Many people say the institution of marriage has taken a back seat to a lifestyle of "anything goes."

Some Dallas community leaders and faith-based groups have joined a national campaign to combat that trend in black families and communities through the eighth annual Black Marriage Day celebrations March 26-28.

Most Dallas-area activities are free and open to people who are married, courting or engaged. The events aim to promote and strengthen marriage by touting its benefits in seminars, film festivals, vow renewals and celebrations.

Sponsors include Anthem Strong Families, Muhammad Mosque No. 48, some churches and the Wedded Bliss Foundation of Washington, D.C.

During a ceremony from 5:30 to 7 p.m. March 26 in Dallas City Hall's Flag Room, both a newlywed and a longer-married couple will be announced and inducted into a Marriage Hall of Fame. Past inductees will be featured in an exhibition that will tour around Dallas. A documentary film also will be shown. ...

Wedded Bliss Foundation founder Nisa Muhammad agreed, saying in promotional materials that "much of what we hear about marriage in the black community is a blues song. ... We want to replace that blues song with a love song of joy."

Labels: Christianity, culture, divorce, Islam, Marriage, race, religion, Texas

posted by Eve at 7:18 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A measure to require couples to undergo two hours of counseling before marriage won approval 51-45 on Wednesday in the state House of Representatives.

House Bill 2634 by Rep. Mark McCullough, R-Sapulpa, would also allow people who have eight hours or more of premarital counseling to receive a $45 discount on the $50 marriage license.

McCullough said the goal of the counseling is to expose couples to the idea that they can get help if problems develop in their marriage.

The measure would also abolish common-law marriage, through which two people who have not had a civil ceremony but present themselves as husband and wife are considered legally married. ...

The bill would also require educational classes for couples who seek to divorce, McCullough said.

Labels: common-law, divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling, Oklahoma

posted by Eve at 6:45 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Touching on a sensitive issue among conservatives nationwide, the Republican-controlled Oklahoma Legislature is embroiled in a dispute over whether lawmakers should remain focused on the state's budget problems and other fiscal priorities or delve into family issues, especially the state's chronically high divorce rate.

Republican members proposed three pieces of legislation imposing new regulations on marriage and divorce in Oklahoma. Two of the measures were defeated, but another — requiring counseling for those planning to wed, and therapy sessions for couples considering divorce — is awaiting action.

The issue has produced sharp clashes among conservative colleagues who normally find themselves in agreement. The debates have featured charges of hypocrisy and of betraying Republican principles against government intrusion into private lives. ...

The most recent federal health statistics in 2007 show the state has the third highest divorce rate in the nation, behind only Nevada and Arkansas. More than half of marriages in Oklahoma end in divorce. In 2007 there were 28,419 marriages and 18,851 divorces.

The divorce problem, which is attributed in part to poverty, teenage pregnancy and a tradition of marrying early, is particularly bedeviling because Oklahoma also has one of the highest rates of church attendance. Promoting family values is a staple of political campaigns at all levels. ...

A study released in 2008 by the Institute for American Values, a private, nonpartisan research group in New York City, estimated the taxpayer cost of divorce and unwed childbearing at $112 billion a year nationwide.

The Legislature debated a bill to require troubled couples to visit a therapist or a faith-based counselor before seeking to end their marriage and another to eliminate incompatibility as grounds for divorce if the couple has children or has been married 10 years or more. Neither were approved, but McCullough's measure to require pre-marriage and troubled-marriage counseling remains alive.

Labels: divorce, divorce reform, government interest in marriage, Marriage, marriage counseling, Oklahoma

posted by Eve at 4:25 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Just read an interview with Jeff Bridges. ...32 years later he’s still married, with three kids. What’s the secret?

JB: Not getting a divorce. If you’re married you’ll have tough times and you draw a line, then if your partner crosses that line you say: ‘Well is that it?’ or: ‘Am I going to enlarge my concept of what love is?”

Labels: culture, divorce, Marriage

posted by Imapp Staff at 3:57 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Marriage remains a perennially popular institution—otherwise why would same-sex couples be clamoring to share in it?—and yet after the first bloom of love fades, marriage faces an inherent problem. You have to hammer out a life with another person who may not find it particularly easy to hammer out a life with you. Many couples work out what to do on their own. But what should clashing couples do?

Marriage counseling became a popular answer to that question after marital referees first appeared in the U.S. in the 1930s. As Rebecca L. Davis notes in "More Perfect Unions," a history of marriage counseling and the "American search for marital bliss," the Depression was a ripe time for troubled couples to begin looking for outside help. Economic upheaval destabilized many marriages. Americans increasingly were turning to social-welfare agencies for assistance with a multitude of problems, and the rising popularity of psychoanalysis promised that the sources of emotional troubles were simply hidden and awaiting discovery. "Specialists such as social workers, physicians, sociologists and eugenicists," Ms. Davis writes, "believed that they could perform the roles that village elders, parents or clergy might have filled in the past, shepherding youth to suitable matches and mediating their conflicts."

Counseling for couples gradually grew to be an entrenched social phenomenon. The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, founded in 1942 with 35 members, now has "approximately twenty-four thousand members; many times that number of professionals are licensed marriage and family therapists." Marriage counseling may be popular, in part, because it appeals to Americans' can-do spirit: Ms. Davis quotes an expert who says that counseling's message boils down to this: "There is an alternative to staying in a bad marriage or divorcing, and the alternative is to improve it." Ms. Davis, an assistant professor of history at the University of Delaware, deems it a "uniquely American obsession" to "hope that with enough effort and the right guidance, more perfect marital unions are within each couple's and the nation's reach.

Labels: culture, divorce, Marriage, marriage counseling

posted by Eve at 10:02 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Joseph Reyes, an Afghanistan war veteran and second-year law student, converted to Judaism when he married Rebecca Shapiro in 2004. When they split up in 2008, Rebecca won primary custody of their daughter, and Joseph got regular visitation. The couple had allegedly agreed to raise their child Jewish, but Joseph, seeking to expose his 3-year-old to his Catholic faith, had her baptized last November. When she learned that her daughter had been baptized without her consent, Rebecca obtained a temporary restraining order in December 2009, forbidding Joseph from "exposing Ela Reyes to another religion other than the Jewish religion during his visitation." In January of this year, Reyes again took Ela to Mass at Holy Name Cathedral, with a local TV news crew in tow. His ex-wife's lawyers demanded he be held in criminal contempt—with a maximum punishment of six months in prison.

Can a court really tell a parent what religion his child will be? And can a judge possibly back up such an order with the threat of jail time?

Labels: Catholic Church, children, custody, divorce, Judaism, religion

posted by Eve at 1:31 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

AS we have just passed the 40th anniversary of that much vilified institution, the no-fault divorce, it is an appropriate moment to re-evaluate how divorce affects families, and particularly children. The California law took effect on Jan. 1, 1970, and was followed by a wave of marital separations that continues to this day — and also a wave of rhetoric condemning divorce for harming children and undermining the fabric of society.

As divorce is clearly here to stay, it may be more productive to instead ask how the process of dissolving a marriage might be changed to avoid, as much as possible, damaging children. ...

What children need instead are no-fault custody proceedings — which could be accomplished with two changes to state family law. First, take the money out of the picture by establishing fixed formulas for child support that ensure the children are well taken care of in both homes, regardless of the number of days they spend in each. Second, defuse tension by requiring parents to enter mediation to find a custody solution that best meets the needs of all concerned.

Labels: custody, divorce

posted by Eve at 12:24 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

In 2008, the divorce rate in England and Wales fell to 11.5 divorcing people per 1,000 married population compared with the 2007 figure of 11.8, a fall of 2.5 per cent. The divorce rate is at its lowest level since 1979 when it was 11.2.

For the fourth consecutive year, both men and women in their late twenties had the highest divorce rates of all five-year age groups. In 2008 there were 26.3 divorces per 1,000 married men aged 25 to 29 and 27.8 divorces per 1,000 married women aged 25 to 29. This compared with 16.8 divorces per 1,000 married men aged 45 to 49 and 14.6 divorces per 1,000 married women aged 45 to 49 in 2008.

Labels: divorce, Marriage, United Kingdom

posted by Eve at 12:24 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Granting easy access to marriage annulments is an offense against both justice and charity, said Pope Benedict XVI on January 29.

The Pope’s message has a particular resonance in the US, whose Catholic Church tribunals account for more than half of the world’s annulment decrees. Pope Benedict, like Pope John Paul II before him, has repeatedly argued for a more vigorous defense of the marital bond.

In an address to the Church’s highest tribunal for marriage cases, the Holy Father warned against “the tendency--widespread and well-rooted though not always obvious--to contrast justice with charity, almost as if the one excluded the other.” He reminded the tribunal’s judges and advocated that the marriage laws of the Church are oriented toward the spiritual welfare of the individuals, and applying those laws properly is itself a work of charity. Ultimately, he reminded them, “the Church's juridical activity has as its goal the salvation of souls.”

“Without truth charity slides into sentimentalism,” the Pope told officials of the Roman Rota, at the opening of its judicial term. “Love becomes an empty shell to be filled arbitrarily. This is the fatal risk of love in a culture without truth.” ...

The Pope went so far as to suggest that tribunals should do their best to save marriages intact whenever that is possible. In most American dioceses, couples are required to file for a civil divorce before submitting an annulment application. But the Pontiff suggest that “effective efforts be made, whenever there seems to be hope of a successful outcome, to encourage the spouses to convalidate their marriage and restore conjugal cohabitation.”

Labels: annulments, Catholic Church, divorce, Marriage, religion

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:59 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

At the statistical intersection where increased life expectancy balances out the divorce rate, there is a surprising new cultural demographic: More Americans are reaching and exceeding the 40th wedding anniversary.

What's keeping more married couples together 'til death do them part? Todd Migliaccio, a Sacramento State associate professor of sociology, is working to figure that out in a series of interviews with area couples married 30 years or longer, or with a surviving spouse.

"We tend to focus on the fact that more people get divorced now," said Migliaccio, 37, who set the demographic bar for his research at 30 years of marriage to include more couples' stories. "But maybe we should focus on the increasing number who stay married longer."

It's a sunnier approach, after all. There's only so much the group most at risk of divorce – newlyweds married five years or less – have to share with the world.

On the other hand, couples who have stuck it out through thick and thin might have a few things to teach us.

So far, Migliaccio has interviewed six couples, some of whom he found after posting a request for volunteers at Sacramento's Hart Senior Center. His plan was to videotape them talking about their long and happy marriages as a way to sweeten the dose of reality he provides students in class. ...

"I loved his family," said Metzinger, a 79-year-old state worker who lives in Carmichael. "When I met his family, I could see this would be a happy marriage and a happy life."

It was, through raising four kids – who have since produced 11 grandchildren and 10 great-grandkids, with one more on the way – and through their share of ups and downs.

"Leaving was never an option," she said. "Even in some of our darkest days, it was never discussed. We loved each other. We were going to go forever."

Labels: divorce, Marriage

posted by Eve at 8:07 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Regardless of their politics, Americans owe Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins gratitude for this: that their 23-year relationship unraveled, and ended, far from the public eye.

The couple separated over the summer, and apparently no fire hydrants were harmed in the process, no emergency medical technicians were summoned. It was late December before word of the break-up trickled out to the tabloids, and two weeks later the actors are still not talking, except to confirm through a publicist that they split. ...

Capisce, we do. Ms. Sarandon, whose seemingly golden "domestic partnership" with Mr. Robbins was the stuff of Hollywood legend, is desirous of preserving marriages on screen, but not so much in real life. She famously declined to wed Mr. Robbins, the father of her two sons, because she worried such a stuffy and archaic ritual might harm their relationship.

"I won't marry because I am too afraid of taking him for granted, or him taking me for granted," she once said. "Maybe it will be a good excuse for a party when I am 80."

Of course, many married people have a good excuse for a party when they're about 80--they're called golden anniversaries, and they're great. A pinnacle of married life, the 50th-anniversary party is a joyous celebration of love, perseverance and forbearance, virtues no less noble because they are lightly enforced by the state. The marriage certificate, surrendered at a divorce hearing, does not guarantee a happy union, but neither does the absence of one, as Ms. Sarandon learned.

Labels: culture, divorce, domestic partnership, Marriage

posted by Eve at 2:38 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Stand on the front lines of the recession, as therapist Erica Karlinsky has, and the view for married couples isn't rosy.

Karlinsky, a Lake Mary, Fla., psychologist, now spends a lot of her time counseling men who've lost their jobs -- or wives who are dealing with an unemployed husband who won't get off the sofa or won't stop crying.

The stress of job losses is impacting families from all backgrounds, but perhaps none are more affected than blue-collar families, who have been hit hard by the recession, according to a new report from the National Marriage Project.

And experts worry that when the recession ends and the economy improves, the divorce rate will spike again -- with many of the divorces concentrated among the working class. That may further widen what sociologists call the nation's "divorce divide" -- a growing gap between the divorce rates of working-class Americans and college-educated Americans.

"Working-class couples are already vulnerable," said Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. "The recession is probably shaping up to be one more factor driving working-class marriages down."

Men have borne the brunt of this recession, accounting for 75 percent of the job losses, according to the report, titled, "The State of Our Unions, Marriage in America 2009." And blue-collar men have been hit hard. In September, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 4.9 percent of college-educated women and 5 percent of college-educated men were unemployed, while 8.6 percent of women with a high-school diploma and 11.1 percent of men with a high-school diploma had lost their jobs.

For those men particularly, the recession has been devastating.

Labels: divorce, economics, gender, Marriage, men

posted by Eve at 10:43 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Lawmakers are busy filing a wide range of bills for consideration in the upcoming legislative session that begins in February. ...

Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, has filed a measure that would make it harder to get a divorce. Kern said she is trying to reduce the divorce rate and hopes more couples will reconcile.

House Bill 2279 says a court shall not grant a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility if there are living minor children in the marriage, the parties have been married 10 years or longer, or if either party files a written objection to the divorce.

Kern said if abuse or adultery were present, the divorce would be granted regardless.

"Something is wrong when you can get out of a marriage easier than a loan for a car," Kern said.

Labels: divorce, divorce reform, Oklahoma

posted by Eve at 10:39 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The original punishments — including standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck — have been softened to a $1,200 fine, yet some lawmakers think it's time for the 200-year-old crime of adultery to come off New Hampshire's books.

Seven months after the state approved gay marriage, lawmakers will consider easing government further from the bedroom with a bill to repeal the adultery law.

"We shouldn't be regulating people's sex lives and their love lives," state Rep. Timothy Horrigan said. "This is one area the state government should stay out of people's bedrooms."

Horrigan, D-Durham, and state Rep. Carol McGuire, R-Epsom, have teamed up on legislation to repeal the law.

Horrigan signed on because he believes it continues New Hampshire's efforts toward marriage equality. In June, lawmakers voted to legalize gay marriage — a law that takes effect Jan. 1.

"We shouldn't be in the business of regulating what consenting adults do with each other," Horrigan said. ...

McGuire, the prime sponsor, believes the moral battle over adultery should be fought under the state's civil divorce laws. The bill would leave adultery as a cause in divorces not filed under the no-fault provision of the statute.

Labels: adultery, culture, divorce, gay marriage, Lawrence v. Texas, New Hampshire

posted by Eve at 4:32 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) said more than half of the respondents to its latest survey among its 1,600 members had cited a drop in divorce filings during the current recession which has cut jobs, salaries and house prices.

In total, 57 percent of the attorneys noted fewer divorce filings since the last quarter of 2008. Only 14 percent noted an increase in filings during these difficult times.

Labels: culture, divorce, economics

posted by Eve at 2:26 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Judging by recent press reports, the family fallout associated with the Great Recession has been severe. Take the Bachmuth family, profiled last month in the New York Times. After Paul Bachmuth lost his job at a Texas electric consulting firm in December of last year, his life and marriage took a turn for the worse. Often dejected, he would spend hours surfing the Internet or watching television.

Paul and his wife, Amanda, fought over money. She also resented the part-time job she had to pick up at a day-care center to keep the family solvent, especially since she continued to shoulder the bulk of the family's cooking, cleaning and laundry. "She kind of had something in the back of her mind that it was partly my fault I was laid off," Mr. Bachmuth told the Times. The couple is now seeing a counselor.

The Bachmuths' experience is by no means unique, according to "Money & Marriage," a report released this week by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and the Institute for American Values. As the report notes, the financial pressures associated with the Great Recession can lead to a downward spiral of marital recriminations, tension and conflict as spouses struggle to pay bills, adjust to the loss of a job or find themselves forced out of their home. This downward spiral is especially likely to unfold when a husband loses his job—a particularly salient reality in the current recession, where more than 75% of the job losses have fallen on the shoulders of men.

In some cases, this spiral leads directly to divorce court. In recent years, couples who report disagreeing about money matters once a week are about twice as likely to divorce compared with couples who disagree about money less than once a month, according to the report.

But there may be a silver lining in all this financial pain. For most married Americans, the Great Recession seems to be solidifying, not eroding, the marital bond. The divorce rate is actually falling. It declined to 16.9 divorces per 1,000 married women in 2008 from 17.5 divorces in 2007 (a 3% drop), after rising from 16.4 divorces per 1,000 married women in 2005 (a 7% increase).

Labels: culture, divorce, economics, Marriage, National Marriage Project, W. Bradford Wilcox

posted by Eve at 9:29 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The State of Our Unions monitors the current health of marriage and family life in America. Produced annually, it is a joint publication of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values.

The 2009 State of Our Unions makes clear that money matters for contemporary American marriages. In particular, this edition of The State of Our Unions answers the following questions:

* How is the Great Recession affecting the institution of marriage, as measured by changes in marriage and divorce rates in the U.S.?
* How do family finances—especially credit card debt and family assets—shape the quality and stability of contemporary married life in America?
* What do evolutionary psychology and the contemporary study of finance have to tell us about the best division of financial labor for husbands and wives?
* Is the Great Recession likely to foster egalitarian relationships between husbands and wives?

Labels: culture, divorce, economics, gender, gender differences, Marriage, National Marriage Project

posted by Eve at 4:59 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Here’s the glass half-full take on the National Marriage Project’s annual “State of Our Unions” report, which tackles the Great Recession’s impact on American wedlock. As it turns out, the strain of the downturn hasn’t pushed the divorce rate higher; instead, economic stress seems to have made American marriages slightly more stable overall, as couples develop a “new appreciation for the economic and social support that marriage can provide in tough times,” as the study’s lead author, Brad Wilcox, puts it. ...

Here’s the pessimistic take. Yes, divorce rates are dropping, but marriage rates are down as well. People aren’t getting divorced because they can’t afford it, not because they’re suddenly happier with their spouses. Meanwhile, the recession’s job losses have been heavily concentrated among working class men, who aren’t necessarily equipped to make a smooth adjustment to playing stay-at-home dads while their wives support the family. (Whelan’s essay acknowledges that “flexible or egalitarian gender roles may be more attractive to well-educated, affluent Americans than less-educated, working-class couples,” and Wilcox notes that his own research suggests that “husbands are significantly less happy in their marriages, and more likely to contemplate divorce, when their wives take the lead in breadwinning.”)

Labels: culture, divorce, economics, Marriage

posted by Eve at 4:56 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

You know it in your gut, and you’ve seen it in the splintered marriages around you. Finance-related tensions — however you define them — raise the risk of divorce.

A new study, by Jeffrey Dew at Utah State University, attempts to quantify that risk. His finding: Couples who reported disagreeing about finance once a week were over 30 percent more likely to get divorced than couples who reported disagreeing about finances a few times a month.

Labels: culture, divorce

posted by Eve at 4:53 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

True love may be the key to a long and happy marriage – but being a dentist or an agricultural engineer helps, too, according to new research.

A paper that correlates occupations with divorce and separation rates, to be published in the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, reveals that those employed in extrovert and stressful jobs are highly likely to divorce, as are those who work in the caring professions.

Dancers, choreographers and bartenders have around a 40% chance of experiencing a relationship breakdown. But also at high risk are nurses, psychiatrists and those who help the elderly and disabled. Conversely, agricultural engineers, optometrists, dentists, clergymen and podiatrists are all in occupations which carry a 2-7% chance of family breakdown. ...

Dr Michael Aamodt, an industrial psychologist at Radford University in Virginia, invented a formula to work out the likelihood of success of a marriage based on the occupation of one of the partners. The formula (separated plus divorced) divided by (total population minus never married) was used to establish the percentage of people in 449 occupations who were once in a marital relationship.

Aamodt rated professions and trades according to their likelihood of a successful marriage. "I looked at the divorce rate for each given occupation after controlling for gender, race, age and income characteristics," said Aamodt. "By controlling for demographic variables that might be related to divorce rates, we also obtained race, gender, age and income information for each occupation."

However, shift work, overtime and weekend work made no significant difference, he said.

Labels: culture, divorce, Marriage

posted by Eve at 9:43 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...Counselors and those who study dating, marriage and divorce say plenty of couples get married when they shouldn't. And their numbers may be increasing, because more couples are casually living together, which can complicate decisions about whether to marry, says Scott Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver.

Stanley says his research on couples who cohabit before marriage has found that "some of those wouldn't have married if they hadn't been living together."

"People have committed themselves before talking about the commitment to the future, and that can get you walking down the aisle not being sure that's the right thing, or what you want to do," he says.

Stories of people entering marriages they felt were doomed from the start intrigued Carl Weisman of Torrance, Calif., whose book, So Why Have You Never Been Married? 10 Insights Into Why He Hasn't Wed, arrived last year. He says a divorced woman he knows said something he thought was quite profound: "I didn't listen to my inner voice. I knew I was going to divorce him before I even married him." That led Weisman to thinking about others who went into a marriage knowing it wouldn't last. But he couldn't find any academic research on the subject.

So Weisman, 50, who recently married for the first time, surveyed 1,036 people across the country and conducted in-depth interviews with dozens more for his new book, Serious Doubts: Why People Marry When They Know It Won't Last.

Those surveyed had one thing in common: "They all ignored their inner voice," he says. "They knew it wasn't going to last." ...

Donahue, who cohabited before her 11-year marriage (which ended five years ago), says she didn't heed some early signals, including religious differences. Her parents also didn't approve of their living together without being married, which Donahue says encouraged her to wed. "I was thinking that we were in love and we're going to make it work. I believed in this whole fairy-tale thing on marriage."

Other reasons for proceeding in the face of doubts may also sound familiar – like pregnancy.

That's why Neumann, 26, a non-profit market researcher from Chicago, says she went ahead with it. "I had some concerns in the relationship, but I thought if I got married, we would grow together," she says. "I was 18 at the time and thought it would all work out in the end."

Others may think a partner is too good a catch to pass up – even though there's no spark.

Rasmussen, 51, an office manager in Boise, says she tried to convince herself that she and her second husband were a good match. They enjoyed many of the same activities, including travel. She had financial resources, yet he offered to help her with her kids' college expenses.

She wasn't head over heels, but he was attractive and generous, so Rasmussen told herself "You can learn to love this guy."

Labels: cohabitation, culture, divorce, Marriage, pregnancy, premarital sex

posted by Eve at 5:41 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The toll for a nation long at war is evident in military homes: The divorce rate in the armed forces edged up again in the past year despite many programs to help struggling couples, and the rate now is a full percentage point higher than around the time of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

There were an estimated 27,312 divorces among roughly 765,000 married members of the active-duty Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in the budget year that ended Sept. 30, the Pentagon said Friday.

That's a divorce rate of about 3.6 percent for fiscal year 2009, compared with 3.4 percent a year earlier, according to figures from the Defense Manpower Data Center. Marriages among reservists failed at a rate of 2.8 percent compared to 2.7 the previous year. ...

The Pentagon number also obviously doesn't count veterans — that is, those who divorce after leaving the services, let alone reflect other possible wartime consequences on families, such as increases in alcoholism or the toll on orphaned or emotionally stressed children of troops.

Labels: divorce

posted by Eve at 5:27 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Labels: Catholic Church, contraception, divorce, gay marriage, gender, Marriage, religion

posted by Eve at 12:01 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A recent profile in the New York Times of the marriage between President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle had a great deal to say about how the Obamas have balanced their desire for public influence and personal privacy. The article had nothing to say about one of the most simple and remarkable facts about the first family: for the first time in recent memory, the family in the White House is not a nuclear family.

The White House has played host to its share of unusual marriages, but the Obamas have broken new ground by bringing in Michelle’s mother, Marilyn Robinson, to help care for their children. The Obamas’ stated reason for inviting Robinson to live in the White House was so that she could assist in the care of Sasha and Malia, the Obamas daughters. As baby boomers age and America becomes what the President’s Council on Bioethics called the “mass geriatric society,” more and more elderly Americans may begin to live with their adult children. As with the Obamas, the desire for improved care-giving will be the main motivation. But in this case, the elders, not the children, will be the ones receiving the care.

Our society has not always been very clear about what obligations grown children have toward their aging parents. But in the case of the Boomers, the question becomes exceedingly complex. Taking advantage of the rise of no-fault divorce laws, they sought flexibility and happiness through more negotiable romantic and sexual attachments. They had fewer children than their parents’ generation, but those they did have were buffeted by the chaos of divorce, remarriage, custody battles, and multiple Christmases.

Now, the balance of dependence is tipping. As boomers enter their second childhood, we may witness the historical irony of aged parents experiencing some of the chaos and uncertainty felt by their children. What responsibilities of care does one have toward a stepfather? Toward a parent with more than one set of children? It’s no longer a question of who gets to keep the kids but rather of who gets stuck with the grandparents.

In such an environment it is easy to see why the public provision of medicine and end-of-life care is becoming especially important. Complicated family arrangements matter less when the main caregiver for the elderly is the government. A recent survey from the Pew Research Center found that only 12% of parents age 65 and older report depending more on their children than their children do on them.

Labels: culture, divorce, extended family, family policy

posted by Eve at 4:40 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston's public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony."

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.

"This is insane," Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. "Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, 'My life went down the toilet, and you're doing good--so now I want some of your money'?"

The nature of marriage has changed dramatically over the decades. Women now make up almost half of the American work force. But alimony, a concept enshrined in ancient law, has remained remarkably constant. Now, the idea that a husband should continue to support his wife forever, even after the demise of their marriage--long a bedrock of divorce law--is being called into question. Pressures are mounting to change a practice that some see as outdated and unfair.

Several U.S. states are battling to place new limits on alimony and rewrite decades-old laws. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Oklahoma, lawmakers are pushing for measures like putting time limits on alimony payments, barring alimony if two divorcing spouses are on equal footing professionally, and ending or reducing alimony if the recipient commits a crime or cohabits with another adult in a romantic relationship. Lobbyists and activists are pressing for similar rules in Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.

In Massachusetts a bill backed by a group called "Reform Massachusetts Alimony Laws Now!" has 72 sponsors and would require a spouse receiving alimony to become self-sufficient, or attempt to, after a reasonable time. That would establish alimony as a temporary payment instead of a permanent entitlement, as is often the case now. A second bill, in the state Senate, would modify the law less radically by adding "duration" to the factors judges can consider when setting alimony payments.

Labels: divorce

posted by Eve at 4:31 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The California Secretary of State announced last week that the proponent of an initiative petition to amend California's Constitution to ban divorce in the state may begin to collect signatures. The proposed amendment would still allow annulments, but would completely eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Proponents will need to collect the signatures of 694,354 registered voters to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

According to Huffington Post last month, the proponent, John Marcotte, introduced the amendment to mock the proponents of Proposition 8 who focused on protecting traditional marriage as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Last month, Cockeyed.com published an interview with Marcotte. Here is one exchange that gives the flavor of his remarks....

Labels: California, culture, divorce, gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 12:37 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A handful of people rallied outside the Japanese Embassy on Saturday to show support for an American man who is jailed in Japan, accused of trying to kidnap his own children. ...

Christopher Savoie, 38, a Tennessee native and naturalized Japanese citizen, allegedly abducted his two children -- 8-year-old Isaac and 6-year-old Rebecca -- as his ex-wife walked them to school Monday in a rural town in southern Japan, police in Japan said.

With the children, Savoie headed for the nearest U.S. consulate in the city of Fukuoka to try to obtain passports for them, screaming at guards to let him in the compound. Savoie was steps away from the front gate but still standing on Japanese soil when Japanese police arrested him. Amy Savoie said the separation is taking a toll on her. ...

Christopher Savoie and his first wife, Noriko Savoie, were married for 14 years before their divorce in January. The couple, both citizens of the United States and Japan, had lived in Japan but moved to the United States before the divorce.

Noriko Savoie was given custody of the children and agreed to remain in the United States. Christopher Savoie had visitation rights. During the summer, she fled with the children to Japan, according to court documents. A U.S. court than granted Christopher Savoie sole custody.

Japanese law, however, recognizes Noriko Savoie as the primary custodian. The law there also follows a tradition of sole-custody divorces. When the couple splits, one parent typically makes a complete and lifelong break from the children.

Complicating the matter further is the fact that the couple still are considered married in Japan because they never divorced there, police said Wednesday. And, police said, the children are Japanese and have Japanese passports.

Labels: custody, divorce, Japan

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:05 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

ISLAMORADA, Fla. -- It's easy to see why bookkeeper Linda Mortimer moved to the Florida Keys 20 years ago: the impossibly blue water, the year-round sunshine, a lifestyle so laid-back that every day is like a Jimmy Buffett lyric.

What Mortimer didn't anticipate was falling in love - and then getting divorced less than two years after taking her wedding vows.

"I discovered after we got married that my husband had been divorced four times," said Mortimer, as she finished a noontime burger while sitting at the bar at the Ocean View, a local party spot and Mortimer's place of employment.

"I was his No. 5. He didn't understand why I got so upset."

Divorce is as common in the Florida Keys as fresh grouper and cold beer. Census statistics released this week show that Monroe County - which includes the cluster of 1,700 islands floating off South Florida - has the second-highest proportion of divorced residents. A little more than 18 percent of the people living in Monroe County are divorced, second only to Indiana's Wayne County, which had 19 percent. Nationwide, 10.7 percent of people over 15 are divorced.

Three of the top 10 counties the divorced call home are in Florida - rural Putnam County in Northeast Florida and urban Pinellas County on the Gulf Coast are the other two. Indiana had a total of three counties in the top 10 as well. Along with Wayne County, Floyd and Madison counties made the list.

Newly released census figures show that while the number of unmarried people continued its 10-year climb, the ranks of married people in the United States rose by nearly 6 million last year, bucking a decade-long decline. The number of divorced people rose, but only slightly.

Among the other marriage- and divorce-related findings from the census data:

- The number of unmarried people climbed to about one-third of all Americans over 15.

- Oklahoma has the highest rate of people who have been married three times or more.

- Utah and Idaho tied for the youngest median bride age, at 23.5 years old.

Residents of Wayne County, Ind., don't see why their home should be the divorce capital of America. The water tower in Richmond, Ind., the county's largest city, welcomes visitors to "A Great All-American City." ...

Indiana is one of a handful of states that don't track divorce statistics. So it's hard to tell if the percentage is caused by a large number of divorces or a large number of young single people moving out of the county to attend college, or if it's just a statistical anomaly.

Divorce counselors say the economy could be partly to blame for adding more stress to marriages. Indiana has been hit hard by the collapse of the auto and manufacturing industries. Wayne County had an average annual unemployment rate of 6.8 percent in 2008 - when the census data was collected - a rate above the state average at the time but still below many other areas of the state and country. ...

Some folks in the Florida Keys are quick to say that it's not that people are actually divorcing in droves there - it's that divorced people come to the area to start new lives.

Labels: culture, divorce, Florida, Indiana

posted by Eve at 5:07 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Til death do we part" wasn't such a big deal when the life expectancy was 30. When it's 80, marriage becomes a tall order. So you can imagine how surprised I was recently to learn that marriage is becoming more resilient, not less. America's divorce rate is down to 36% — the lowest since 1970. That means nearly two-thirds of those getting married today are likely to fulfill their lofty wedding-day promise. ...

Robert Money, a well-respected family therapist in my home state of Tennessee, says Americans are staying married because we're getting better at it. And consequently, we're enjoying it more. Money's 40 years in the business tells him that intimacy is the key.

"Intimacy is one of our deepest needs and greatest pleasures. And one cannot experience intimacy in marriage except from a position of mutuality. Some religious groups may not get this, but the secular culture does. Men and women now perceive themselves as mutual partners, and this is transforming our marriages," he says. ...

And when married couples experience problems — as they inevitably do — they're turning to trained professionals, rather than preachers, for help. They're no longer willing to settle for pious platitudes even when they come from the Bible.

Finally, our secular culture also is steering couples toward delaying marriage. The early 20s used to be the norm; now it's the late 20s or early 30s. Couples who marry later stand a better chance of staying married, and again, it's the secular culture — not organized religion — that encourages sexually active adults to hold off on tying the knot.

Labels: culture, divorce, Marriage, marriage counseling, religion

posted by Eve at 6:41 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan of California made what he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life. Seeking to eliminate the strife and deception often associated with the legal regime of fault-based divorce, Reagan signed the nation's first no-fault divorce bill. The new law eliminated the need for couples to fabricate spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce; indeed, one likely reason for Reagan's decision to sign the bill was that his first wife, Jane Wyman, had unfairly accused him of "mental cruelty" to obtain a divorce in 1948. But no-fault divorce also gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband and wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve a marriage for any reason — or for no reason at all.

In the decade and a half that followed, virtually every state in the Union followed California's lead and enacted a no-fault divorce law of its own. This legal transformation was only one of the more visible signs of the divorce revolution then sweeping the United States: From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled — from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This meant that while less than 20% of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50% of couples who married in 1970 did. And approximately half of the children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parents part, compared to only about 11% of those born in the 1950s.

In the years since 1980, however, these trends have not continued on straight upward paths, and the story of divorce has grown increasingly complicated. In the case of divorce, as in so many others, the worst consequences of the social revolution of the 1960s and '70s are now felt disproportionately by the poor and less educated, while the wealthy elites who set off these transformations in the first place have managed to reclaim somewhat healthier and more stable habits of married life. This imbalance leaves our cultural and political elites less well attuned to the magnitude of social dysfunction in much of American society, and leaves the most vulnerable
Americans — especially children living in poor and working-class communities — even worse off than they would otherwise be.

Labels: divorce, poverty, W. Bradford Wilcox

posted by Imapp Staff at 5:12 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Labels: Andrew Cherlin, children, cohabitation, divorce, Marriage

posted by Eve at 1:59 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

It seems, to many, like the sensible thing to do: Move in with your boyfriend or girlfriend, spend more time together, save money by splitting the rent and see if you can share a bathroom every morning without wanting to kill each other.

But if you were Scott Stanley's kid, he'd beg you not to do it.

Stanley, a University of Denver psychologist, has spent the past 15 years trying to figure out why premarital cohabitation is associated with lower levels of satisfaction in marriage and a greater potential for divorce.

At a conference last month, Stanley and his colleagues presented the latest findings of a five-year study being sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. He estimates that between 60 and 70 percent of couples today will live together before marriage, and that for two-thirds of them, cohabitation is something that they slid into or "just sort of happened."

And a study Stanley co-authored in February found that of the 1,050 married people surveyed, almost 19 percent of those who lived together before getting engaged had at some point suggested divorce, compared with 10 percent for those who waited until marriage to live together.

Those findings mimic the reports from the mid-1990s that first peaked Stanley's interest, showing that men who cohabitated before marriage were, on average, less dedicated to their relationships than those who didn't.

"It was one of those kind of findings that I wouldn't have suspected," Stanley, 53, recalls. But he immediately had a theory: "The basic idea was, 'Okay, there's a group of males there that married someone they wouldn't have married if they hadn't moved in with them.' "

Labels: cohabitation, divorce, Marriage

posted by Eve at 3:35 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

There was spontaneous applause when Allan Carlson announced the winner of the 'family cup': a man who put nine children on the world, all within the same marriage.

That makes one a successful man in the eyes of the fifth World Congress of Families, which is being held in Amsterdam's RAI congress centre this week. The floor was then given to the winner's wife, who spoke of her husband's love and dedication to their family and God -- until he died of cancer last year.

Allan Carlson is the secretary of the World Congress of Families and the president of the US-based Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society. He is the author of The Natural Family: A Manifesto, in which he argues that "we welcome more babies and larger families while others wage war against human fertility".

In his opening statement in Amsterdam on Monday he said families that deviate from the 'natural family' (man, wife, children) are at considerable risk of developing 'problems'. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state," Carlson said. ...

One of the speakers –- albeit via video link –- was the Dutch minister for youth and family André Rouvoet, a member of the orthodox Christian party ChristenUnie. Rouvoet wished the participants "every success".

Rouvoet's participation in the World Congress was controversial from the start. His critics said it legitimised what they said was a right-wing religious gathering. Intellectuals, members of parliament for the Green party and the liberal parties VVD and D66, as well as a handful of demonstrators demanded that Rouvoet either stay away from the gathering or come out in favour of gay marriage, abortion and divorce.

The minister didn't go quite that far, although he did call on the participants to "build bridges" and to "think about how we can live together in a multicultural society with differing attitudes to the family".

Labels: abortion, divorce, Europe, family size, gay marriage, Marriage, Netherlands

posted by Eve at 3:23 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

LET’S say you have what you believe to be a healthy marriage. You’re still friends and lovers after spending more than half of your lives together. The dreams you set out to achieve in your 20s — gazing into each other’s eyes in candlelit city bistros when you were single and skinny — have for the most part come true.

Two decades later you have the 20 acres of land, the farmhouse, the children, the dogs and horses. You’re the parents you said you would be, full of love and guidance. You’ve done it all: Disneyland, camping, Hawaii, Mexico, city living, stargazing.

Sure, you have your marital issues, but on the whole you feel so self-satisfied about how things have worked out that you would never, in your wildest nightmares, think you would hear these words from your husband one fine summer day: “I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did. I’m moving out. The kids will understand. They’ll want me to be happy.”

But wait. This isn’t the divorce story you think it is. Neither is it a begging-him-to-stay story. It’s a story about hearing your husband say “I don’t love you anymore” and deciding not to believe him. And what can happen as a result.

Here’s a visual: Child throws a temper tantrum. Tries to hit his mother. But the mother doesn’t hit back, lecture or punish. Instead, she ducks. Then she tries to go about her business as if the tantrum isn’t happening. She doesn’t “reward” the tantrum. She simply doesn’t take the tantrum personally because, after all, it’s not about her.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying my husband was throwing a child’s tantrum. No. He was in the grip of something else — a profound and far more troubling meltdown that comes not in childhood but in midlife, when we perceive that our personal trajectory is no longer arcing reliably upward as it once did. But I decided to respond the same way I’d responded to my children’s tantrums. And I kept responding to it that way. For four months.

Labels: divorce, Marriage

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:11 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The key to a lower divorce rate and healthier marriages starts before the vows are taken, according to advocates for mandatory premarital counseling.

Many states, including Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Maryland, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Arizona, have laws in place that provide economic incentives for couples who attend a specified number of hours of marriage education. Citing research proving the success of premarital counseling in reducing long-term divorce rates, some organizations are pushing for legislation that provides even more reasons for couples to attend premarital education.

In Florida, the Marriage Preparation Act proposes to raise the price of a marriage license by a $100 fee that can be waived if the couple attends eight hours of premarital counseling. It also raises the number of required hours from four to eight and promotes a premarital inventory test as part of the education. The act, which increases the statute already in place, is supported by the Christian Coalition of Palm Beach County and the Florida Family Policy Council, both Christian organizations that promote pro-life and traditional marriage legislation in the state.

However, couples seeking premarital education can choose a “secular” version, as well, potentially raising questions about just what defines premarital counseling. Some popular marriage inventory services, such as FOCCUS, provide “general” and “Christian” versions. The marriage handbook provided by Florida State steers clear of religious overtones, instead emphasizing the magnitude of marriage through lessons on divorce’s economic and legal impact.

Opponents complain that the act is equal to cash in the pockets of the church, because while the required premarital counseling does not necessarily have to be Christian, much premarital counseling comes from that perspective.

Labels: Christianity Today, divorce, divorce reform, Florida, Marriage, marriage counseling, religion

posted by Eve at 10:59 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

When the American Law Institute published its long-awaited proposals for sweeping changes in divorce law in 2002, they were met with great fanfare. One academic predicted the proposals would be a “resounding success,” while the New York Times said they would likely have a “major impact” on the development of the law.

But a recent empirical study of the recommendations indicates that the group’s proposals—formally known as the Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution—have been a resounding flop.

To date, only West Virginia has enacted legislation referencing any part of the ALI’s proposals, according to the study, American Law Insti­tute’s Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, Eight Years After Adoption: Guiding Principles or Obligatory Foot­note? The study was published in the ABA’s Family Law Quarterly, fall 2008 edition.

West Virginia adopted principles relating to child custody in 2003; oth­er provisions deal with alimony, the division of property and the rights of unmarried cohabitating couples, gay and straight.

The ALI proposals have fared only slightly better in the courts. Accord­ing to the study, only 100 cases have cited the ALI’s principles since work on the group’s proposals began in 1990; that’s fewer than half the number of cases citing other treatises on tort law and remedies that were pub­lished around the same time. And the courts in those cases rejected the ALI’s proposals more often than they accepted them, by a ratio of more than 1½-to-1.

Labels: beyond marriage, cohabitation, divorce, family structure

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:36 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Labels: committed relationships, divorce, donor conception, family structure, gay marriage, parenting, remarriage

posted by Eve at 2:58 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Living happily ever after needn't only be for fairy tales. Australian researchers have identified what it takes to keep a couple together, and it's a lot more than just being in love.

A couple's age, previous relationships and even whether they smoke or not are factors that influence whether their marriage is going to last, according to a study by researchers from the Australian National University.

The study, entitled "What's Love Got to Do With It", tracked nearly 2,500 couples -- married or living together -- from 2001 to 2007 to identify factors associated with those who remained together compared with those who divorced or separated.

It found that a husband who is nine or more years older than his wife is twice as likely to get divorced, as are husbands who get married before they turn 25.

Children also influence the longevity of a marriage or relationship, with one-fifth of couples who have kids before marriage -- either from a previous relationship or in the same relationship -- having separated compared to just nine percent of couples without children born before marriage.

Women who want children much more than their partners are also more likely to get a divorce.

A couple's parents also have a role to play in their own relationship, with the study showing some 16 percent of men and women whose parents ever separated or divorced experienced marital separation themselves compared to 10 percent for those whose parents did not separate.

more

Labels: Australia, cohabitation, divorce, Marriage

posted by Imapp Staff at 7:52 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Couples would be required by law to "reflect" on their marriage and explore the possibility of reconciliation, under plans put forward by Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice.

In a key report being studied by David Cameron, the group also proposes more rights for people to keep the assets they owned before they were married if they later got divorced.

New rights for cohabiting couples, proposed by the equality minister Harriet Harman would be scrapped.

Divorce in England and Wales is currently granted on the basis of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, on one of five so-called “grounds” – adultery; unreasonable behaviour; desertion; two years’ separation with consent; or five years’ separation without consent.

The new proposals are for a three-month delay before divorce proceedings could begin.

The proposals form part of a major new report called Every Family Matters which aims to bolster family life with new legal measures. ...

A system of state-sponsored relationship counselling is proposed which is based on a scheme in Australia where struggling couples attend Family Relationship Centres.

The proposed British version would be called "family relationship hubs" and couples would be required to attend them by law if they wanted to divorce.

In addition, all couples preparing to marry would be "strongly encouraged" to attend the hubs, although the report stops short of making this compulsory.

It also calls for an overhaul of the law on how assets are divided when couples divorce to better reflect "marital sacrifices".

Labels: cohabitation, divorce, divorce reform, United Kingdom

posted by Eve at 5:21 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...In her new polemic “A Vindication of Love,” an assault on the idea of safety in romance, Cristina Nehring complains that contemporary couplings have so restrained true passion that “the poor beast has become as impotent as it is domestic.” In a post-divorce essay for The Atlantic, Sandra Tsing Loh autopsies not only her own marriage but those of her peers, a cohort of middle-aged Los Angelenos who’ve let the quest for security turn them into sexless drudges.

Both writers depict a country where pragmatic anxieties — think of the children! think of the mortgage! — are forever trumping romance and dulling the libido. Theirs is a nation of nesters who have clipped their own wings.

So which is the real America? Is it Tsing Loh’s dystopia, where everyone “works” grimly on their relationships, and post-feminist husbands happily cook saffron-infused porcini risotto but rarely practice seduction on their wives? Or is it tabloid country: The land of Jon minus Kate, and governors who vanish to “hike the Appalachian Trail” — not to mention gossip-column fixtures like Britney Spears (rumored last week to be contemplating her third marriage in six years) and the mistress-parading Mel Gibson? ...

Their complaints about this world’s romance deficit are substantially overstated, obviously — and shot through with a dash of self-justification. (Tsing Loh had an affair; Nehring recently became an unwed mother.) But both do put their finger on a post-sexual revolution paradox — namely, that the same overclass that was once most invested in erotic experimentation ended up building the sturdiest walls against the passions it unleashed.

As Nehring observes, our hyper-educated, socially-liberal elite is considerably more romantically conservative than its blasé attitude toward pornography or premarital sex would lead you to expect. The difficult scramble up the meritocratic ladder tends to discourage wild passions and death-defying flings. For bright young overachievers, there’s often a definite tameness to the way that collegiate “safe sex” segues into the upwardly-mobile security of “companionate marriages” — or, if you’re feeling more cynical, “consumption partnerships.”

Labels: culture, divorce, Marriage

posted by Eve at 2:36 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...The decline in Sunday schools appears to be gradual but steady. A study by the Barna Group indicated that in 2004 churches were 6% less likely to provide Sunday school for children ages 2 to 5 as in 1997. For middle-school kids, the decline was to 86% providing Sunday school in 2004 from 93% in 1997. Similarly, there was a six-percentage-point drop in Sunday schools offered for high school kids -- to 80% from 86%. All in all, about 20,000 fewer churches were maintaining Sunday-school classes. And the future does not look bright: Only 15% of ministers regarded Sunday school as a leading concern. The younger the pastor, the study showed, the less emphasis he placed on Sunday school.

A number of reasons can be given for the decline, including an increasingly secular society and the other demands on the time of the average child. And then there is a content problem. The kind of Sunday-school activities that pleased my generation simply wouldn't fly with today's busier and more sophisticated kids. "A lot of the stuff we did was rote memory," said Mr. Morrison of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Ultimately, if Sunday school is to thrive, parental involvement is necessary -- somebody has to say, "Go." But who? The Rev. Neil MacQueen, a Presbyterian minister who develops software programs for Sunday schools, cites a crucial factor in the decline of Sunday-school attendance: divorce. On any given Sunday, many children of divorced parents are out of town, visiting "the other" parent.

Labels: culture, divorce, religion

posted by Eve at 9:31 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...A wedding is the weak link in the family system -- the extraordinary attempt to make biological strangers into closest kin. For me, every divorce -- not just Jon and Kate's -- prompts questions:

Is being a wife merely a role I've chosen, a thing I enact so long as it benefits me? Or can I do something else with marriage -- import another human being into the essence of my identity -- make being a wife something I am, like being a mother, not merely something I do? Is it possible to really become one flesh?

Labels: culture, divorce, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage

posted by Eve at 11:41 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

With Father’s Day almost upon us, expect a host of media stories on men and
family life. Some will do a good job of capturing the changes and continuities
associated with fatherhood in contemporary America. But other reporters and
writers will generalize from their own unrepresentative networks of friends and
family members, try to baptize the latest family trend, or assume that our
society is heading ceaselessly in a progressive direction. So be on the lookout
this week for stories, op-eds, and essays that include these five myths on
contemporary fatherhood and family life.

Labels: cohabitation, culture, divorce, Fathers, out-of-wedlock births, parenting, W. Bradford Wilcox

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:40 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...The average age of American men marrying for the first time is now 28. That's up five full years since 1970 and the oldest average since the Census Bureau started keeping track. If men weren't pulling women along with them on this upward swing, I wouldn't be complaining. But women are now taking that first plunge into matrimony at an older age as well. The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years. I used to think that only young men -- and a minority at that -- lamented marriage as the death of youth, freedom and their ability to do as they pleased. Now this idea is attracting women, too.

In my research on young adults' romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they're at least in their late 20s. If you're seeking a mate in college, you're considered a pariah, someone after her "MRS degree." Actively considering marriage when you're 20 or 21 seems so sappy, so unsexy, so anachronistic. Those who do fear to admit it -- it's that scandalous.

How did we get here? The fault lies less with indecisive young people than it does with us, their parents. Our own ideas about marriage changed as we climbed toward career success. Many of us got our MBAs, JDs, MDs and PhDs. Now we advise our children to complete their education before even contemplating marriage, to launch their careers and become financially independent. We caution that depending on another person is weak and fragile. We don't want them to rush into a relationship. We won't help you with college tuition anymore, we threaten. Don't repeat our mistakes, we warn. ...

This is not just an economic problem. It's also a biological and emotional one. I realize that it's not cool to say that, but my job is to map trends, not to affirm them. Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s -- their most fertile years -- only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s. Although male fertility lives on, it doesn't hold out forever, either: Studies emerging from Europe and Australia note that a couple's chances of conceiving fall off notably when men pass the age of 40, and that several developmental disorders are slightly more common in children of older fathers.

Of course, there's at least one good statistical reason to urge people to wait on the wedding. Getting married at a young age remains the No. 1 predictor of divorce. So why on earth would I want to promote such a disastrous idea? For three good reasons....

Labels: culture, divorce, gender differences, Marriage

posted by Eve at 11:23 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Q: What led you to write THE MARRIAGE-GO-ROUND?

A: I had the sense that American marriage and family life differed fundamentally from the other Western countries—Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand—in a way no one was writing about. Some observers have focused on changes in marriage, others on divorce, and others on non-marital births. But I realized that you have to look at the whole picture—all of these aspects together—to appreciate what was happening. We have more marriages and remarriages, more divorces, and more short-term cohabiting (living together) relationships than the other countries. Put them together and you have more turnover, more movement in and out of relationships than anywhere else. As a result, Americans have more spouses and live-in partners over the course of their lives than do people in any other Western country. We step on and off the carousel of marriages and partnerships faster than anywhere else.


Q: You were already well versed in the subject of marriage in America, as you have been studying families and public policy for much of your career. Did any of your discoveries surprise you as you wrote THE MARRIAGE-GO-ROUND?

A: I knew that our divorce rate was higher than in other countries, but I didn’t realize how much higher than even in supposedly vanguard countries such as Sweden. One statistic that stunned me: take two children, one growing up with married parents in the United States, and one growing up with unmarried parents in Sweden—which child has the higher likelihood of seeing his parents’ relationship break up? Answer: the American kid, because children living with married parents in the United States have a higher probability of experiencing a break-up than do children living with unmarried parents in Sweden. That’s how high our break-up rates are.


Q: One of the main trends THE MARRIAGE-GO-ROUND discusses is that Americans have more long-term partners than the rest of the western world. Why do you think this is?

A: I think the reason is the nature of American culture, which is unlike the culture of any other country when it comes to marriage and personal life. Americans believe in two contradictory ideals. The first is the importance of marriage: we are more marriage-oriented than most other Western countries. The second is the importance of living a personally fulfilling life that allows us to grow and develop as individuals—call it individualism. Now, you can find other countries that place a high value on marriage, such as Italy where most children are born to married couples and there are fewer cohabiting relationships. And you can find countries that place a high value on individualism, such as Sweden. But only in the United States do you find both. So we marry in large numbers—we have a higher marriage rate than most countries. But we evaluate our marriages according to how personally fulfilling we find them. And if we find them lacking, we are more likely to end them. Then, because it’s so important to be partnered, we move in with someone else, and the cycle starts all over again.

Also, we start and end cohabiting relationships at an even higher rate. If you are living with someone outside of marriage, and you are personally unhappy, you are supposed to end the relationship. Our cohabiting relationships are shorter than in any other country. It’s not as though some Americans value marriage and others value individualism. Rather, we carry both ideals in our heads and switch between them without even realizing it. These ideals have been part of American culture since the colonial era. The early New England settlers believed that marriage was the center of civil society; but they also believed in individual initiative and, unlike the Church of England or the Catholic Church, they allowed divorce. ...

Q: Why is same-sex marriage so debated in the United States? How does this compare to other countries?

A: Same-sex marriage has been more of a battleground in the United States than in most other countries because marriage is more important to Americans than to people in other countries. Same-sex marriage is sometimes portrayed as a legal rights issue—the right to file taxes together, visit partners in the hospital, etc. Those rights are important, but that’s not the main issue. If the fight were only about legal rights, then civil unions would be sufficient. They are not sufficient to gay and lesbian activists in the United States because of the great prestige of marriage. The real issue is symbolic: who gets to wear the marriage badge. In some European countries, gay and lesbian activists are asking instead: why, at this late date, should we buy into the oppressive, archaic institution of marriage? But in the United States many advocates say that only a marriage ring guarantees first-class citizenship. And they are right, because marriage matters more here than elsewhere.

Labels: cohabitation, culture, divorce, gay marriage, Marriage

posted by Eve at 10:49 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Last week, Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage, setting off yet another round of celebration and hand-wringing in different quarters of American life. The debate over same-sex marriage -- showing so much intensity on both sides -- is but one sign that Americans take marriage very seriously indeed. From television specials featuring over-the-top Bridezilla weddings to the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative, which spends $150 million annually on marriage-related programs, no other Western nation devotes as much cultural energy, public policy or religious attention to matrimony as the U.S. And with approximately 90% of Americans marrying over the course of their lifetimes, the U.S. has the highest marriage rate of any Western country.

But there is a darker side to this exceptionalism, as Andrew J. Cherlin notes in "The Marriage-Go-Round," his incisive portrait of marriage in America. Virtually no other nation in the West compares with the U.S. when it comes to divorce, short-term co-habitation and single parenthood. As Mr. Cherlin documents, Americans marry and co-habit at younger ages, divorce more quickly and enter into second marriages or co-habiting unions faster than their counterparts elsewhere. In other words, Americans "step on and off the carousel of intimate relationships." ...

How did the U.S. reach this state of affairs -- in which marriage is almost universally desired and yet more fragile than ever before, with almost half of all first marriages ending in divorce court and a series of hybrid family forms adding confusion and instability to children's lives? Mr. Cherlin points to competing "models" or ideas of marriage. On the one hand, he notes, most Americans believe that marriage is the best social institution for bearing and rearing children and that marriage should be grounded in a permanent, faithful and loving relationship. On the other hand, Americans celebrate individualism more than people in other Western societies and so believe that they are entitled to make choices that maximize their personal happiness. When a marriage becomes unsatisfying, difficult or burdensome, according to this model, it can be dissolved -- it even should be dissolved.

Such contradictory impulses push the vast majority of Americans into marriage and then push a large minority out again when their dreams of marital bliss go unrealized. It does not help that Americans in recent years have come to see marriage as a symbol more than a covenant -- as a kind of "capstone" signaling that they have arrived at a certain position in the world, with a good job, a good résumé and now, it is hoped, a soulmate who will make them happy. Meanwhile, poor and working-class adults -- especially men -- lack the cushioning financial assets of their privileged counterparts, so they are even less likely to get married or stay married.

Labels: cohabitation, culture, divorce, Marriage, poverty

posted by Imapp Staff at 8:56 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The leader of the movement to ban same-sex marriage in Florida now wants to make it harder and more expensive for heterosexual couples to marry — and divorce.

Just as he says gay unions would undercut the institution of marriage, John Stemberger thinks the casual way people get married and the ease by which they can divorce threatens the foundation of society. His goal is to change that.

"Harder to get in and harder to get out," said Stemberger, head of the Orlando-based Florida Family Policy Council.

Stemberger's "Strong Marriages Campaign" is promoting a Premarital Preparation bill before the Florida Legislature that would add $100 to the state's marriage-license fee. Those who attend eight hours of premarital counseling would get their money back.

Money not returned to couples would go into a Marriage Education Trust Fund, which would provide grants to premarital counseling groups.

The Florida Senate's committee on Children, Families and Elder Affairs is scheduled to have a hearing today on the creation of the trust fund. ...

Critics contend Stemberger is using the state's budget crunch to push a conservative Christian religious ideology disguised as public policy. Most children living in poverty are not the products of divorce but of unwed mothers, said Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at New York University.

"There is no way that is going to make a dent in unwed childbirths," said Stacey, who has studied the stronger-marriage movement. "This is not going to save the state a dime."

The marriage trust fund, which would be administered by the Department of Children and Families, would funnel money into faith-based organizations that share Stemberger's ideology, Stacey said.

Labels: cohabitation, divorce, Judith Stacey, marriage counseling, marriage promotion, poverty

posted by Eve at 3:05 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...I do want to explain, in a serious way, for anyone who is seriously interested, what I mean about how and why the public meaning of marriage matters. Call it: the Amazing Power of the Culture.

What is culture? Sometimes we use that word as the opposite of economics or law. Here I mean something very specific. Culture, as James Davison Hunter put it, is the power to name reality.

In this sense, law is not the opposite of culture, but a particularly powerful player. What the law names as reality, is (in America at least) probably the single most powerful player in our shared reality.

If you doubt that, think about divorce for a minute. ...

When the law actually endorsed unilateral divorce, it changed the terms of everybody's marriage. Now the happily, romantically married may not notice this in practice. But not only the bad marriages, but the so-so marriages, the good-enough marriages were and are profoundly affected by the law — not only directly, but by the cultural changes in the public understanding of marriage that the law only partly caused and but certainly reinforced and institutionalized.

...I can maintain as a Catholic that my marriage is indissoluble. But if I or my husband wants a divorce, the law will consider my views, and even our original marriage agreement, irrelevant. I can maintain that I'm still married to him, even as the law divides my property, redefines his support obligations, gives him a legal right to separate me from my children for designated periods, and gives hearty consent to his right to engage in sex, bearing children, and marriage with someone else.

I know a few Catholics who have tried to maintain and act on in public the sacramental vision of reality (the purely religious view) after the law has endorsed and actualized their spouses' right to divorce. Such religious people come perilously close to appearing mad in their insistence that somehow they are still married to the obviously divorced spouse. (Isn't that what madness is — a private reality?)

So yes, if you follow the analogy to divorce, parents will still be able to teach their children their own views about what marriage is. But the law will be constantly repudiating that view in a number of public visible ways. Parents are having a very hard time fighting the progressive views of sexual culture, enshrined at law, in any number of ways. This will make it much harder.

When people say the "law is an educator," that's true, but it doesn't go far enough. In this case, the law is an arbiter of reality: Who is really married? Who is really divorced? Who is having an out-of-wedlock child? Who, for that matter, is committing adultery?

The law's power to name reality matters.

By the way, I do understand that is why the "name" matters to gay-marriage advocates. That's what makes this battle difficult to compromise. But all I ask, of the intellectual class at least, is they stop saying therefore that the defintion of marriage in law (which matters so much to Adam and Steve) won't matter at all to anyone else.

Labels: culture, divorce, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 2:52 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...To respond to Maggie’s second point, serious proponents of gay marriage should offer legislation which at the same time as it calls for state recognition of same-sex marriage strengthens the tort laws she mentions agove. Not just that, they could promote legislation eliminating no-fault divorce, making divorces more difficult to obtain.

It would be nice to see gay marriage advocates not only pushing for state recognition of same-sex marriage, but also for laws strengthening the institution itself. It would show that they’re serious about the object of their activism, that they understand marriage to be far more than just another in a series of “rights” designed to further “full equality.”

Labels: divorce, divorce reform, gay marriage

posted by Imapp Staff at 5:17 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...But while it's easy to hate on divorce, let's not forget that it's a wonderful institution that not too long ago Americans were fighting to make more easily accessible. It gets people out of abusive (both emotionally and physically) relationships and is often a sign of people changing or growing further apart. For some people who marry young it's part of emotionally maturing.

And, most importantly, no-fault divorce is part of living in a free society where both men and women are able to choose how they want to live. Because no matter how much we might think it's a great idea to force people to stay in a marriage they don't want to be in, they are the ones who should ultimately make that decision, not the government.

Covenant marriage appears at first glance like a solution in search of a problem. If both people in a couple really, really wanted to make their marriage difficult to get out of, they'd simply impose on themselves the rules that come with covenant marriage.

A couple in a regular marriage can say, "Neither of us is going to jail, no one committed adultery, and neither of us is physically abusing the other. So, even though we'd very much like to divorce, we're not going to." ...

Same-sex marriage is about promoting sexual autonomy and letting people decide for themselves how they want to live their lives, not about sending same-sex couples back to the 1950's where divorce was a dirty word.

Covenant marriage is the ideological opposite of what we should be doing, which is expanding the options people have so that they can choose the relationship rights and recognitions they need to protect the families they already have.

Labels: autonomy, covenant marriage, culture, divorce, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 6:17 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

In a brief post the other day, I made a modest proposal: gay activists should offer a deal to opponents of gay marriage: if you support gay marriage, we'll support efforts to reduce the divorce rate.

I wanted to unpack this idea a bit. First, some opponents of same sex marriage say their big fear is the slippery slope toward a weakening of the institution of marriage. Gay marriage would lead to polygamy etc. Gays have correctly pointed out that many other factors are far more likely to hurt marriage than same sex unions. Indeed, writers like Andrew Sullivan have persuasively argued that this drive for same sex marriage really assumes a reverence for the institution of marriage, something that ought to be encouraged, not discouraged.

So, my idea challenges gay activists: if it's true that you revere the institution of marriage, put your energy and clout toward helping to strengthen it in a variety of ways (more on the particulars below).

Then, it challenges anti-gay marriage forces: if you are truly concerned mostly about the future of marriage, here's a way you can insure that gay marriage will actually strengthen not harm that institution.

Of course what this potential offer would also do is smoke out those gay marriage opponents who have used the sanctity of marriage argument as an excuse for their real motivation, which is to deny gays equal status.

What could actually strengthen the institution of marriage? Below the fold I list several policy ideas but symbolically the most dramatic step would be for gay marriage activist to endorse the concept of Covenant Marriage. This is an idea promoted by religious conservatives and usually mocked by folks on the left. The idea was to give couples a choice between two types of marriage licenses, regular and a "Covenant Marriage." Those who chose the latter would commit to premarital counseling, emphasizing the seriousness of the institution and agreeing to get marital counseling when troubles arise." Can you imagine if there was a voluntary movement of gays to encourage the idea and indeed for some of them to choose Covenant Marriage for themselves?

Here are some other examples of ideas to preserve marriage included in a book by religious conservatives Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson. Yes, that's the same Tony Perkins who runs the Family Research Council and opposes gay marriage -- but before gay activists reject anything out of his mouth on those grounds consider some of these ideas with open mind. If you didn't know who was proposing them, wouldn't you support these ideas?

Labels: covenant marriage, divorce, gay marriage, waiting periods

posted by Eve at 6:05 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The trial court cited the “numerous post-judgment divorce proceedings” and lawsuits filed by Marc Herschfus against Tonya Herschfus. Tonya Herschfus filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and instigated Marc Herschfus’s arrest on a Friend of the Court (FOC)bench warrant. Jacob was the subject of four Child Protective Services referrals and investigations and was subjected to numerous medical examinations, psychological counseling, and an interview regarding potential sexual abuse.

Labels: divorce

posted by Jennifer Roback Morse at 12:56 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT