Newsweek Covers Marriage

A book could be written on the topics touched upon in three pieces in Newsweek, and several have been. The articles themselves use some links, and I will be using some links myself in an effort to keep this post from being any longer than it needs to be.

The three articles are:

'I Don't': The case against marriage - by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison

I Do. Here’s Why: Marriage isn’t the problem—nor is it the solution. But it is a legitimate—and joyous—decision for many women. Including me - by Kate Dailey

I Do, Too: A modern man’s perspective on why marriage isn’t dead - by Andrew Romano

It would have been nice to have a piece from someone who would actually argue for the ideal of lasting, happy, traditional marriage and reserving sex and childrearing for marriage.

[Read my extensive analysis after the jump.]

Let's look at 'I Don't': The case against marriage - by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison, who blog frequently on women's issues at The Equality Myth.

Once upon a time, marriage made sense. It was how women ensured their financial security, got the fathers of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights.

Most women still marry men who earn more than they do, and some women stop earning income while married. As such, marriage still provides some level of financial security for women.

But 40 years after the feminist movement established our rights in the workplace, a generation after the divorce rate peaked, and a decade after Sex and the City made singledom chic, marriage is—from a legal and practical standpoint, anyway—no longer necessary.

Necessary for whom? While I agree that women are more able to have full lives today without ever being married, marriage still benefits men, women, and especially children, and as such, benefits society.

The two of us are educated, young, urban professionals, committed to our careers, friendships, and, yes, our relationships.

What exactly is the objective commitment in the relationship?

But we know that legally tying down those unions won’t make or break them.

No, they won't. But that doesn't mean marriage isn't necessary.

[Women are] the breadwinners (or co-breadwinners) in two thirds of American families.

That's a very squishy statement. First of all, this means that in one out of every three families (however you are defining that), the woman earns no income (for some of those, there isn't a woman). However, "co-breadwinner" means what, exactly? Does working a job four hours a week count? Like I said, the significant majority of women marry men who earn more than they do. Also if a woman has primary custody of children, then isn't she automatically the breadwinner – but how much money are these women getting in child support and tax-funded benefits?

In 2010, we know most spousal rights can be easily established outside of the law, and that Americans are cohabiting, happily, in record numbers. We have our own health care and 401(k)s and no longer need a marriage license to visit our partners in the hospital.

Yes, I have covered all of this. After decades of working to devalue marriage, the Left now – ta-da – says there is little value in marriage. Imagine that.

Current data may not yet identify our feelings as a so-called trend, but they certainly show we’re on to something: the percentage of married Americans has dropped each decade since the 1950s, and the number of unmarried-but-cohabiting partners has risen 1,000 percent over the last 40 years. At 28 for men and 26 for women, the median age at which Americans are marrying is at its highest point ever—and even higher among our cohort of urban and educated.

See here.

Which brings us to this question: if you’re going to wait, why do it at all?

For one, to give children the best environment in which to be raised. Also, because it is good for both spouses, provided both spouses are prepared to be spouses. I know I also like having sex in a constructive context rather than a destructive context.

We know that having children out of wedlock lost its stigma a long time ago: in 2008, 41 percent of births were to unmarried mothers, more than ever before, according to a Pew study.

It may have lost its stigma, but it hasn't lost its sting in that is bad for children and bad for society.

And the idea that we’d “save ourselves” for marriage? Please. As one 28-year-old man told the author of a new book on marriage: “If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know.”

There's no doubt in my mind that the easy access to free casual and nonmarital sex has had a profound impact. Not everyone is unchaste, though. There are attractive, educated, well-adjusted people who marry in the later 20s and later as virgins.

Even the legal argument for tying the knot is easily debunked.

And yet despite all of these claims, there are people insisting that getting a marriage license is a necessary right for brideless or groomless couples. So which is it?

Thanks largely to the efforts of same-sex-marriage advocates, heterosexual couples have more unmarried rights to partnership now than ever.

Are you sure you want to blame homosexuality advocates for that?

And for the rights we don’t have—well, “if you have enough money,” says Jennifer Pizer, a senior attorney at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, “you can pay lawyers to litigate just about anything.”

You mean, like when they argue that two men make a marriage, Ms. Pizer?

Boomers may have been the first children of divorce, but ours is a generation for whom multiple households were the norm. We grew up shepherded between bedrooms, minivans, and dinner tables, with stepparents, half-siblings, and highly complicated holiday schedules.

And do you think this shouldn't be discouraged?

Men’s contributions to housework and child rearing may have doubled since the 1960s, yet even among dual-earning couples, women still do about two thirds of the housework. (One study even claims that the simple act of getting married creates seven hours more housework for women each week.)

Ah yes. I think this blog does a good job on that one.

In the workplace, meanwhile, women who use their partner’s name are regarded as less intelligent, less competent, less ambitious, and thus less likely to be hired.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to names like Jane Jones-Smith-Farmer-Baker. Say, isn't that prejudice based on sexual orientation?

Research shows that the more education and financial independence a woman has—in other words, the more success she has outside the home—the more likely she is to stay married.

Well, sure. If she earns more, she will be the one paying alimony. There's much less incentive for her to file for divorce. Women are the ones more likely to file for divorce. Take away some of the reward for doing so, and they do it less. No shock there.

And for all the talk of marriage being good for families, a study of the Scandinavian countries—where a majority of children are born out of wedlock—found that kids actually spend more time with their parents than American children do.

If we were a country that mandated shorter work hours and more vacation time and paid for it by letting some other country do the heavy lifting in defending the free world, then we could do the same. And wouldn't that be nice? Right up until we were all put in chains by fascists.

The piece feels like it was written by people who want to justify their promiscuity and fears of having responsibility. If someone wants to sleep around more than they want to a good parent, then I’m all for them not marrying (and not raising kids). But I don't want to be forced to pay for their fertility/IVF treatments when they change their mind (which they admit might happen).

Now, on to...

I Do. Here’s Why: Marriage isn’t the problem—nor is it the solution. But it is a legitimate - and joyous—decision for many women. Including me - by Kate Dailey

After only eight months together, my boyfriend and I made plans to find a place of our own.

Shacking up, statistically, is bad for marriage.

Why get married? Why not just see how it goes, or enter into some kind of legal partnership? Because I believe that my relationship with Brett is important, and I want to publicly recognize that. Because I want to go through life as part of a partnership, and I want to kick off that partnership in a meaningful way. Being a couple is hard, even when you’re in love, and having the institutional support, as well as the support of my friends and family who recognize what it means to be married, matters to me. There’s a reason that weddings transcend most cultures, and that so many people are now fighting with whole hearts to earn the right to marry: those reasons go far beyond property rights and health-insurance issues.

At least she has an explanation. A lot of people these days have no idea why they get married, aside from the wedding stuff. It is just something they think they are supposed to do and they feel pressure to.

Marriage is how you define it - it doesn’t define you.

That may work in your home, but it doesn't work in law.

While she argues for neutering marriage, she seems to contradict herself:

I’m not gaining any sort of social status or political legitimacy, but I’m not sacrificing any part of myself either: it wasn’t until I was settled in my career that I even felt ready to get married.

And, finally, theres...

I Do, Too: A modern man’s perspective on why marriage isn’t dead - by Andrew Romano

In the year 2010, anyone who denies that marriage has become impractical probably hasn’t paid much attention to the numbers. But while Bennett and Ellison get the details right, I think they miss the big picture. Or at least my big picture. For them, the irrationality of marriage is the reason why modern men and women shouldn’t get hitched. For me, it’s the reason they should.

Yes, he argues that marriage is more romantic because it makes less sense. Okay.

The truth is, neither of us had thought all that much about the question that both the priest and Bennett and Ellison were posing: why marriage?

That bodes well, now doesn’t it?

He gets something very right:

But the problem is that my colleagues aren’t really criticizing marriage here. They’re criticizing bad relationships. People don’t cheat because they’re married; they cheat because they’re unsatisfied, or selfish, or impulsive. Women don’t cook and clean because they’re married; they cook and clean because their partner doesn’t (or because they actually like to).

But then goes on to say:

Divorce occurs outside of wedlock as well; it’s called “breaking up.”

Oh, there's a big difference. Hopefully you won't find that out.

Cheating and chauvinism are bad. Period. It doesn’t matter whether they happen within or without the bonds of matrimony.

Well, yes, it does. Someone who has sex with another person other than their boyfriend or girlfriend may or may not be breaking a promise to someone with whom they are already fornicating. But when they are married and have sex with someone other than their spouse, they not only fornicate, but they commit adultery, usually breaking vows – and they expose their spouse to being financially responsible for someone else’s offspring. It's called paternity fraud perpetrated against husbands, and on the flip side is child support paid by a husband (and his wife) to his partner-in-adultery. In some places, alienation of affection law still applies in marriage, but it doesn't apply in nonmarriage.

As women become more powerful in our society and economy—see the new Atlantic Monthly cover story, “The End of Men,” for the stats—men will have to abandon the old, Clint Eastwood model of masculinity and embrace a newer, nondominant mode of manhood if they hope to keep up.

Actually, as much as some women have told you that is what they want, Mr. Romano, most of them, deep down, do want a man who will earn more than they do (even support them as they raise their own children instead of having them raised by strangers and hired help), do want a man who can physically and socially protect them, and do want a man who takes charge to some extent. Women (not all) tend to end up resenting the guy they are with if he doesn't fulfill these roles.

To really alter the dynamic of male-female relationships in America, we’ll have to redefine marriage from the inside out.

Or vice-versa.

There you have it. Narcissism, hedonism, moral relativism, gender confusion; shortening of attention spans, divorce and the breakdown of the family/kinship support structure, separating sex/childbearing/childrearing/marriage/cohabitation, lack of strong fathers in the home, kids being raised in institutions, secularization, and women being told they don't need a husband to be a good mother and that they can have it all at the same time – it's all tied up in the same mess.