta#t $amily got pregnant as teenagers( #ompared to ;9 per#ent o$ girls %hose $athers le$t a$ter they turned si)( and ?= per#ent o$ girls %hose $athers le$t %hen they %ere pres#hoolers. 2esear#h also suggests that girls are signi$i#antly more li'ely to be se)ually abused i$ they are li&ing outside o$ an inta#t( married home"in large part be#ause girls ha&e more #onta#t %ith unrelated males i$ their mothers are unmarried( #ohabiting( or residing in a step$amily. Boys also bene$it in uni.ue %ays $rom being reared %ithin stable( married $amilies. 2esear#h #onsistently $inds that boys raised by their o%n $athers and mothers in an inta#t( married $amily are less li'ely to get in trouble than boys raised in other $amily situations. Boys raised outside o$ an inta#t $amily are more li'ely to ha&e problems %ith aggression( attention de$i#it

disorder( delin.uen#y( and s#hool suspensions( #ompared to boys raised in inta#t married $amilies. 1ome studies suggest that the negati&e beha&ioral #onse.uen#es o$ marital brea'do%n are e&en more signi$i#ant $or boys than $or girls. /ne study $ound that boys reared in single"parent and step"$amilies %ere more than t%i#e as li'ely to end up in prison( #ompared to boys reared in an inta#t $amily. Clearly( stable marriage and paternal role models are #ru#ial $or 'eeping boys $rom sel$"destru#ti&e and so#ially destru#ti&e beha&ior. Iirtually all o$ the studies #ited here #ontrol $or so#ioe#onomi#( demographi#( and e&en geneti# $a#tors that might other%ise distort the relationship bet%een $amily stru#ture and #hild %ell"being. 1o( $or instan#e( the lin' bet%een $amily brea'do%n and #rime is not an arti$a#t o$ po&erty among single parents. Moreo&er( the ne%est %or' on di&or#e $ollo%s adult t%ins and their #hildren to separate out the uni.ue e$$e#ts o$ di&or#e itsel$ $rom the potential role that geneti# (and so#ioe#onomi#) $a#tors might play in in$luen#ing #hildren-s out#omes. This resear#h indi#ates that di&or#e has negati&e #onse.uen#es $or #hildren-s psy#hologi#al and so#ial %el$are e&en a$ter #ontrolling $or the geneti# &ulnerabilities o$ the parents %ho di&or#ed. hy( then( does the e&iden#e lin' marriage to an impressi&e array o$ positi&e out#omes $or #hildrenL Both so#ial and biologi#al me#hanisms seem to a##ount $or the &alue o$ an inta#t marriage in #hildren-s li&es. From a so#iologi#al perspe#ti&e( marriage allo%s $amilies to bene$it $rom shared labor %ithin the household( in#ome streams $rom t%o parents( and the e#onomi# resour#es o$ t%o sets o$ 'in. + married mom and dad typi#ally in&est more time( a$$e#tion( and o&ersight into parenting than does a single parentB as importantly( they tend to monitor and impro&e the parenting o$ one another( augmenting one another-s strengths( balan#ing one another-s %ea'nesses( and redu#ing the ris' that a #hild %ill be abused or negle#ted by an e)hausted or angry parent. The trust and #ommitment asso#iated %ith marriage also gi&e a man and a %oman a sense that they ha&e a $uture together( as %ell as a $uture %ith their #hildren. This hori*on o$ #ommitment( in turn( moti&ates them to in&est pra#ti#ally( emotionally( and $inan#ially at higher le&els in their #hildren than #ohabiting or single parents. Marriage is parti#ularly important in binding $athers to their #hildren. For men( marriage and $atherhood are a pa#'age deal. Be#ause the $ather-s role is more dis#retionary in our so#iety (and e&ery 'no%n human so#iety) than the mother-s role( it depends more on the normati&e e)pe#tations o$ and so#ial supports pro&ided to $athers by marriage. Marriage positions men to re#ei&e the regular en#ouragement( dire#tion( and ad&i#e o$ the mother o$ his #hildren( and en#ourages them to pay attention to that input. ,ot surprisingly( #ohabiting $athers are less pra#ti#ally and emotionally in&ested in their #hildren than are married $athers. ,onresidential $athers see their #hildren mu#h less o$ten than do married( residential $athers( and their in&ol&ement is not #onsistently related to positi&e out#omes $or #hildren. By #ontrast( married $athers #an e)er#ise an abiding( important( and positi&e in$luen#e on their #hildren( and are espe#ially li'ely to do so in a happy marriage. Biology also matters. 1tudies suggest that men and %omen bring di$$erent strengths to the parenting enterprise( and that the biologi#al relatedness o$ parents to their #hildren has important #onse.uen#es $or the young( espe#ially girls. +lthough there is a good deal o$ o&erlap in the talents that mothers and $athers bring to parenting( the e&iden#e also suggests that there are #ru#ial se) di$$eren#es in parenting. Mothers are more sensiti&e to the #ries( %ords( and gestures o$ in$ants( toddlers( and adoles#ents( and( partly as a #onse.uen#e( they are better at pro&iding physi#al and emotional nurture to their #hildren. These spe#ial

#apa#ities o$ mothers seem to ha&e deep biologi#al underpinnings: during pregnan#y and breast$eeding %omen e)perien#e high le&els o$ the hormone peptide o)yto#in( %hi#h $osters a$$iliati&e beha&iors. Fathers e)#el %hen it #omes to pro&iding dis#ipline( ensuring sa$ety( and #hallenging their #hildren to embra#e li$e-s opportunities and #on$ront li$e-s di$$i#ulties. The greater physi#al si*e and strength o$ most $athers( along %ith the pit#h and in$le#tion o$ their &oi#e and the dire#ti&e #hara#ter o$ their spea'ing( gi&e them an ad&antage %hen it #omes to dis#ipline( an ad&antage that is parti#ularly e&ident %ith boys( %ho are more li'ely to #omply %ith their $athers- than their mothers- dis#ipline. Di'e%ise( $athers are more li'ely than mothers to en#ourage their #hildren to ta#'le di$$i#ult tas's( endure hardship %ithout yielding( and see' out no&el e)perien#es. These paternal strengths also ha&e deep biologi#al underpinnings: Fathers typi#ally ha&e higher le&els o$ testosterone"a hormone asso#iated %ith dominan#e and asserti&eness"than do mothers. +lthough the lin' bet%een nature( nurture( and se)"spe#i$i# parenting talents is undoubtedly #omple)( one #annot ignore the o&er%helming e&iden#e o$ se) di$$eren#es in parenting"di$$eren#es that marriage builds on to the ad&antage o$ #hildren. The biologi#al relationship bet%een parents and #hildren also matters to the young. 1tudies suggest that biologi#al parents in&est more money and time in their o$$spring than do stepparents. ,e% resear#h by 0ni&ersity o$ +ri*ona psy#hologist Bru#e Cllis also suggests that the physi#al presen#e o$ a biologi#al $ather is important $or the se)ual de&elopment o$ girls. 1pe#i$i#ally( he thin's that one reason that girls %ho li&e apart $rom their biologi#al $ather de&elop se)ually at an earlier age than girls %ho li&e %ith their biologi#al $ather is that they are more li'ely to be e)posed to the pheromones"biologi#al #hemi#als that #on&ey se)ual in$ormation bet%een persons"o$ unrelated males. He also $inds that girls %ho are e)posed to the presen#e o$ a mother-s boy$riend or a step$ather rea#h puberty at an earlier age than girls %ho are raised by unpartnered single mothers. There is #learly more resear#h to be done in this area( but the data #learly suggest that one reason marriage is so &aluable is that it helps to bind a #hild-s biologi#al parents to the #hild o&er the #ourse o$ her li$e. 1ara M#Danahan and Eary 1ande$ur( so#iologists at Prin#eton and is#onsin respe#ti&ely( sum up the reasons that marriage matters $or #hildren in this %ay: 4!$ %e %ere as'ed to design a system $or ma'ing sure that #hildren-s basi# needs %ere met( %e %ould probably #ome up %ith something .uite similar to the t%o"parent ideal. 1u#h a design( in theory( %ould not only ensure that #hildren had a##ess to the time and money o$ t%o adults( it also %ould pro&ide a system o$ #he#'s and balan#es that promoted .uality parenting. The $a#t that both parents ha&e a biologi#al #onne#tion to the #hild %ould in#rease the li'elihood that the parents %ould identi$y %ith the #hild and be %illing to sa#ri$i#e $or that #hild( and it %ould redu#e the li'elihood that either parent %ould abuse the #hild.5 /&er the past $e% de#ades( %e ha&e e)perimented %ith &arious alternati&es to marriage( and the e&iden#e is no% #lear: #hildren raised in married( inta#t $amilies generally do better in e&ery area o$ li$e than those raised in &arious alternati&e $amily stru#tures. Those %ho #are about the %ell"being o$ #hildren"as e&ery #iti*en should" should #are about the health o$ modern marriage.

7 The

itherspoon !nstitute 899:

;: 1to#'ton 1t.( Prin#eton( ,6 9<=>9":<;? Tel. (:9@) :<<"<AA@ " $a) (:9@) :<<";98; eb site: %inst.org

The )ell%being of -dults

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

By the

itherspoon !nstitute

About Witherspoon:

The )ell%being of -dults

hile the most important bene$its o$ marriage redound to #hildren( marriage also has signi$i#ant bene$its $or the adult men and %omen %ho enter into it. Both married men and %omen bene$it $inan#ially( emotionally( physi#ally( and so#ially $rom marriage. Ho%e&er( %e must also note that there are o$ten gender di$$eren#es in the bene$its o$ marriage( and that the bene$its o$ marriage $or %omen are more sensiti&e to the .uality o$ marriage than are the bene$its o$ marriage $or men. The $inan#ial ad&antages o$ marriage are #lear. Married men and %omen are more li'ely to a##umulate %ealth and to o%n a home than unmarried adults( e&en #ompared to similarly situated #ohabiting or single adults. Married men earn bet%een ;9 and >9 per#ent more money than single men %ith similar pro$essional and edu#ational ba#'grounds. Married %omen generally do not e)perien#e a marriage premium in their earnings( but this is be#ause most %omen #ombine marriage %ith motherhood( %hi#h tends to depress %omen-s earnings. The material bene$its o$ marriage also e)tend to %omen $rom disad&antaged ba#'grounds( %ho are mu#h less li'ely to $all into po&erty i$ they get and stay married. !n general( marriage allo%s #ouples to pool resour#es and share labor %ithin the household. The #ommitment

asso#iated %ith marriage pro&ides #ouples %ith a long"term outloo' that allo%s them to in&est together in housing and other long"term assets. The norms o$ adult maturity asso#iated %ith marriage en#ourage adults to spend and sa&e in a more responsible $ashion. Marriage also promotes the physi#al and emotional health o$ men and %omen. Married adults ha&e longer li&es( less illness( greater happiness( and lo%er le&els o$ depression and substan#e abuse than #ohabiting and single adults. 1pouses are more li'ely to en#ourage their partners to monitor their health and see' medi#al help i$ they are e)perien#ing an illness. The norms o$ adult maturity and $idelity asso#iated %ith marriage en#ourage men and %omen to a&oid unhealthy or ris'y beha&iors"$rom promis#uous se) to hea&y al#ohol use. The in#reased %ealth and e#onomi# stability that #ome $rom being married enable married men and %omen to see' better medi#al #are. The emotional support $urnished by most marriages redu#es stress( and the stress hormones( that o$ten #ause ill health and mental illness. Men are parti#ularly apt to e)perien#e marriage"related gains in their li$e e)pe#tan#y and o&erall health. omen also gain( but their marriage"related health bene$its depend more on the .uality o$ their marriages: %omen in lo%".uality marriages are more li'ely to e)perien#e health problems and psy#hologi#al distress than single %omen( %hile good marriages gi&e %omen an important psy#hologi#al and physi#al boost. Marriage also plays a #ru#ial role in #i&ili*ing men. Married men are less li'ely to #ommit a #rime( to be se)ually promis#uous or un$aith$ul to a longtime partner( or to drin' to e)#ess. They also attend #hur#h more o$ten( spend more time %ith 'in (and less time %ith $riends)( and %or' longer hours. /ne study( $or instan#e( sho%ed that only $our per#ent o$ married men had been un$aith$ul in the past year"#ompared to ;: per#ent o$ #ohabiting men and ?A per#ent o$ men in an ongoing se)ual relationship %ith a %oman. Dongitudinal resear#h by 0ni&ersity o$ Iirginia so#iologist 1te&en ,o#' suggests that these e$$e#ts are not an arti$a#t o$ sele#tion but rather a dire#t #onse.uen#e o$ marriage. ,o#' tra#'ed men o&er time as they transitioned $rom singlehood to marriage and $ound that men-s beha&iors a#tually #hanged in the %a'e o$ a marriage: a$ter tying the 'not( men %or'ed harder( attended $e%er bars( in#reased their #hur#h attendan#e( and spent more time %ith $amily members. For many men( marriage is a rite o$ passage that introdu#es them $ully into an adult %orld o$ responsibility and sel$"#ontrol. But %hy does marriage play su#h a #ru#ial role in #i&ili*ing men"in ma'ing them harder %or'ers( more $aith$ul mates( and more pea#eable #iti*ensL Part o$ the ans%er is so#iologi#al. The norms o$ trust( $idelity( sa#ri$i#e( and pro&idership asso#iated %ith marriage gi&e men #lear dire#tions about ho% they should a#t to%ard their %i&es and #hildren"norms that are not #learly appli#able to non"marital relationships. + married man also gains status in the eyes o$ his %i$e( her $amily( their $riends( and the larger #ommunity %hen they signal their intentions and their maturity by marrying. Most men see' to maintain their so#ial status by abiding by so#iety-s normsB a so#iety that honors marriage %ill produ#e men %ho honor their %i&es and #are $or their #hildren. Biology also matters. 2esear#h on men( marriage( and testosterone $inds that married men" espe#ially married men %ith #hildren"ha&e more modest le&els o$ testosterone than do single men. (Cohabiting men also ha&e lo%er le&els o$ testosterone than single men.) Dong"term( stable( pro#reati&e relationships moderate men-s testosterone le&els. 6udging by the literature on testosterone( this %ould"in turn"ma'e men less in#lined to aggressi&e( promis#uous( and other%ise ris'y beha&ior.

/$ #ourse( marriage also matters in uni.ue %ays $or %omen. hen it #omes to physi#al sa$ety( married %omen are mu#h less li'ely to be &i#tims o$ &iolent #rimes. For instan#e( a ;@@> 6usti#e Fepartment report $ound that single and di&or#ed %omen %ere more than $our times more li'ely to be the &i#tims o$ a &iolent #rime( #ompared to married %omen. Married %omen are also mu#h less li'ely to be &i#timi*ed by a partner than %omen in a #ohabiting or se)ually intimate dating relationship. /ne study $ound that ;? per#ent o$ #ohabiting #ouples had arguments that got &iolent in the past year( #ompared to > per#ent o$ married #ouples. 1tudies suggest that one reason %omen in nonmarital relationships are more li'ely to be &i#timi*ed is that these relationships ha&e higher rates o$ in$idelity( and in$idelity in&ites serious #on$li#t bet%een partners. For most %omen( there$ore( marriage is a sa$e harbor. !t is not 3ust marital status but the &ery ideal o$ marriage that matters. Married persons %ho &alue marriage $or its o%n sa'e"%ho oppose #ohabitation( %ho thin' that marriage is $or li$e( and %ho belie&e that it is best $or #hildren to be reared by a $ather and a mother as husband and %i$e"are signi$i#antly more li'ely to e)perien#e high".uality marriages( #ompared to married persons %ho are less #ommitted to the institution o$ marriage. Men and %omen %ith a normati&e #ommitment to the ideal o$ marriage are also more li'ely to spend time %ith one another and to sa#ri$i#e $or their relationship. /ther resear#h indi#ates that su#h a #ommitment is parti#ularly #onse.uential $or men: that is( men-s de&otion to their %i$e depends more on their normati&e #ommitment to the marriage ideal than does %omen-s de&otion to their husbands. 1imply put( men and %omen %ho marry $or li$e are more li'ely to e)perien#e a happy marriage than men and %omen %ho marry 4so long as they both shall lo&e.5 hat is #lear is that marriage impro&es the li&es o$ those men and %omen %ho a##ept its obligations( espe#ially those %ho see' the e#onomi#( emotional( and health bene$its o$ modern li$e. Perhaps some modern men do not belie&e they need to be domesti#ated or do not %ish to be burdened %ith the duties o$ #hild"rearingB and perhaps some modern %omen do not belie&e they need the se#urity that a good marriage uni.uely o$$ers or $ear that $amily li$e %ill inter$ere %ith their #areers. But the data suggest that su#h desires #an sometimes lead men and %omen astray( and that those %ho embra#e marriage li&e happier li&es than those %ho see' a $alse $reedom in ba#helorhood( #ohabitation( or di&or#e.

7 The

itherspoon !nstitute 899:

;: 1to#'ton 1t.( Prin#eton( ,6 9<=>9":<;? Tel. (:9@) :<<"<AA@ " $a) (:9@) :<<";98; eb site: %inst.org

The Public Conse+uences of Marital 3rea*down

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

By the

itherspoon !nstitute

About Witherspoon:

The Public Conse+uences of Marital 3rea*down

The publi# #onse.uen#es o$ the re#ent retreat $rom marriage are substantial. +s the e&iden#e sho%s( marital brea'do%n redu#es the #olle#ti&e %el$are o$ our #hildren( strains our 3usti#e system( %ea'ens #i&il so#iety( and in#reases the si*e and s#ope o$ go&ernmental po%er. The numbers are indeed staggering. C&ery year in the 0nited 1tates( more than one million #hildren see their parents di&or#e and ;.= million #hildren are born to unmarried mothers. The #olle#ti&e #onse.uen#es o$ this $amily brea'do%n ha&e been #atastrophi#( as demonstrated by myriad indi#ators o$ so#ial %ell"being. Ta'e #hild po&erty. /ne re#ent Broo'ings sur&ey indi#ates that the in#rease in #hild po&erty in the 0.1. sin#e the ;@A9s is due almost entirely to de#lines in the per#entage o$ #hildren reared in married $amilies( primarily be#ause #hildren in single"parent homes are mu#h less li'ely to re#ei&e mu#h material support $rom their $athers. /r ta'e adoles#ent %ell"being. Penn 1tate so#iologist Paul +mato estimated ho% adoles#ents %ould $are i$ our so#iety had the same per#entage o$ t%o"parent biologi#al $amilies as it did in ;@:9. His resear#h indi#ates that this nation-s adoles#ents %ould ha&e ;.8 million $e%er s#hool suspensions( ; million $e%er a#ts o$ delin.uen#y or &iolen#e( A>:(=<A $e%er repeated grades( and A;(>;? $e%er sui#ides. 1imilar estimates #ould be done $or the #olle#ti&e e$$e#t o$ $amily brea'do%n on teen pregnan#y( depression( and high s#hool dropout rates. The bottom line is this: #hildren ha&e paid a hea&y pri#e $or adult $ailures to get and stay married. Publi# sa$ety and our 3usti#e system ha&e also been a$$e#ted by the retreat $rom marriage. C&en though #rime rates ha&e $allen in re#ent years( the per#entage o$ the population in 3ail has #ontinued to rise"$rom .@ per#ent o$ the population in ;@<9 to 8.> per#ent in 899?( %hi#h amounts to more than 8 million men and %omen. Publi# e)penditures on #riminal 3usti#e" poli#e( #ourts( and prisons"rose more than ?=9 per#ent in the last 89 years( $rom M?: billion in ;@<8 to M;:A billion in 899;. Cmpiri#al resear#h on $amily and #rime strongly suggests that #rime is dri&en in part by the brea'do%n o$ marriage. Eeorge +'erlo$( a ,obel laureate in e#onomi#s( argues that the #rime in#rease in the ;@A9s and ;@<9s %as lin'ed to de#lines in the

marriage rate among young %or'ing"#lass and poor men. Har&ard so#iologist 2obert 1ampson #on#ludes $rom his resear#h on urban #rime that murder and robbery rates are #losely lin'ed to $amily stru#ture. !n his %ords: 4Family stru#ture is one o$ the strongest( i$ not the strongest( predi#tor o$ &ariations in urban &iolen#e a#ross #ities in the 0nited 1tates.5 The #lose empiri#al #onne#tion bet%een $amily brea'do%n and #rime suggests that in#reased spending on #rime"$ighting( imprisonment( and #riminal 3usti#e in the 0nited 1tates o&er the last >9 years is largely the dire#t or indire#t #onse.uen#e o$ marital brea'do%n. Publi# spending on so#ial ser&i#es has also risen dramati#ally sin#e the ;@:9s( in large part be#ause o$ in#reases in di&or#e and illegitima#y. Cstimates &ary regarding the #osts to the ta)payer o$ $amily brea'do%n( but they #learly run into the many billions o$ dollars. /ne Broo'ings study $ound that the retreat $rom marriage %as asso#iated %ith an in#rease o$ M88@ billion in %el$are e)penditures $rom ;@A9 to ;@@:. +nother study $ound that lo#al( state( and $ederal go&ernments spend M?? billion per year on the dire#t and indire#t #osts o$ di&or#e" $rom $amily #ourt #osts to #hild support en$or#ement to T+,F and Medi#aid. !n#reases in di&or#e also mean that $amily 3udges and #hild support en$or#ement agen#ies play a deeply intrusi&e role in the li&es o$ adults and #hildren a$$e#ted by di&or#e( setting the terms $or #ustody( #hild &isitation( and #hild support $or more than a million adults and #hildren e&ery year. Clearly( %hen the $amily $ails to go&ern itsel$( go&ernment steps in to pi#' up the pie#es. The lin' bet%een the si*e and s#ope o$ the state and the health o$ marriage as an institution is made e&en more &isible by loo'ing at trends outside the 0nited 1tates. Countries %ith high rates o$ illegitima#y and di&or#e"su#h as 1%eden and Fenmar'"spend mu#h more money on %el$are e)penditures( as a per#entage o$ their EFP( than #ountries %ith relati&ely lo% rates o$ illegitima#y and di&or#e"su#h as 1pain and 6apan. +lthough there has been no de$initi&e #omparati&e resear#h on state e)penditures and $amily stru#ture( and other $a#tors"su#h as religion and politi#al #ulture"may #on$ound this relationship( the #orrelation bet%een the t%o is suggesti&e. /$ #ourse( %e also suspe#t that the relationship bet%een state si*e and $amily brea'do%n runs both %ays. For instan#e( earlier resear#h on 1#andina&ian #ountries by so#iologists Fa&id Popenoe and +lan ol$e suggests that in#reases in state spending are asso#iated %ith de#lines in the strength o$ marriage and $amily. Ta'en together( the retreat $rom marriage seems to go hand in hand %ith more e)pensi&e and more intrusi&e go&ernmentB $amily brea'do%n goes hand in hand %ith gro%ing hardship in disad&antaged #ommunities( ma'ing the #all $or still more go&ernment inter&ention e&en more irresistible. !t is a pathologi#al spiral( one that only a restoration o$ marriage #an hope to re&erse.

7 The

itherspoon !nstitute 899:

;: 1to#'ton 1t.( Prin#eton( ,6 9<=>9":<;? Tel. (:9@) :<<"<AA@ " $a) (:9@) :<<";98; eb site: %inst.org

Four Threats to Marriage

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

By the

itherspoon !nstitute

About Witherspoon:

Four Threats to Marriage

0ntil $orty years ago( marriage go&erned se)( pro#reation( and #hildrearing $or the &ast ma3ority o$ adults. !n re#ent years( marriage-s hold on these three domains o$ so#ial li$e has %ea'ened( %ith serious negati&e #onse.uen#es $or so#iety as a %hole. Four de&elopments " the sad e$$e#t o$ de#oupling marriage( se)( pro#reation( and #hildbearing"are espe#ially troubling: di&or#e( illegitima#y( #ohabitation( and same"se) marriage. 4i orce. From ;@:9 to 8999( the di&or#e rate more than doubled in the 0nited 1tates"$rom about 89 per#ent to about >= per#ent o$ all $irst marriages. (,ote: the di&or#e rate has de#lined modestly sin#e ;@<9.) The data suggests that appro)imately t%o"thirds o$ all di&or#es in&ol&ing #hildren brea' up lo%"#on$li#t marriages %here domesti# &iolen#e or emotional abuse is not a $a#tor in the di&or#e. 0n$ortunately( these #hildren seem to bear the hea&iest burden $rom the di&or#e o$ their parents. Children $rom bro'en homes are signi$i#antly more li'ely to di&or#e as adults( to e)perien#e marital problems( to su$$er $rom mental illness and delin.uen#y( to drop out o$ high s#hool( to ha&e poor relationships %ith one or both parents( and to ha&e di$$i#ulty #ommitting themsel&es to a relationship. Furthermore( in most respe#ts( remarriage is no help to #hildren o$ di&or#e. Children %ho gro% up in step$amilies e)perien#e about the same le&els o$ edu#ational $ailure( teenage pregnan#y( and #riminal a#ti&ity as #hildren %ho remain in a single"parent $amily a$ter a di&or#e. Fi&or#e is also asso#iated %ith po&erty( depression( substan#e abuse( and poor health among adults. More broadly( %idespread di&or#e poisons the larger #ulture o$ marriage( inso$ar as it so%s distrust( inse#urity( and a lo%"#ommitment mentality among married and unmarried adults. Couples %ho ta'e a permissi&e &ie% o$ di&or#e are signi$i#antly less li'ely to in&est themsel&es in their marriages and less li'ely to be happily married themsel&es. For all these reasons( di&or#e threatens marriage( hurts #hildren( and has had dire #onse.uen#es $or the nation as a %hole.

5llegitimacy (non-marital child bearing)

From ;@:9 to 899?( the per#entage o$ #hildren born out o$ %edlo#' rose $rom = to ?= per#ent. +lthough gro%ing numbers o$ #hildren born out o$ %edlo#' are born into #ohabiting unions" >8 per#ent a##ording to one re#ent estimate"most #hildren born outside o$ marriage %ill spend the ma3ority o$ their #hildhood in a single parent home( in part be#ause the &ast ma3ority o$ #ohabiting unions"e&en ones in&ol&ing #hildren"end in dissolution. The biggest problem %ith illegitima#y is that it typi#ally denies #hildren the opportunity to ha&e t%o parents %ho are #ommitted daily to their emotional and material %el$are. +s noted abo&e( #hildren raised in single"parent $amilies %ithout the bene$it o$ a married mother and $ather are t%o to three times more li'ely to e)perien#e serious negati&e li$e out#omes su#h as imprisonment( depression( teenage pregnan#y( and high s#hool $ailure( #ompared to #hildren $rom inta#t( married $amilies"e&en a$ter #ontrolling $or so#ioe#onomi# $a#tors that might distort the relationship bet%een $amily stru#ture and #hild %ell"being. ,onmarital #hildbearing also has negati&e #onse.uen#es $or men and %omen. omen %ho bear #hildren outside o$ marriage are signi$i#antly more li'ely to e)perien#e po&erty( to drop out o$ high s#hool( and to ha&e di$$i#ulty $inding a good marriage partner( e&en %hen #ompared to %omen $rom similar so#ioe#onomi# ba#'grounds. Men %ho $ather #hildren outside o$ marriage are signi$i#antly more li'ely to e)perien#e edu#ational $ailure( to earn less( and to ha&e di$$i#ulty $inding a good marriage partner( e&en a$ter #ontrolling $or so#ioe#onomi# $a#tors. Ta'en together( the rise o$ illegitima#y has been disastrous $or #hildren and adults( men and %omen( indi&iduals and so#iety.

Cohabitation
1in#e the early ;@A9s( #ohabitation has in#reased more than nine"$old in the 0nited 1tates( $rom =8?(999 #ouples in ;@A9 to $i&e million #ouples in 899>. 2e#ent estimates suggest that >9 per#ent o$ #hildren %ill spend some time gro%ing up %ith one or both parents in a #ohabiting union. The gro%th o$ #ohabitation in the 0.1. is an un%el#ome de&elopment. +dults in #ohabiting unions $a#e higher rates o$ domesti# &iolen#e( se)ual in$idelity( and instability( #ompared to #ouples in marital unions. Most studies $ind that #ohabiting #ouples %ho go on to marry also $a#e a higher ris' o$ di&or#e( #ompared to #ouples %ho marry %ithout #ohabiting (although the ris' o$ di&or#e $or #ouples %ho only #ohabit a$ter an engagement does not appear to be higher than $or married #ouples %ho did not #ohabit). Cohabiting unions are typi#ally %ea'er than marriages( and appear more li'ely to lead to poor relationship out#omes. Cohabitation does not entail the same le&el o$ moral and legal #ommitment as marriageB #ouples o$ten do not agree about the status o$ their relationshipB and #ohabiting #ouples do not re#ei&e as mu#h so#ial support $rom $riends and $amily $or their relationship as do married #ouples. Cohabiting unions are parti#ularly ris'y $or #hildren. Children reared by #ohabiting #ouples are more li'ely to engage in delin.uent beha&ior( to be suspended $rom s#hool( and to #heat in s#hool( #ompared to #hildren reared by a married mother and $ather. Children #ohabiting %ith an unrelated adult male $a#e dramati#ally higher ris's o$ se)ual or physi#al abuse( #ompared to #hildren in inta#t( married $amilies. For instan#e( one Missouri study $ound that pres#hool #hildren li&ing in households %ith unrelated adults (typi#ally a mother-s boy$riend) %ere nearly =9 times more li'ely to be 'illed than %ere #hildren li&ing %ith both biologi#al parents.

Children also su$$er $rom the instability asso#iated %ith #ohabiting unions. C&en %hen #hildren are born into #ohabiting households headed by both their biologi#al parents( they are li'ely to see one o$ their parents depart $rom the relationship. /ne re#ent study $ound that =9 per#ent o$ #hildren born to #ohabiting #ouples see their parents brea' up by their $i$th year( #ompared to 3ust ;= per#ent o$ #hildren born to a marital union. For all these reasons( #ohabiting unions are not a good alternati&e to marriage but a threat to marriage( and they surely do not pro&ide a good en&ironment $or the rearing o$ #hildren.

Same%Se! Marriage
+lthough the so#ial s#ienti$i# resear#h on same"se) marriage is in its in$an#y( there are a number o$ reasons to be #on#erned about the #onse.uen#es o$ rede$ining marriage to in#lude same"se) relationships. First( no one #an de$initi&ely say at this point ho% #hildren are a$$e#ted by being reared by same"se) #ouples. The #urrent resear#h on #hildren reared by same"se) #ouples is in#on#lusi&e and underde&eloped"%e do not yet ha&e any large( long" term( longitudinal studies that #an tell us mu#h about ho% #hildren are a$$e#ted by being raised in a same"se) household. Jet the larger empiri#al literature on #hild %ell"being suggests that the t%o se)es bring di$$erent talents to the parenting enterprise( and that #hildren bene$it $rom gro%ing up %ith both their biologi#al parents. This strongly suggests that #hildren reared by same"se) parents %ill e)perien#e greater di$$i#ulties %ith their identity( se)uality( atta#hments to 'in( and marital prospe#ts as adults( among other things. But until more resear#h is a&ailable( the 3ury is still out. Jet there remain e&en deeper #on#erns about the institutional #onse.uen#es o$ same"se) marriage $or marriage itsel$. 1ame"se) marriage %ould $urther under#ut the idea that pro#reation is intrinsi#ally #onne#ted to marriage. !t %ould undermine the idea that #hildren need both a mother and a $ather( $urther %ea'ening the so#ietal norm that men should ta'e responsibility $or the #hildren they beget. Finally( same"se) marriage %ould li'ely #orrode marital norms o$ se)ual $idelity( sin#e gay marriage ad&o#ates and gay #ouples tend to do%nplay the importan#e o$ se)ual $idelity in their de$inition o$ marriage. 1ur&eys o$ men entering same"se) #i&il unions in Iermont indi#ate that =9 per#ent o$ them do not &alue se)ual $idelity( and rates o$ se)ual promis#uity are high among gay men. For instan#e( 6udith 1ta#ey( pro$essor o$ so#iology at ,e% Jor' 0ni&ersity and a leading ad&o#ate o$ gay marriage( hopes that same"se) marriage %ill promote a 4pluralist e)pansion o$ the meaning( pra#ti#e( and politi#s o$ $amily li$e in the 0nited 1tates5 %here 4perhaps some might dare to .uestion the dyadi# limitations o$ estern marriage and see' some o$ the bene$its o$ e)tended $amily li$e through small group marriagesN5 /ur #on#erns are only rein$or#ed by the legali*ation o$ same"se) marriage in Belgium( Canada( the ,etherlands( and 1pain"and its legali*ation in the Common%ealth o$ Massa#husetts. 1ame"se) marriage has ta'en hold in so#ieties or regions %ith lo% rates o$ marriage and/or $ertility. For instan#e( Belgium( Canada( Massa#husetts( the ,etherlands( and 1pain all ha&e $ertility rates %ell belo% the repla#ement le&el o$ 8.; #hildren per %oman. These are so#ieties in %hi#h #hild"#entered marriage has #eased to be the organi*ing prin#iple o$ adult li$e. 1een in this light( same"se) marriage is both a #onse.uen#e o$ and $urther stimulus to the abolition o$ marriage as the pre$erred &ehi#le $or ordering se)( pro#reation( and #hildrearing in the est. hile there are surely many un'no%ns( %hat %e do 'no%

suggests that embra#ing same"se) marriage %ould $urther %ea'en marriage itsel$ at the &ery moment %hen it needs to be most strengthened.

7 The

itherspoon !nstitute 899:

;: 1to#'ton 1t.( Prin#eton( ,6 9<=>9":<;? Tel. (:9@) :<<"<AA@ " $a) (:9@) :<<";98; eb site: %inst.org

The 5ntrinsic 6oods of Marriage

The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

By the

itherspoon !nstitute

About Witherspoon:

The 5ntrinsic 6oods of Marriage

The empiri#al e&iden#e in support o$ marriage is #lear. hen it #omes to the myriad goods o$ modern so#ial li$e"e#onomi# %ell"being( sa$ety and se#urity( personal happiness( $lourishing #ommunity( limited go&ernment"marriage is a boon to adults and espe#ially #hildren. But the rational de$ense o$ marriage need not be based solely in data about its utility( and those %ho #hoose to marry are not usually moti&ated( $irst and $oremost( by any utilitarian #al#ulus. /nly %hen marriage is &alued as good in itsel$( and not simply as a means to other good ends( %ill #hildren( adults( and so#ieties reap its pro$ound bene$its. This re.uires de$enders o$ marriage" tea#hers( poets( religious leaders( parents and grandparents( role models o$ e&ery 'ind"to des#ribe and de$end %hy marriage is a #hoi#e%orthy %ay o$ li$e in terms that resonate %ith

li&ed human e)perien#e. 1ome moral philosophers ha&e engaged in e)tended re$le#tion on the nature o$ marriage as a pro$ound human good( see'ing by pre#ise analysis to better understand %hat most people a##ept as a matter o$ #ommonsense. ,ot all signatories to this statement a##ept this natural la% approa#h or perspe#ti&e( but %e in#lude it here sin#e it represents a &ie% that some thought$ul supporters o$ marriage $ind #ompelling. Marriage o$$ers men and %omen as spouses a good they #an ha&e in no other %ay: a mutual and #omplete gi&ing o$ the sel$. This a#t o$ re#ipro#al sel$"gi&ing is made solemn in a #o&enant o$ $idelity"a &o% to stand by one another as husband and %i$e amid li$e-s 3oys and sorro%s( and to raise the #hildren that may #ome as the $ruit o$ this personal( se)ual( and $amilial union. Marriage binds t%o indi&iduals together $or li$e( and binds them 3ointly to the ne)t generation that %ill $ollo% in their $ootsteps. Marriage ele&ates( orders( and at times #onstrains our natural desires to the higher moral end o$ $idelity and #are. The marriage &o% by its nature in#ludes permanen#e and e)#lusi&ity: a #ouple %ould lose the &ery good o$ the union they see' i$ they sa% their marriage as temporary( or as open to similar sharing %ith others. hat e)a#tly %ould a temporary promise to lo&e meanL ould it not redu#e one-s spouse to a sour#e o$ pleasure $or onesel$( to be desired and 'ept only so long as one-s o%n desires are $ul$illedL By %ea'ening the permanen#e o$ marriage( the #ontemporary #ulture o$ di&or#e undermines the a#t o$ sel$"gi&ing that is the $oundation o$ marriage. The marriage &o%( seen as binding( is meant to se#ure some measure o$ #ertainty in the $a#e o$ li$e-s many un'no%ns"the #ertainty that this un'no%n $uture %ill be $a#ed together until death separates. +t the same time( marriage loo's beyond the married #ouple themsel&es to their potential o$$spring( %ho se#ure the $uture $rom this generation to the ne)t. Marriage is thus by its nature se)ual. !t gi&es a uni.ue uniti&e and pro#reati&e meaning to the se)ual dri&e( distinguishing marriage $rom other #lose bonds. The emotional( spiritual( and psy#hologi#al #loseness o$ a married #ouple is reali*ed in the uni.ue biologi#al unity that o##urs bet%een a man and a %oman united as husband and %i$e in se)ual inter#ourse. !n marital se)ual union( the lo&e o$ husband and %i$e is gi&en #on#rete embodiment. /ur bodies are not mere instruments. /ur se)ual sel&es are not mere genitalia. Male and $emale are made to relate to and #omplete one another( to $ind unity in #omplementarity and #omplementarity in se)ual di$$eren#e. The same se)ual a#t that unites the spouses is also the a#t that #reates ne% li$e. 1haring o$ li&es is( in se)( also a potential sharing o$ li$e. !n pro#reation( marital lo&e $inds its highest reali*ation and e)pression. !n the $amily( #hildren $ind the sa$ety( se#urity( and support they need to rea#h their $ull potential( grounded in a publi#( prior #ommitment o$ mother and $ather to be#ome one $amily together. This deeper understanding o$ marriage is not narro%ly religious. !t is the arti#ulation o$ #ertain uni&ersal truths about human e)perien#e( an a##ount o$ the potential ele&ation o$ human nature in marriage that all human beings #an rationally grasp. Many se#ular"minded #ouples desire these e)traordinary things $rom marriage: a permanent and e)#lusi&e bond o$ lo&e that unites men and %omen to ea#h other and to their #hildren. But marriage #annot sur&i&e or $lourish %hen the ideal o$ marriage is e&is#erated. 2adi#ally di$$erent understandings o$ marriage( %hen gi&en legal status( threaten to #reate a #ulture in %hi#h it is no longer possible $or men and %omen to understand the uni.ue goods that marriage embodies: the $idelity bet%een men and %omen( united as potential mothers and $athers( bound to the #hildren that the marital union might produ#e. Maintaining a #ulture that endorses the good o$ marriage is essential to ensuring that marriage ser&es the #ommon good.

+nd in a $ree so#iety su#h as our o%n( a strong marriage #ulture also $osters liberty by en#ouraging adults to go&ern their o%n li&es and rear their #hildren responsibly.+s honest ad&o#ates o$ same"se) marriage ha&e #on#eded( to abandon the #on3ugal #on#eption o$ marriage " the idea o$ marriage as a union o$ se)ually #omplementary spouses " eliminates any ground o$ prin#iple $or limiting the number o$ partners in a marriage to t%o. !t %ould open the door to legali*ing polygamy and polyamory (group marriage)( and produ#e a #ulture in %hi#h marriage loses its signi$i#an#e and standing( %ith disastrous results $or #hildren begotten and reared in a %orld o$ post"marital #haos. The la% has a #ru#ial pla#e in sustaining this deeper understanding o$ marriage and its myriad human goods. The la% is a tea#her( instru#ting the young either that marriage is a reality in %hi#h people #an #hoose to parti#ipate but %hose #ontours indi&iduals #annot rema'e at %ill( or tea#hing the young that marriage is a mere #on&ention( so malleable that indi&iduals( #ouples( or groups #an #hoose to ma'e o$ it %hate&er suits their desires( interests( or sub3e#ti&e goals o$ the moment.C&en as %e de$end the good o$ marriage as a %ay o$ li$e $or indi&idual men and %omen( there$ore( %e #annot ignore the #ulture and polity that sustain that %ay o$ li$e. /)$ord 0ni&ersity philosopher 6oseph 2a*( a sel$"des#ribed liberal( is rightly #riti#al o$ those $orms o$ liberalism %hi#h suppose that la% and go&ernment #an and should be neutral %ith respe#t to #ompeting #on#eptions o$ moral goodness. +s he put it: Monogamy( assuming that it is the only &aluable $orm o$ marriage( #annot be pra#ti#ed by an indi&idual. !t re.uires a #ulture %hi#h re#ogni*es it( and %hi#h supports it through the publi#-s attitude and through its $ormal institutions.@@ Pro$essor 2a*-s point is that i$ monogamy is indeed a 'ey element in a sound understanding o$ marriage( this ideal needs to be preser&ed and promoted in la% and in poli#y. The marriage #ulture #annot $lourish in a so#iety %hose primary institutions"uni&ersities( #ourts( legislatures( religious institutions"not only $ail to de$end marriage but a#tually undermine it both #on#eptually and in pra#ti#e. The young %ill ne&er learn %hat it means to get married and stay married( to li&e in $idelity to the spouse they #hoose and the #hildren they must #are $or( i$ the so#ial %orld in %hi#h they #ome o$ age treats marriage as $ungible or insigni$i#ant.

7 The

itherspoon !nstitute 899:

;: 1to#'ton 1t.( Prin#eton( ,6 9<=>9":<;? Tel. (:9@) :<<"<AA@ " $a) (:9@) :<<";98; eb site: %inst.org

Erihastha +shram

Source 789: http://namahatta.org/en/node/;=A>