the challenge to marriage and family today

8/13/2019 The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

1/22

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

Home> The Challenge to Marriage and Family Today

ByphaniCreatedAug 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 &italrole 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 seualrelationships and more $undamentally $urnishes the ideal #ontet $or the bearing and rearingo$ the young. The health o$ marriage is parti#ularly important in a $ree so#iety su#h as ouro%n %hi#h depends upon #iti*ens to go&ern their pri&ate li&es and rear their #hildrenresponsibly so as to limit the s#ope si*e and po%er o$ the state. Marriage is also an

important sour#e o$ so#ial human and $inan#ial #apital $or #hildren espe#ially $or #hildrengro%ing up in poor disad&antaged #ommunities %ho do not ha&e ready a##ess to other
http://namahatta.org/http://namahatta.org/http://namahatta.org/http://winst.org/http://namahatta.org/http://winst.org/http://namahatta.org/


2/22

sour#es o$ su#h #apital. Thus $rom the point o$ &ie% o$ spouses #hildren so#iety and thepolity marriage ad&an#es the publi# interest.

But in the last $orty years marriage and $amily ha&e #ome under in#reasing pressure $rom themodern 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 beeasily and e$$e#ti&ely terminated at the %ill o$ either party. Changing seual mores ha&e madeillegitima#y and #ohabitation a #entral $eature o$ our so#ial lands#ape. The produ#ts o$Madison +&enue and Holly%ood o$ten appear indi$$erent to i$ not hostile to%ards the normsthat sustain de#ent $amily li$e. ,e% medi#al te#hnology has made it easier $or single mothersand same"se #ouples to ha&e #hildren not only outside o$ marriage but e&en %ithout seualinter#ourse. Ta'en together marriage is losing its preeminent status as the so#ial institutionthat dire#ts and organi*es reprodu#tion #hildrearing and adult li$e.

The nation-s retreat $rom marriage has been parti#ularly #onseuential $or our so#iety-s most&ulnerable #ommunities. ut"o$"%edlo#' birth di&or#e and single motherhood are mu#h

more #ommon among lo%er"in#ome +$ri#an +meri#ans and to a lesser etent Hispani#+meri#ans in large part be#ause they o$ten do not ha&e as many material so#ial and personalresour#es to resist the deinstitutionali*ation o$ marriage. The latest so#ial s#ienti$i# resear#hon marriage indi#ates that minorities and the poor pay a disproportionately hea&y pri#e %henmarriage de#lines in their #ommunities meaning that the brea'do%n o$ 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 theballot bo in the 0nited 1tates has had limited in$luen#e on the #ulture and in many #asesthose %ho deliberately see' to rede$ine the meaning o$ marriage or do%nplay its spe#ialsigni$i#an#e ha&e argued more e$$e#ti&ely. Too o$ten the rational #ase $or marriage is notmade at all or not made &ery %ell. +ppeals to tradition are rarely de#isi&e in themsel&es in the+meri#an #ontet today espe#ially among those %ho belie&e that indi&iduals should #hoosetheir o%n &alues rather than heed the %isdom and %ays o$ past generations. 2eligiousappeals though important in the li&es o$ many indi&iduals and $amilies ha&e limited rea#h ina so#iety that limits the role o$ 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 eual rights su#happeals not only $ail to persuade but seem to indi#ate bad $aith.

!n this #ontet %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% uponthe $ull range o$ 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#iallysupported normati&e understanding o$ marriage. Marriage is under atta#' #on#eptually inuni&ersity #ommunities and other intelle#tual #enters o$ in$luen#e. To de$end marriage %illreuire #on$ronting these atta#'s assessing their arguments and #orre#ting them %herene#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#ietyne#essarily a#uires an emotional edge. ,o one is untou#hed by the issue in his or her


3/22

personal li$e and %e #an readily agree %ith the #riti#s o$ marriage that uestions o$ seualidentity gender euity and personal happiness are at sta'e. !n arguing $or the normati&estatus o$ 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%ngradeso#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$ ourstudents %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 asun3ust and undesirable and they need to 'no% %hat marriage is in order to sustain their o%nmarriages 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 moderndemo#rati# so#iety still surely needs. ur prin#iples mean to summari*e the &alue o$ marriedli$e and the li$e o$ $amilies that is built upon marriage " a #hoi#e that most people %ant toma'e and that so#iety should endorse and support.

7 The itherspoon !nstitute 899

; 1to#'ton 1t. Prin#eton ,6 9


4/22

Ten Principles of Marriage and Family in Society

1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husbandand wife

Marriage di$$ers $rom other &alued personal relationships in #on&eying a $ull union o$husband and %i$e" in#luding a seual emotional $inan#ial legal spiritual and

parental union. Marriage is not the rati$i#ation o$ an eisting relation it is thebeginning o$ a ne% relationship bet%een a man and %oman %ho pledge their seual$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 $rom their union. Thisunderstanding o$ marriage has predominated in urope 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 $emale sees: omen typi#ally bring to marriageimportant gi$ts and perspe#ti&es that men typi#ally do not bring 3ust as men bringtheir o%n spe#ial gi$ts and perspe#ti&es that %omen typi#ally #annot pro&ide in thesame %ay. This #o&enant o$ mutual dependen#e and obligation solemni*ed by a legaloath is strengthened by the pledge o$ permanen#e that husband and %i$e o$$er to oneanother"al%ays to remain ne&er to $lee e&en and espe#ially in the most di$$i#ulttimes.

2. Marriage is a profound human good, eleating and perfecting our social

and se!ual nature

Human beings are so#ial animals and the so#ial institution o$ marriage is a pro$oundhuman good. !t is a matri o$ human relationships rooted in the spouses- seual#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 $or the state tore#ogni*e and en#ourage marriage in both la% and publi# poli#y. !ndeed it is notsurprising that marriage is publi#ly san#tioned and promoted in &irtually e&ery 'no%nso#iety and o$ten solemni*ed by religious and #ultural rituals. Modern biologi#al andso#ial s#ien#e only #on$irm the bene$its o$ marriage as a human good #onsistent %ith

our gi&en nature as seual 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$e and theopportunity to parti#ipate in the upbringing o$ their #hildren. Married %omen gainstability and prote#tion a#'no%ledgment o$ the paternity o$ their #hildren and sharedresponsibility and emotional support in the raising o$ their young. Together bothspouses 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 asmother 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# en3oiningpermanen#e mutual $idelity and #are as %ell as $orbidding &iolen#e or seual abuse


5/22

arises out o$ the #ore imperati&e o$ our marriage tradition: that men and %omen %homarry pledge to lo&e one another 4in si#'ness and in health5 and 4$or better or $or%orse5 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 $rom boththeir parents and their siblings. 1pe#i$i#ally the married $amily satis$ies #hildren-sneed to 'no% their biologi#al origins #onne#ts them to both a mother and $atherestablishes 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 thelarger %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 anatural human right to 'no% their mother and $ather and mothers and $athers ha&e asolemn obligation to lo&e their #hildren un#onditionally.

&. Marriage sustains ciil society and promotes the common good

Ci&il so#iety also bene$its $rom a stable marital order. Families are themsel&es smallso#ieties and the %eb o$ trust they establish a#ross generations and bet%een thespouses- original $amilies are a 'ey #onstituent o$ so#iety as a %hole. The net%or' o$relati&es and in"la%s that marriage #reates and sustains is a 'ey ingredient o$ the4so#ial #apital5 that $a#ilitates many 'inds o$ bene$i#ial #i&i# asso#iations and pri&ategroups. 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 maritalbrea'do%n or the $ailure to $orm marriages be#omes %idespread so#iety is harmed bya host o$ so#ial pathologies in#luding in#reased po&erty mental illness #rime illegaldrug 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 $amilies to produ#e thenet generation o$ produ#ti&e %or'ers and tapayers. 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. !tis %ithin $amilies that young people de&elop stable patterns o$ %or' and sel$"relian#eat the dire#tion o$ their parents and this training in turn pro&ides the basis $orde&eloping use$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#yo$ indi&iduals and groups to ma'e rash or imprudent de#isions that suander theinheritan#e o$ $uture generations. Families also pro&ide net%or's o$ trust and #apitalthat 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-se#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 taes and produ#ing the#hildren %ho %ill $orm $uture generations o$ ta"paying %or'ers. ithout $lourishing


6/22

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

(. )hen marriage wea*ens, the e+uality gap widens, as children suffer

from the disadantages 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&ertydependen#y substan#e abuse edu#ational $ailure 3u&enile delinuen#y early un%ed

pregnan#y and a host o$ other destru#ti&e beha&iors. hen %hole $amilies andneighborhoods be#ome dominated by $atherless homes these ris's in#rease e&en$urther. The brea'do%n o$ marriage has hit the +$ri#an"+meri#an #ommunityespe#ially hard and thus threatens the #herished +meri#an ideal o$ euality o$opportunity by depri&ing adults and espe#ially #hildren o$ the so#ial #apital they needto $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 marriagein poor neighborhoods " espe#ially among those ra#ial minorities %ithdisproportionately high rates o$ $amily brea'do%n " as a serious problem to be sol&ed%ith persisten#e generosity and ingenuity.

. - functioning marriage culture seres to protect political liberty and

foster limited goernment

1trong inta#t $amilies stabili*e the state and de#rease the need $or #ostly and intrusi&ebureau#rati# so#ial agen#ies. Families pro&ide $or their &ulnerable members produ#ene% #iti*ens %ith &irtues su#h as loyalty and generosity and engender #on#ern $or the

#ommon good. hen $amilies brea' do%n #rime and so#ial disorder soar the statemust epand to reassert so#ial #ontrol %ith intrusi&e poli#ing a spra%ling prisonsystem #oer#i&e #hild"support en$or#ement and #ourt"dire#ted $amily li$e. ithoutstable $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&enantalde&otion.

. The laws that goern marriage matter significantly

Da% and #ulture ehibit a dynami# relationship: #hanges in one ultimately yield#hanges in the other and together la% and #ulture stru#ture the #hoi#es thatindi&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%oindi&iduals regardless o$ se others as a binding union o$ any number o$ indi&idualsand still others as any 'ind o$ #ontra#tual arrangement $or any length o$ time that isagreeable to any number o$ #onsenting adult parties. But in doing so a state %ouldne#essarily undermine the so#ial norm %hi#h en#ourages marriage as histori#allyunderstood " i.e. the seually $aith$ul union intended $or li$e bet%een one man andone %oman open to the begetting and rearing o$ #hildren. The publi# goods uniuely

pro&ided by marriage are re#ogni*able by reasonable persons regardless o$ religious


7/22

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

1/.0Ciil marriage and 0religious marriage cannot be rigidly or

completely diorced from one another

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




8/22

By the itherspoon !nstitute

About Witherspoon:

idence from the Social and 3iological Sciences

!n the last $orty years so#iety has #ondu#ted a &ast $amily eperiment and the out#omes arein#reasingly #oming to light &ia s#ienti$i# in&estigations. hile no single study is de$initi&eand there is room at the edges $or debate about parti#ular #onseuen#es o$ marriage the #lear

preponderan#e o$ the e&iden#e sho%s that inta#t married $amilies are superior"$or adults andespe#ially $or #hildren"to alternati&e $amily arrangements. + great deal o$ resear#h no% eists$rom the anthropologi#al so#iologi#al psy#hologi#al and e#onomi# s#ien#es demonstratingthe empiri#al bene$its o$ marriage.

!n &irtually e&ery 'no%n human so#iety the institution o$ marriage has ser&ed and #ontinuesto ser&e three important publi# purposes. First marriage is the institution through %hi#hso#ieties see' to organi*e the bearing and rearing o$ #hildren it is parti#ularly important inensuring that #hildren ha&e the lo&e and support o$ their $ather. 1e#ond marriage pro&idesdire#tion order and stability to adult seual unions and to their e#onomi# so#ial and

biologi#al #onseuen#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 noteasily repli#ated by the &arious alternati&es to marriage. hen marriage is strong #hildrenand adults both tend to $lourish %hen marriage brea's do%n e&ery element o$ 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. uring the lastt%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 byChild Trends a nonpartisan resear#h organi*ation summari*ed the ne% s#holarly #onsensuson marriage this %ay: 4G2esear#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 onmarriage and the %ell"being o$ #hildren #ondu#ted by the Broo'ings !nstitution theoodro% ilson 1#hool o$ Publi# and !nternational +$$airs at Prin#eton 0ni&ersity theCenter $or Da% and 1o#ial Poli#y and the !nstitute $or +meri#an Ialues ha&e all #ome tosimilar #on#lusions.

Marriage matters $or #hildren in myriad %ays. e $o#us here on the edu#ationalpsy#hologi#al seual and beha&ioral #onseuen#es $or #hildren o$ $amily stru#turebeginning %ith edu#ation. Children reared in inta#t married homes are signi$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 tore#ogni*e letters) as pres#hool #hildren and to s#ore higher in reading #omprehension as
http://winst.org/http://winst.org/


9/22

$ourth graders. 1#hool"aged #hildren are approimately ?9 per#ent less li'ely to #ut #lass betardy or miss s#hool altogether. The #umulati&e e$$e#t o$ $amily stru#ture on #hildren-sedu#ational per$orman#e is most e&ident in high s#hool graduation rates. Children reared ininta#t married households are about t%i#e as li'ely to graduate $rom high s#hool #omparedto #hildren reared in single"parent or step"$amilies. ne study $ound that ?A per#ent o$

#hildren born outside o$ marriage and ?; per#ent o$ #hildren %ith di&or#ed parents droppedout o$ high s#hool #ompared to ;? per#ent o$ #hildren $rom inta#t $amilies headed by amarried mother and $ather.

Marriage also plays a #entral role in $ostering the emotional health o$ #hildren. Children $romstable married $amilies are signi$i#antly less li'ely to su$$er $rom depression aniety al#oholand drug abuse and thoughts o$ sui#ide #ompared to #hildren $rom di&or#ed homes. nere#ent study o$ the entire population o$ 1%edish #hildren $ound that 1%edish boys and girls int%o"parent homes %ere about =9 per#ent less li'ely to su$$er $rom sui#ide attempts al#oholand drug abuse and serious psy#hiatri# illnesses #ompared to #hildren reared in single"parenthomes. + sur&ey o$ the +meri#an literature on #hild %ell"being $ound that $amily stru#ture

%as more #onseuential than po&erty in predi#ting #hildren-s psy#hologi#al and beha&ioralout#omes. !n general #hildren %ho are reared by their o%n married mothers and $athers aremu#h more li'ely to #on$ront the %orld %ith a sense o$ hope sel$"#on$iden#e and sel$"#ontrolthan #hildren raised %ithout an inta#t married $amily.

Marriage is also important in #onne#ting #hildren to their biologi#al $athers and groundingtheir $amilial identities. 2esear#h by Jale psy#hiatrist Kyle Pruett suggests that #hildren#on#ei&ed by arti$i#ial reprodu#ti&e te#hnologies (+2T) and reared %ithout $athers ha&e anunmet 4hunger $or an abiding paternal presen#e5 his resear#h parallels $indings $rom theliterature 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 $athers or their paternal 'inand they disli'e li&ing in a 'ind o$ biologi#al and paternal limbo. By #ontrast #hildren %hoare reared by their married biologi#al parents are more li'ely to ha&e a se#ure sense o$ theiro%n biologi#al origins and $amilial identity.

Family stru#ture parti#ularly the presen#e o$ a biologi#al $ather also plays a 'ey role inin$luen#ing the seual de&elopment a#ti&ity and %el$are o$ young girls. Teenage girls %hogro% up %ith a single mother or a step$ather are signi$i#antly more li'ely to eperien#e earlymenstruation and seual de&elopment #ompared to girls reared in homes headed by a marriedmother and $ather. Partly as a #onseuen#e girls reared in single"parent or step"$amilies are

mu#h more li'ely to eperien#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 %henthey %ere pres#hoolers. 2esear#h also suggests that girls are signi$i#antly more li'ely to beseually abused i$ they are li&ing outside o$ an inta#t married home"in large part be#ausegirls ha&e more #onta#t %ith unrelated males i$ their mothers are unmarried #ohabiting orresiding in a step$amily.

Boys also bene$it in uniue %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 $amily situations. Boys raisedoutside o$ an inta#t $amily are more li'ely to ha&e problems %ith aggression attention de$i#it


10/22

disorder delinuen#y and s#hool suspensions #ompared to boys raised in inta#t married$amilies. 1ome studies suggest that the negati&e beha&ioral #onseuen#es o$ marital

brea'do%n are e&en more signi$i#ant $or boys than $or girls. ne study $ound that boys rearedin single"parent and step"$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&engeneti# $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 andtheir #hildren to separate out the uniue e$$e#ts o$ di&or#e itsel$ $rom the potential role thatgeneti# (and so#ioe#onomi#) $a#tors might play in in$luen#ing #hildren-s out#omes. Thisresear#h indi#ates that di&or#e has negati&e #onseuen#es $or #hildren-s psy#hologi#al andso#ial %el$are e&en a$ter #ontrolling $or the geneti# &ulnerabilities o$ the parents %hodi&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#tmarriage 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 $rom t%o parents and thee#onomi# resour#es o$ t%o sets o$ 'in. + married mom and dad typi#ally in&est more timea$$e#tion and o&ersight into parenting than does a single parent as importantly they tend tomonitor 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 ornegle#ted by an ehausted or angry parent. The trust and #ommitment asso#iated %ithmarriage 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 orsingle 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 $ather-s role is more dis#retionary in our so#iety(and e&ery 'no%n human so#iety) than the mother-s role it depends more on the normati&eepe#tations o$ and so#ial supports pro&ided to $athers by marriage. Marriage positions mento re#ei&e the regular en#ouragement dire#tion and ad&i#e o$ the mother o$ his #hildren anden#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 theirin&ol&ement is not #onsistently related to positi&e out#omes $or #hildren. By #ontrast married$athers #an eer#ise an abiding important and positi&e in$luen#e on their #hildren and areespe#ially li'ely to do so in a happy marriage.

Biology also matters. 1tudies suggest that men and %omen bring di$$erent strengths to theparenting enterprise and that the biologi#al relatedness o$ parents to their #hildren hasimportant #onseuen#es $or the young espe#ially girls. +lthough there is a good deal o$o&erlap in the talents that mothers and $athers bring to parenting the e&iden#e also suggeststhat there are #ru#ial se di$$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 #onseuen#e theyare better at pro&iding physi#al and emotional nurture to their #hildren. These spe#ial


11/22

#apa#ities o$ mothers seem to ha&e deep biologi#al underpinnings: during pregnan#y andbreast$eeding %omen eperien#e high le&els o$ the hormone peptide oyto#in %hi#h $ostersa$$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$$i#ulties. The greater physi#alsi*e and strength o$ most $athers along %ith the pit#h and in$le#tion o$ their &oi#e and thedire#ti&e #hara#ter o$ their spea'ing gi&e them an ad&antage %hen it #omes to dis#ipline anad&antage that is parti#ularly e&ident %ith boys %ho are more li'ely to #omply %ith their$athers- than their mothers- dis#ipline. Di'e%ise $athers are more li'ely than mothers toen#ourage their #hildren to ta#'le di$$i#ult tas's endure hardship %ithout yielding and see'out no&el eperien#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 andasserti&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. 1tudiessuggest that biologi#al parents in&est more money and time in their o$$spring than dostepparents. ,e% resear#h by 0ni&ersity o$ +ri*ona psy#hologist Bru#e llis also suggeststhat the physi#al presen#e o$ a biologi#al $ather is important $or the seual de&elopment o$girls. 1pe#i$i#ally he thin's that one reason that girls %ho li&e apart $rom their biologi#al$ather de&elop seually at an earlier age than girls %ho li&e %ith their biologi#al $ather is thatthey are more li'ely to be eposed to the pheromones"biologi#al #hemi#als that #on&ey seualin$ormation bet%een persons"o$ unrelated males. He also $inds that girls %ho are eposed tothe presen#e o$ 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 inthis 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&elysum up the reasons that marriage matters $or #hildren in this %ay: 4!$ %e %ere as'ed to designa system $or ma'ing sure that #hildren-s basi# needs %ere met %e %ould probably #ome up%ith something uite similar to the t%o"parent ideal. 1u#h a design in theory %ould not onlyensure that #hildren had a##ess to the time and money o$ t%o adults it also %ould pro&ide asystem o$ #he#'s and balan#es that promoted uality parenting. The $a#t that both parentsha&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 theli'elihood that either parent %ould abuse the #hild.5 &er the past $e% de#ades %e ha&eeperimented %ith &arious alternati&es to marriage and the e&iden#e is no% #lear: #hildrenraised 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"ase&ery #iti*en should" should #are about the health o$ modern marriage.



12/22



13/22

asso#iated %ith marriage pro&ides #ouples %ith a long"term outloo' that allo%s them to in&esttogether in housing and other long"term assets. The norms o$ adult maturity asso#iated %ithmarriage 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#eabuse than #ohabiting and single adults. 1pouses are more li'ely to en#ourage their partners tomonitor their health and see' medi#al help i$ they are eperien#ing an illness. The norms o$adult maturity and $idelity asso#iated %ith marriage en#ourage men and %omen to a&oidunhealthy or ris'y beha&iors"$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 %omento see' better medi#al #are. The emotional support $urnished by most marriages redu#esstress and the stress hormones that o$ten #ause ill health and mental illness. Men are

parti#ularly apt to eperien#e marriage"related gains in their li$e epe#tan#y and o&erallhealth. omen also gain but their marriage"related health bene$its depend more on theuality o$ their marriages: %omen in lo%"uality marriages are more li'ely to eperien#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 seually 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 menhad been un$aith$ul in the past year"#ompared to ; per#ent o$ #ohabiting men and ?A per#ento$ men in an ongoing seual relationship %ith a %oman. Dongitudinal resear#h by 0ni&ersityo$ 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 #onseuen#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 $amily members. For many men marriage is arite o$ 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 intentionsand their maturity by marrying. Most men see' to maintain their so#ial status by abiding byso#iety-s norms 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 singlemen. (Cohabiting men also ha&e lo%er le&els o$ testosterone than single men.) Dong"termstable pro#reati&e relationships moderate men-s testosterone le&els. 6udging by the literatureon testosterone this %ould"in turn"ma'e men less in#lined to aggressi&e promis#uous andother%ise ris'y beha&ior.


14/22

$ #ourse marriage also matters in uniue %ays $or %omen. hen it #omes to physi#alsa$ety married %omen are mu#h less li'ely to be &i#tims o$ &iolent #rimes. For instan#e a;@@ 6usti#e epartment report $ound that single and di&or#ed %omen %ere more than $ourtimes more li'ely to be the &i#tims o$ 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

seually intimate dating relationship. ne study $ound that ;? per#ent o$ #ohabiting #oupleshad 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&itesserious #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 $or li$eand %ho belie&e that it is best $or #hildren to be reared by a $ather and a mother as husbandand %i$e"are signi$i#antly more li'ely to eperien#e high"uality marriages #ompared tomarried persons %ho are less #ommitted to the institution o$ marriage. Men and %omen %ith a

normati&e #ommitment to the ideal o$ marriage are also more li'ely to spend time %ith oneanother and to sa#ri$i#e $or their relationship. ther resear#h indi#ates that su#h a#ommitment is parti#ularly #onseuential $or men: that is men-s de&otion to their %i$edepends more on their normati&e #ommitment to the marriage ideal than does %omen-sde&otion to their husbands. 1imply put men and %omen %ho marry $or li$e are more li'ely toeperien#e a happy marriage than men and %omen %ho marry 4so long as they both shalllo&e.5

hat is #lear is that marriage impro&es the li&es o$ those men and %omen %ho a##ept itsobligations 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"rearing and perhaps some modern %omen do not

belie&e they need the se#urity that a good marriage uniuely o$$ers or $ear that $amily li$e %illinter$ere %ith their #areers. But the data suggest that su#h desires #an sometimes lead men and%omen astray and that those %ho embra#e marriage li&e happier li&es than those %ho see' a$alse $reedom in ba#helorhood #ohabitation or di&or#e.




15/22


About Witherspoon:

The Public Conse+uences of Marital 3rea*down

The publi# #onseuen#es o$ the re#ent retreat $rom marriage are substantial. +s the e&iden#esho%s marital brea'do%n redu#es the #olle#ti&e %el$are o$ our #hildren strains our 3usti#esystem %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. &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 #onseuen#es o$ this $amily brea'do%n ha&e been #atastrophi# as demonstrated bymyriad indi#ators o$ so#ial %ell"being. Ta'e #hild po&erty. ne re#ent Broo'ings sur&eyindi#ates that the in#rease in #hild po&erty in the 0.1. sin#e the ;@A9s is due almost entirely tode#lines in the per#entage o$ #hildren reared in married $amilies primarily be#ause #hildren insingle"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 $e%er a#ts o$ delinuen#y or &iolen#e A=


16/22

marriage rate among young %or'ing"#lass and poor men. Har&ard so#iologist 2obert1ampson #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.5The #lose empiri#al #onne#tion bet%een $amily brea'do%n and #rime suggests that in#reased

spending on #rime"$ighting imprisonment and #riminal 3usti#e in the 0nited 1tates o&er thelast 9 years is largely the dire#t or indire#t #onseuen#e o$ marital brea'do%n.

Publi# spending on so#ial ser&i#es has also risen dramati#ally sin#e the ;@9s in large partbe#ause o$ in#reases in di&or#e and illegitima#y. stimates &ary regarding the #osts to thetapayer o$ $amily brea'do%n but they #learly run into the many billions o$ dollars. neBroo'ings study $ound that the retreat $rom marriage %as asso#iated %ith an in#rease o$ 88@

billion in %el$are ependitures $rom ;@A9 to ;@@. +nother study $ound that lo#al state and$ederal go&ernments spend ?? 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 indi&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&eryyear. 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 ismade e&en more &isible by loo'ing at trends outside the 0nited 1tates. Countries %ith highrates o$ illegitima#y and di&or#e"su#h as 1%eden and enmar'"spend mu#h more money on%el$are ependitures as a per#entage o$ their EP 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 ependitures and $amily stru#ture and other $a#tors"su#h asreligion and politi#al #ulture"may #on$ound this relationship the #orrelation bet%een the t%ois 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 byso#iologists a&id Popenoe and +lan ol$e suggests that in#reases in state spending areasso#iated %ith de#lines in the strength o$ marriage and $amily. Ta'en together the retreat$rom marriage seems to go hand in hand %ith more epensi&e and more intrusi&e go&ernment$amily brea'do%n goes hand in hand %ith gro%ing hardship in disad&antaged #ommunitiesma'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.




17/22


About Witherspoon:

Four Threats to Marriage

0ntil $orty years ago marriage go&erned se pro#reation and #hildrearing $or the &astma3ority o$ adults. !n re#ent years marriage-s hold on these three domains o$ so#ial li$e has%ea'ened %ith serious negati&e #onseuen#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.

4iorce. From ;@9 to 8999 the di&or#e rate more than doubled in the 0nited 1tates"$romabout 89 per#ent to about = per#ent o$ all $irst marriages. (,ote: the di&or#e rate has de#linedmodestly sin#e ;@


18/22

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$#ohabiting unions"e&en ones in&ol&ing #hildren"end in dissolution. The biggest problem %ithillegitima#y is that it typi#ally denies #hildren the opportunity to ha&e t%o parents %ho are#ommitted daily to their emotional and material %el$are. +s noted abo&e #hildren raised insingle"parent $amilies %ithout the bene$it o$ a married mother and $ather are t%o to threetimes more li'ely to eperien#e serious negati&e li$e out#omes su#h as imprisonmentdepression teenage pregnan#y and high s#hool $ailure #ompared to #hildren $rom inta#tmarried $amilies"e&en a$ter #ontrolling $or so#ioe#onomi# $a#tors that might distort therelationship bet%een $amily stru#ture and #hild %ell"being.

,onmarital #hildbearing also has negati&e #onseuen#es $or men and %omen. omen %ho

bear #hildren outside o$ marriage are signi$i#antly more li'ely to eperien#e po&erty to dropout o$ high s#hool and to ha&e di$$i#ulty $inding a good marriage partner e&en %hen#ompared to %omen $rom similar so#ioe#onomi# ba#'grounds. Men %ho $ather #hildrenoutside o$ marriage are signi$i#antly more li'ely to eperien#e edu#ational $ailure to earnless and to ha&e di$$i#ulty $inding a good marriage partner e&en a$ter #ontrolling $orso#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 $i&e million #ouples in 899. 2e#ent estimates suggest that9 per#ent o$ #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 seual in$idelity andinstability #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 anengagement 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 poorrelationship out#omes. Cohabitation does not entail the same le&el o$ moral and legal#ommitment as marriage #ouples o$ten do not agree about the status o$ their relationship and#ohabiting #ouples do not re#ei&e as mu#h so#ial support $rom $riends and $amily $or theirrelationship as do married #ouples.

Cohabiting unions are parti#ularly ris'y $or #hildren. Children reared by #ohabiting #ouplesare more li'ely to engage in delinuent beha&ior to be suspended $rom s#hool and to #heat ins#hool #ompared to #hildren reared by a married mother and $ather. Children #ohabiting %ithan unrelated adult male $a#e dramati#ally higher ris's o$ seual or physi#al abuse #omparedto #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) %erenearly =9 times more li'ely to be 'illed than %ere #hildren li&ing %ith both biologi#al parents.


19/22

Children also su$$er $rom the instability asso#iated %ith #ohabiting unions. &en %hen#hildren are born into #ohabiting households headed by both their biologi#al parents they areli'ely to see one o$ 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 theysurely 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 anumber o$ reasons to be #on#erned about the #onseuen#es o$ rede$ining marriage to in#ludesame"se relationships. First no one #an de$initi&ely say at this point ho% #hildren area$$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$$e#ted by beingraised in a same"se household. Jet the larger empiri#al literature on #hild %ell"beingsuggests that the t%o sees bring di$$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 eperien#e greater di$$i#ulties %ith their identityseuality atta#hments to 'in and marital prospe#ts as adults among other things. But untilmore resear#h is a&ailable the 3ury is still out.

Jet there remain e&en deeper #on#erns about the institutional #onseuen#es o$ same"se

marriage $or marriage itsel$. 1ame"se marriage %ould $urther under#ut the idea thatpro#reation is intrinsi#ally #onne#ted to marriage. !t %ould undermine the idea that #hildrenneed both a mother and a $ather $urther %ea'ening the so#ietal norm that men should ta'eresponsibility $or the #hildren they beget. Finally same"se marriage %ould li'ely #orrodemarital norms o$ seual $idelity sin#e gay marriage ad&o#ates and gay #ouples tend todo%nplay the importan#e o$ seual $idelity in their de$inition o$ marriage. 1ur&eys o$ menentering same"se #i&il unions in Iermont indi#ate that =9 per#ent o$ them do not &alueseual $idelity and rates o$ seual promis#uity are high among gay men. For instan#e 6udith1ta#ey pro$essor o$ so#iology at ,e% Jor' 0ni&ersity and a leading ad&o#ate o$ gaymarriage hopes that same"se marriage %ill promote a 4pluralist epansion 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$its o$ etended$amily li$e through small group marriagesN5

ur #on#erns are only rein$or#ed by the legali*ation o$ same"se marriage in BelgiumCanada 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 and1pain 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#ipleo$ adult li$e. 1een in this light same"se marriage is both a #onseuen#e o$ and $urtherstimulus to the abolition o$ 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%


20/22

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




21/22

li&ed human eperien#e. 1ome moral philosophers ha&e engaged in etended re$le#tion on thenature o$ marriage as a pro$ound human good see'ing by pre#ise analysis to betterunderstand %hat most people a##ept as a matter o$ #ommonsense. ,ot all signatories to thisstatement a##ept this natural la% approa#h or perspe#ti&e but %e in#lude it here sin#e itrepresents 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 mutualand #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 andsorro%s and to raise the #hildren that may #ome as the $ruit o$ this personal seual and$amilial union. Marriage binds t%o indi&iduals together $or li$e and binds them 3ointly to thenet 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 ea#tly %ould a temporary promise to lo&e meanL ould it notredu#e one-s spouse to a sour#e o$ pleasure $or onesel$ to be desired and 'ept only so long asone-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. Themarriage &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 deathseparates. +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 net.

Marriage is thus by its nature seual. !t gi&es a uniue uniti&e and pro#reati&e meaning to theseual 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 uniue biologi#al unity thato##urs bet%een a man and a %oman united as husband and %i$e in seual inter#ourse. !nmarital seual union the lo&e o$ husband and %i$e is gi&en #on#rete embodiment. ur bodiesare not mere instruments. ur seual sel&es are not mere genitalia. Male and $emale are madeto relate to and #omplete one another to $ind unity in #omplementarity and #omplementarityin seual di$$eren#e. The same seual a#t that unites the spouses is also the a#t that #reatesne% 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 epression. !n the $amily #hildren $ind the sa$ety se#urityand 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$#ertain uni&ersal truths about human eperien#e an a##ount o$ the potential ele&ation o$human nature in marriage that all human beings #an rationally grasp. Many se#ular"minded#ouples desire these etraordinary 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#allydi$$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 uniue goods thatmarriage embodies: the $idelity bet%een men and %omen united as potential mothers and

$athers bound to the #hildren that the marital union might produ#e. Maintaining a #ulture thatendorses the good o$ marriage is essential to ensuring that marriage ser&es the #ommon good.


22/22

+nd in a $ree so#iety su#h as our o%n a strong marriage #ulture also $osters liberty byen#ouraging adults to go&ern their o%n li&es and rear their #hildren responsibly.+s honestad&o#ates o$ same"se marriage ha&e #on#eded to abandon the #on3ugal #on#eption o$marriage " the idea o$ marriage as a union o$ seually #omplementary spouses " eliminatesany 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 #ulturein %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 myriadhuman 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 %illor 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 orsub3e#ti&e goals o$ the moment.&en as %e de$end the good o$ marriage as a %ay o$ li$e $orindi&idual men and %omen there$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 anindi&idual. !t reuires a #ulture %hi#h re#ogni*es it and %hi#h supports it through the publi#-sattitude and through its $ormal institutions.@@

Pro$essor 2a*-s point is that i$ monogamy is indeed a 'ey element in a sound understandingo$ 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 #ourtslegislatures 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 marriedand 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.



the challenge to marriage and family today

Documents