Chapter 09 - Marriage and Other Long-Term Relationships
Before we speak of marriage, cohabitation and other forms of creating relationships, we should address an important personal level and larger social level factor of our United States and world population and its diversity. As of the writing of this 3rd edition there were 7,669,613,619 (that’s 7.69 billion) people living in the world and 330,071,281 (that’s 330 million) of them were citizens of the United States of America (See U.S. Census U.S. and World Population Clock, retrieved 6:55 and 36 seconds in the am of 5 August, 2020 from SOURCE )! I don’t typically list the time down to how many seconds when citing. But at this Website, the numbers increase constantly even during worldwide pandemics. If you go to this site, you will see how fast the numbers are increasing. The U.S.A. and the world are growing rapidly and there are many different people in our country and in this world. The world is filled with literally billions of people who are different or diverse in some way that you as an individual. Some families are polygamous in various parts of the world, some are monogamous, and some are cohabiting. Some see many children born outside of marriage.
May I share a teaching activity I use? I used to ask my Sociology of Race and Ethnicity students (about 150 per section) to write down the top 1 or 2 traits about other people that they really admire and then to write the top 1 or 2 traits about other people that they really get annoyed by. I would then collect all their lists and have my teaching assistants quickly count up the admirable traits and then the annoying traits and create a list for each ranked most common to least. Once tabulated and rank, I took significant amount of remaining class time and walked my students through a sympathy-building and empathy-awareness classroom activity.
To begin with, I instructed the students that as I read each of the most commonly reported admirable traits one by one, I would pause and have anyone who felt they possessed this specific trait to stand. I asked them to look around with each trait at how many (or how few) other students shared that specific trait in common with them. At first, it was sort of fun to see the students awkwardly yet courageously rise when I read their trait. Eventually, almost every one of my students stood up at least once. Standing up for admirable traits was the easy part of this activity. It sometimes took a bit more encouragement to have students stand when I read the more common annoying trait, but they came to trust that I was not shaming or humiliating them and it was safe. By the end of that list of traits, most students had stood at least once for each list.
I asked my students to share with the class what they had observed during the activity. Many had believed they were so unique that they were the only one in the class with their specific traits. They were pleasantly surprised to see how many people shared things in common with them. Other students noticed that they might have a trait that really bothered another student in the classroom. One might say that they felt some sympathy for other students who had less than desirable annoying traits (sympathy is a form of pity toward others). I would eventually point out that I saw almost every student stand up at least once for having an admirable trait and at least once for having an annoying trait. I would point out that some of them may have increased their ability to feel empathy which is the ability to share the feelings another might have. To help them realize the nature of our modern diverse society I would teach them that “everywhere you go, there is probably someone who would find at least one of your personal traits to be admirable and at the same time someone else who may find one of them to be annoying!” I believe this is true of you as well.
What do we do in such a large national and world society where we likely both annoy and could be admired by at least one and be annoying to at least one other? The answer is to learn to try and tolerate those with differing cultures, religions, lifestyles, and even differing personal traits. Tolerating is the minimal level of living respectfully in modern society. If you tolerate others you can work together, study together and live in neighborhoods together in peace. Feeling sympathy (pity) for others helps us to tolerate them more. But, there is a vast divide between liberal and cultural values that appears to be growing more and more contentious. Many recent studies show not only a lack of tolerance but an actual level of contempt for those who hold opposing views from our own.
In past years, tolerating others was enough. Today we may need much more concerted effort to respect and feel empathy for people who are politically different from us, our family and friends. You can respect others in your classroom, your workplace, your neighborhoods and even broader society. If you feel at this point that you really don’t want to respect others with opposing political views, you might be just like most members of our society. Sympathy and toleration is a good start. The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. taught the U.S. how to change the way people of color were treated so it conformed to the proclaimed principles written into the U.S. Constitution.
On the website maintained by The King Center, King’s philosophy of 3 evils of racism and how individuals and the entire country could act to overcome the destructive force of hate, contempt, mistreatment of others, violence, and bigotry. (see the “The King Philosophy Triple Evils”, Retrieved on 27 July 2020 from SOURCE ). King did not just ask Americans to tolerate (simply respect) people of color. He asked America to change and improve their attitudes and beliefs and by doing so they will stop the prejudice, blame, contempt for, and mistreatment of people who were different. This Website goes into much more detail than we will here, but just to summarize his recommended strategies for changes he urged all to act nonviolently; become compassionate toward others; seek true friendships with people who are different from ourselves; choose to love rather than hate; and try to defeat the “evil” people do and not the defeat the people themselves. What does that mean to you here as far as studying marriage and other long-term relationships?
It primarily means that at one level we should at least tolerate people who are different. As mentioned in Chapter 4, you have to work respectfully in such a way that you don’t violate federal and state laws that protect you and others based on their “protected class” status. Protected Classes. Protected classes=are categories or “Classes” of members of society who cannot be discriminated against based on their particular categorical or class identification. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, with the support of Federal and State laws enforce workplace protections of U.S. employees on the bases of these protected classes: race, color, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, and medical/genetic information (See EEOC ). Often these protections include protections against discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment and or retaliation against employees who file complaints against co-workers, managers and other institutional employees. This means at least at work, people cannot mistreat you nor can you mistreat them for difference that exist between you. These same rules and laws are enforced on your campus as well.
What about at home, in public gatherings, in the community, or even in a church, synagogue, or temple? There are no laws to make you feel empathy or build sincere friendships or even feel any compassion if you don’t want to. I’m happy about that. With all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Federal and State laws and employment policies; criminal codes that define hate crimes and the severe punishments if found guilty of committing them; we still have innocent Black men like George Floyd being murdered in broad daylight by a White Police officer. We can’t make people behave even if punishments will be applied when they want to.
But, what if others are pressuring you change the way you believe about your values of what is right and what is wrong? Simply put, anyone trying to pressure or force another to give up their own beliefs would be in the wrong. It is a common myth that all of us in the United States have to somehow believe the same and even a worse myth that those who do believe that way must force others to conform. If you look at those who might hold you in contempt as being deeply flawed because of your values you might notice that their arrogant perspective bares striking similarities to what King defined as one of the three evils of racism. I’m pasting part of King’s teaching and added bracket phrase “[set/s of beliefs] next to “race” so you can see more of the similarities. King taught “It is the arrogant assertion that one race [set of beliefs] is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races [sets of beliefs] must kneel in submission (The King Center, ibid; NOTE: this section of the information cites “Based on Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in Why We Can’t Wait, Penguin Books, 1963”). I’m simply inviting you to consider this approach to people who are different than you in any way. There is no force or compulsion here. Sociologists seek to study rather than judge and most sincerely try to be objective in their research so that they can most accurately do what Sociologists do as researchers and professors. My invitation is for you to apply the Sociological objectivity, especially as we discuss lifestyles that may differ from your own. We will also discuss the expanding divide between liberals and conservatives and how legal marriage definitions have widened it in recent decades.
As was mentioned in Chapter 6, a couple is simply a pair of people who identify themselves in terms of belonging together, trusting one another, and having a unique relationship, separate from all others. A "We" is close to the same thing, yet it focuses on the relationship as an entity in itself. A "We" as shown in Figure 1 is a married couple, but it can also include cohabiters or other intimate non-married couple arrangements. This is a relationship that is not intimately connected to any other relationships at the same profound level as these two partners are connected to one another.
Figure 1. The "We" As It Relates to a Married Couple
Here is a metaphor: A "We" is much like a vehicle (relationship) that two people purchased together. Both have to put in maintenance. Both have to care for it and treat it in such a way that it runs for a long time. Sometimes, spouses or partners attack their mates in such a way that the other's trust is harmed or damaged. A "We" is the social and emotional boundary a couple establishes when they decide to become a couple. This boundary includes only the husband and wife. It purposefully excludes the children, extended family, co-workers, and friends. Most couples who establish a strong marital bond have successfully distinguished themselves as a "We" and partially disengaged from the existing relationships of child, grandchild, best friends, etc. That is not to say that you cut your parents, relatives, and other friends off. You just have to establish a new exclusive intimacy that only includes you and your spouse (See Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, 1995, The Good Marriage, Warner Pub.) There has been a catchy phrase used to help couples improve their marriage relationship and perhaps even stay married longer. It sort of goes like “Marriage requires less of “Me” and lots more of “We” (I’m not really sure where this started, but have found variations of it in many different contexts).
This also means making certain things into Spouse-only Issues, which are the decisions, advice, and discussion that are held exclusively between partners and intentionally NOT between other family and friends. This might include types of birth control, how to run a budget, sexual techniques and practices, who might be at fault in an argument, etc. If a couple marries in their late 20s, then they have a lifelong history of intimate help-seeking and advice-giving relationships with others. These may continue as long as the help-seeking behavior doesn't violate the intimate agreements of confidentiality for each spouse or partner. I must emphasize how crucial it is to form the "We" so that married couples avoid the damaging intrusions of family and friends into their new marriage.
Marriage is the formal, state licensed and legal union between people whereas cohabitation is informal and based on simply sharing a residence. Internationally and in certain U.S. political regions, a man and another man or a woman and another woman can be legally recognized as a married couple. What are typical marriage structures? The U.S. and worldwide culturally preferred marriage type today is monogamy. Monogamy is the marriage form permitting only one spouse at a time. Almost all marriages in the U.S. have been monogamous since the original colonies in the 1600s. Monogamy implies a 1:1 relationship and is typically desired both by married couples and by opposite and same-sex cohabiters.
Cohabitation is the heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual moving in together of two partners without going through the formalities of legal marriage. Although similar in form and function, cohabitating couples live differently in many significant day-to-day aspects when compared to married couples. Also, many cohabiting couples eventually choose to marry, but their risk of divorce is higher than among couples that never cohabited. Cohabitation will be discussed more below, but it has been increasingly popular over the last 30 years.
Polygamy is multiple spouses at the same time. In the United states it was practiced for a few decades by members of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Mormons." But, they ceased polygamy in 1890 and any current Mormons who try to marry into polygamous relationships are excommunicated. (see “manifesto”). There are groups who split off from the Mormons who continue the practice of polygamy using century-old themes of Mormon doctrine and culture.
Polygamy is a marriage form permitting more than one spouse at the same time. Polygyny is marriage form permitting more than one wife at the same time and is the most common form of polygamy in the world's history. Polygamy is still common and legal in many African, Middle-Eastern, Muslim, and Indian nations. It is a deep part of China's history, and prior to World War II it was common for a Chinese man to have multiple wives and many children.
A former student of mine came to class and spoke to me about her polygamous father. He raised her in a group that broke away from the Mormon congregation in the 1890s and formed its own polygamy-based religion. She came to guest lecture to my class and described her 45 siblings, 32 brothers- and sisters-in-law, 180 cousins, 32 second cousins, and typical meals at home of 40-53 family members per meal three times per day. Figure 2 shows her rough-sketched family genogram.
My student’s father biologically fathered about 46 children. He married his 16-year-old first wife in 1948 and had 16 children with her. Eleven years later he married his 21-year-old second wife and had 13 children with her. Eight years later he married an 18-year-old third wife and fathered 10 children with her. He then was asked to marry a 36-year-old divorcee who had 6 children from another marriage, and they had one child together. He then married a 26-year-old and her 45-year-old sister, who were widowed from the same husband. They together brought in 3 children from other marriages. He had 6 more children with his sixth wife. About 9 children are unrelated but consider him to be a fatherly figure. Interestingly, only 3 of all these children chose to marry into polygamous relationships. When I asked my student why, she simply replied, "It's just too much work these days and it's not worth it to them."
Her most peculiar adjustment at our university was learning to date guys her age. In her culture, 20-somethings typically looked to marry 30- to 50-somethings (I know it seems gross to us, but it is their cultural way). She felt that guys her age were like annoying brothers. Two of her brothers have multiple girlfriends on and off again but have no marriage relationships. She also said that the wives in her family called each other sister wives, and the first wife had the most authority. She felt that it was a cool thing to have 6 mothers, although she made it clear that 2 were not very affectionate.
Figure 2. The Polygamist Family Genogram of Ron's Student.
Polyandry is a marriage form permitting more than one husband at the same time. This is historically and currently rare, and if or when it was practiced, it often included the marriage of one wife to a set of brothers, who all then had sexual access to the wife. Polyandry was found among some Pacific Island cultures, in Africa, Asia, Europe, South America and other parts of the world (see Wikipedia page at SOURCE.
What if a person marries, divorces, marries, divorces, etc.? Serial Monogamy or Serial Polygamy is the process of establishing an intimate marriage or cohabiting relationship that eventually dissolves and is followed by another intimate marriage or cohabiting relationship that eventually dissolves, etc., in a series. So, polygamists have simultaneous multiple spouses while serial monogamists or serial polygamists have multiple spouses in a sequence of relationships. Millions of U.S adults will experience serial marriages and divorces. It often amazes me how much we love marriage in the United States. Many marry then divorce yet still want to be married again. Many others who suffered through their parents' unhealthy marriages and divorces also want to marry, knowing first-hand how risky that might be.
Traditional roles of men and women influence how the power and marriage work out in society. Typically and throughout history families have been Patriarchal Families, meaning that males have more power and authority than females and that rights and inheritances typically pass from fathers to sons. It should be mentioned that many family power structures still lean heavily toward male power.
Matriarchal Families are families in which females have more power and authority than males and rights and inheritances pass from mothers to daughter and sons. In matriarchal families, the mother is not only the social and emotional force of the family but also the economic force. More and more in the U.S., families are leaning toward Egalitarian Families, which are families with power and authority more fairly distributed between husband and wife.
Marriage: Legally Registered by the State and Recognized by the Federal Government
Centuries and millennia ago, fathers, clan or kinship leaders, religious leaders, and community members had the rights to marriage that are now claimed by the state or nation. True, states don't get involved in the spiritual or physical union, they just license it or legalize it the same way they license drivers or certify the legal sale of property. Almost every year in the U.S., there are about two legally sanctioned state marriages for everyone legally sanctioned state divorce decree. In 2015, the U.S. qualifications for legal marriages changed quite dramatically!
On 26 June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.
This ruling essentially ended a 15 or so yearlong battle the U.S. experienced in what may prove to be the most historically divisive social issue in modern U.S. History. In Chapter 1, I briefly discussed how Andrew J. Cherlin identified the current state of marriage and what led up to it in very unique ways. Cherlin observed that of all the wealthier nations that have now legalized marriage between same-sex couples, the United States was the only country that had an extensive political and cultural battle about it. (see Cherlin, A. (2010). “The Marriage Go Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today” Vintage Pub. 1st Ed ISBN 978-0307386380). There are many who see the Supreme Court ruling as being an attack on their way of life while others see it as a civil rights victory that grants all members of society the same treatment under the law.
In the United States there was an already widening gap between the liberal and conservative members of society. Although the battle over legalizing same-sex marriage is not the only factor playing into that increasing divide, it was an intensely battle over issue that would have divided the country more regardless of any Supreme Court ruling on the matter. For example, PewResearch ran a few reports documenting this trend and have some interactive graphics available on the 10 questions they use in their surveys to place U.S. survey respondents on either the continuum of “Consistently Liberal, Median Democrat, Mixed, Median Republican, or Consistently Conservative” categories. Figures 3 shows the 1994, 2014, and 2017 distributions and clearly illustrates the migration away from one another. Again, in 1994 overlap where most of society agreed on many social issues and there was a great deal of Overlap found in their categories.
The Pew representative indicate that you can socially isolate yourself from others whose views you disagree with and never have to interact with them. After the 2016 Presidential election and prior to the 2020 presidential election, (as of 24 July 2020) the 2 sides must be further apart than even seen in 2017…we will have to wait for PewResearch to repeat their study.
Figure 3. PewResearch 1994, 2014, & 2017 Survey Conservative and Liberal Polarization and Disimilarity
Many in the U.S. report less and less trust in the news media, unless the news media shares news to support their own beliefs. For example, Gallup (2019) showed a trend analysis of their Figure 4 shows the trend of decline dropping from 53 percent stating they have a “Great deal and a Fair Amount” of trust in news reporting “fully accurate and fairly.” It’s not low across the political spectrum. There were 69 percent of Democrats; 36 percent of Independents; and only 15 percent of Republicans reporting trust. In 2016 Republicans hit an all-time record low of 32 percent trust which has steadily declined since then to its current all-time low (15%). Figure 3 shows the same 1997-2019 Trusts levels breaking out results for Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
It becomes apparent that the biases in major news network coverage of President Trump 2016 through 2019 correspond with a sharp increase in Democrat Party members levels of Trust (2016 was only 51% and 2018 was 76% (an all-time high for this party) and back down to 69% 2019). It also corresponds to the Republican Party members (decline down to 15% in 2019) and Independents decline down to 36% in 2019).
Figure 4. Gallup Trends of U.S. “Trust in Mass Media” by Political Party Affiliation 1997-2019
President Trump supports conservative values and conservatives feel less trust in the media because of their persistant pre-election and post-election treatment of him. Since being elected in 2016, a variety of studies have found that President Donald J. Trump negative news coverage has been the most biased in U.S. history. Agencies that study the media and the types of coverage in the many forms of news that exist, provide very similar analysis. Please remember my efforts at being neutral that permeates this entire textbook. I am not supporting or discounting any political party or candidate here. I am trying to show the potential power collective media messages can have on a society.
The Investor’s Business Daily online reported in 2018 that the major news agencies had been found to give 92 percent negative coverage and only 8 percent positive coverage between 2016 and 2018. They reported that:
“For its report, the Media Research Center did a lot of visual spadework. It viewed some 1,007 evening news stories about the Trump White House on ABC, CBS and NBC from June 1 to Sept. 30. That's the equivalent of about 32.7 hours of coverage, by TV standards an eternity of news time.
What they found was, as Trump himself might say, sad: "Over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive." (see IBD 10 Oct. 2018) “Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage Of His Presidency: Study” retrieved 18 July 2020 from SOURCE
A newspaper study stated that from March 4 through 31 may the news coverage from ABC, CBS, and NBC News casts was 95 percent negative against trump but, specifically in May, 2020 it jumped to 99.5 percent negative (see Graham, T. (15 June, 2020) “Media ups the ante on negative coverage of Trump” retrieved 18 July 2020 from SOURCE
After PewResearch published its 2014 data, PBS News Hour ran a YouTube video identifying the 2014 trends found with the results indicating that Liberals and Conservatives, don’t live in the same areas, don’t associate together, less likely to compromise and form social relationships more on political similarities than they did in the past (See Pew Study finds Americans more polarized than ever, launched 12 June 2014 and retrieved on 18 July, 2020 from SOURCE). Things had grown even more divided as of 2017. The report also identified how members of opposing political views hold the others in contempt. Earlier in this chapter I discussed the way we can utilize Martin Luther King’s principles of changing the way we tolerate, but even more the way we develop the skills to feel empathy, establish sincere friendships, view and see others with respect, and feel compassion for those not like ourselves. This divide suggests that so far liberal and conservative members of society are not at this ideal level of treating other people this much more than at the level of simply tolerating them.
For example, if a liberal person held a conservative person (or people) in contempt and sees that person as less than human, it would fit what King (1963) called “evil” when he talked about racism. Similarly, if a conservative person held a liberal person in contempt and saw that person as being less than human and morally corrupted, it would also fit King’s definition of “evil.” Many are holding the others in contempt. The answer is not in pretending to feel differently than we feel or to demand that others change to our way of seeing things. The answer is in each of us (each of you) deciding that regardless of how you are treated or mistreated, you will refuse to hate the person, but focus on the evil that person may be perpetrating against you. It is very difficult to feel this way if you watch daily national news reports (as of August 2020) which are filled with this hateful and contemptuous rhetoric against society’s members who do not share the common values of that news network. I don’t have the answer to uniting the nation. The year 2020 is a national presidential election (happening in the midst of the worst global pandemic in 100 years). No matter how the election either supports or does not support a candidate for President, the presidential election will even further divide the United States society. The fundamental question for us is the choice we decide to make on how we treat others.
The U.S. Census Bureau conducts annual surveys of the U.S. population and publishes them as the Current Population Surveys. Table 1 represents the numbers and percentages of 2019 and 2011 U.S. Family Types. You will notice that marrieds comprised the largest proportion of family types in 2019 and in 2011. Marriage is still the marital status preferred the most and it might include first marriages, second or later marriages (remarriages, heterosexual or same-sex marriages inter-racial or inter-ethnic marriages, traditional or conservative marriages. Both the number and the percentage of marriages increased from 2011 to 2019. The widowed were fairly constant with few changes. The divorced and separated increased in numbers but not in percentages. The never married singles also increased in numbers and percentages from 2011 to 2019.
Table 1. U.S. Family Types Numbers & Percentages 2019 and (2011)
| Types | 2019 & (2011) Numbers in Millions | 2019 & (2011) Percentages |
|---|---|---|
| Married | 137 & (123.9) | 53% & (52%) |
| Widowed | 14.2 & (14.2) | 6% & (6%) |
| Divorced & Seperated | 40.3 & (30.0) | 11% & (12.6%) | Never Married-Single | 85.2 & (75.8) | 32 % & (30%) |
Marital status composition is changing for the entire society as well. What do U.S. Census data show the changes in proportions of marital status for men and for women to be between 1950 and 2019? Look at Figure 5 below to see the U.S. trend of percentages of U.S. Men’s marital status types between the years 1950-2019. It shows that the most common marital status is still married (down from a high of about 70% in 1960 to about 53% in 2019). The rising trend is clearly among the never married singles which rose from about 26 percent in 1950 to about 36% in 2019). More and more the Generation Y and Z are delaying marriage in the U.S.
Figure 5. Men’s Percentage Marital Status Proportions 1950-2019
Look at Figure 6 below to see the U.S. trend of percentages of Women’s marital status types between the years 1950-2019. It shows that the most common marital status is still married (down from a high of about 68% in 1960 to about 51% in 2019). The rising trend is clearly among the never married singles which rose from about 20 percent in 1950 to about 30% in 2019). Again, more and more women among the Generation Y and Z are delaying marriage in the U.S.
Figure 6. Women’s Percentage Marital Status Proportions 1950-2019
Can we understand why some marriages endure and so many others end in divorce? Of course, Robert and Jeanette Lauer are a husband-wife team who have not only studied the family but have written a college textbook called Marriage and Family: The Quest for Intimacy (2009, Cengage). They studied the commitment and endurance of married couples and identified 29 factors among couples who had been together for 15 years or more. They found that both husbands and wives reported as their number 1 and 2 factors that "My spouse is my best friend and I like my spouse as a person" (see Robert Lauer, 'Til Death Do Us Part: How Couples Stay Together, 1986 and also Google "Lauer and Lauer" and "Kerr"). The Lauers also studied the levels of commitment couples had to their marriage. The couples reported that they were in fact committed to and supportive of not only their own marriage but marriage as an institution.
Irreconcilable differences are common to marriage, and the basic strategy to deal with them is to negotiate as much as is possible, accept the irresolvable differences, and finally live happily with them. Keeping a positive outlook on your marriage is essential. As was mentioned above, as long as a couple is married they are technically at risk of divorce. But, not all divorce risks are created equally. Newly married couples in their first 10 years together have a great deal of adjustment to work through, especially during the first 36 months. They have new boundaries and relationships to establish. They have to get to know one another and negotiate agreements about the: who, what, why, and how of their day-to-day lives together. The longer they stay together, the lower their risks of divorce. Most U.S. marriages last a long time (see discussion below).
Individuals who marry in their teens (even 17, 18, & 19) have much higher rates of marital dissolution. Some argue that this might be because the individuals continue to change up until about age 25-26, when they are fully psychologically mature. Try to remember who you thought was attractive your senior year in high school. Would you still find them attractive today? Some who marry in their teens actually outgrow one another, including their loss of attraction that stems from their changed tastes. Couples who married as teenagers must unite as they take into account their ongoing maturation and change in tastes. When marital data is collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, it often shows that those marrying in their teen years have the highest rates of having ever been divorced. Perhaps the divorce rate is lower than before because people are waiting longer before they marry. Figure 7 shows the US median age at marriage between the years 1890 and 2019.For both men (median age was 29.0) and women (median age was 28.6) The median age at marriage is higher than ever recorded for the United States.
Figure 7. US Median Age at Marriage for Men and Women 1890 and 2019
As is mentioned above, most unwed mothers end up marrying the biological father of their baby. These marriages end in divorce more often than marriages for non-pregnant newlyweds. The existence of children at the time of the wedding is often associated with higher divorce rates.
Family Scientists have borrowed from the physics literature a concept called Entropy, which is roughly defined as the principle that matter tends to decay and reduce, toward its simplest parts. For example, a new car, if parked in a field and ignored, would eventually decay and rot. A planted garden, if left unmaintained, would be overrun with weeds and pests and yield low if any crop.
Marital Entropy is the principle that if a marriage does not receive preventative maintenance and upgrades it will move towards decay and break down. Couples who take ownership of their marriage and who realize that marriage is not a state of constant bliss (nothing really is) and that it often requires much work will experience more stability and strength when they nurture their marriage. They treat their marriage like a nice car and become committed to preventing breakdowns rather than waiting to repair them. These couples read and study experts like Gottman, Cherlin, Popenoe, Amato, Hawkins, and others who have focused their research on how to care for the marriage, acknowledging the propensity relationships have to decay if unattended.
Many individuals struggle to completely surrender their single status. They mentally remain on the marriage market in case "someone better than their current spouse comes along." Norval Glenn in 1991 argued that many individuals see marriage as a temporary state while they keep an eye open for someone better. "More honest vows would often be 'as long as we both shall love' or 'as long as no one better comes along'" (p. 268). Glenn gets at the core of the cultural values associated with risks of divorcing. (See Norval D. Glenn, "The Recent Trend in Marital Success in the United States," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53(2): May 1991, p. 261-270.)
One recent study published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics looked at a scientifically obtained sample of the US population using a longitudinal tracking survey to follow their marital histories of those born in the years 1980 to 1984. They reported on the partner status of people who had reached the age of 33 in the US and showed the difference between men and women and between those with various levels of educational attainment. Figure 8 shows table BLS provided which states:
“Fifty percent of Americans born from 1980 to 1984 were married at age 33. Another 17 percent were cohabiting (unmarried and living with a partner), and 33 percent were single (not married and not living with a partner). Women were significantly more likely than men to be married at age 33 and less likely to be single. By their 33rd birthday, 53 percent of women were married, 30 percent were single, and 17 percent were cohabiting. By comparison, 46 percent of men were married at age 33, while 36 percent were single and 18 percent were cohabiting. Women were also more likely than men to be married at each level of educational attainment.
At age 33, people with higher levels of education were more likely to be married and less likely to be cohabiting than those with lower levels of education. At the time of their 33rd birthday, 32 percent of high school dropouts, 42 percent of high school graduates with no college, 49 percent of people with some college or an associate degree, and 60 percent of college graduates were married. Twenty-eight percent of those with less than a high school diploma were cohabiting, compared with only 13 percent of those with a bachelor's degree and higher.” (BLS (30 JUNE, 2020) “60 percent of college graduates born from 1980 to 1984 were married at age 33” retrieved 5 august 2020 from SOURCE
FIGURE 8. Bureau Of Labor Statistics Partner Status Of Those Born In U.S. 1980-1984 By Educational Attainment And Gender
It is realistic to assume that you will likely have an overall positive marriage that is likely to be a rewarding and enjoyable relationship. There is a catch though. Your marriage will be as positive and rewarding as each of you chooses it to be. The days of traditional marriage being supported by other social institutions such as: schools, religion, government, media, economy, education, and technology are long since gone (if they ever were fully supportive of it is still under debate). The responsibility for a rewarding and happy relationship, in which ever form you decide to experience it, depends almost exclusively upon your personal-level, ongoing, persistent, proactive, and devoted efforts toward the quality of the relationship.
Be hopeful and positive on the quality and duration of your marriage, because the odds are still in your favor. You've probably seen commercials where matchmaking websites strut their success in matching people to one another. There have been a few criticisms of online marital enhancement services, but millions of people have used them. Along, with DVDs, talk CDs, self-help books, and seminars, there are many outlets for marital enhancement available to couples who seek them. Very few know that there is now a website that offers support to marrieds who want to be proactive and preventative in their relationship.
Doing your homework cannot be emphasized enough in the mate-selection process. The old adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" truly does apply to mate selection. Taking your time, understanding yourself, waiting until you are 20-something or older, and finding a good friend in your spouse can make all the difference in the marital experience you have. Keep in mind that very few people marry someone they meet as strangers (even though I did). Most of us end up marrying someone we find through our social networks, such as work, campus, dorms, frats and sororities, friends of friends, and other relationship-based connections. If you are female, there are an abundance of males because the country currently has a Marriage Squeeze, which is a shortage of males or females in the marriage market. There are 10-14 extra U.S. men for every 100 women in the prime marriage years. This has been the case since the 1980s (Web Search on "U.S. Marriage Squeeze").
Marriage is still very popular among U.S. adults, in part because it does offer many rewards that unmarried people don't enjoy. A sociologist named Linda Waite co-wrote a book with Maggie Gallagher called The Case For Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (2001, Doubleday). As its title implies, this book summarizes basic trends that have been found among married people for decades. Marriage has become socially controversial in part because of the intense political efforts to legalize marriage for same-sex couples. Regardless of your moral position on the issue of same-sex marriage, you can see the political quest for it as an indicator of just how rewarding it is to be legally a "married couple."
There are numerous studies and books on the benefits of marriage to married individuals. Table 2 lists 10 categories of these known benefits for you to consider.
Table 2. Ten Benefits of Being Married in Contrast to Being Single
- Better physical and emotional health
- More wealth and income
- Positive social status
- More and safer sex
- Lifelong continuity of intimate relationships
- Safer circumstances for children
- Longer life expectancy
- Lower odds of being crime victims
- Enhanced legal and insurance rights and benefits (tax, medical, and inheritance)
- Higher self-reported happiness
Keep in mind as you think about this, that a toxic marriage has never been universally shown to be better than being unmarried or never married. It would be unwise to marry carelessly. It would also be unwise to think that once you marry you are at the end of your problems. A newlywed once said to her mother, "Now that I'm married, I'm at the end of all my problems." Her mother wisely replied, "Which end, dear?" Marriage requires preventative, proactive, consistent, and timely maintenance to be rewarding and satisfying. The bottom line is that the burden of your marital quality falls to you and your spouse.
Cohabitation has been studied extensively for the last three decades, especially the propensity (likelihood) of cohabiters eventually marrying their partner. Clear findings consistently show that cohabiting and marriage are two different creatures and that economics play a major role in the transition from cohabitation to marriage.
There has been a marked increase of non-married cohabiting couples over the last few decades which PewResearch reported is continuing on the rise as of 2019. Pew Research reported in as of 2017, 50 percent of adults had ever married and 59 percent had ever cohabited. This is changed from their 2002 findings that about 60 percent had ever married and only 54 percent had ever cohabited. PewResearch also reported that from 1995 to 2019 the share of adults who are living with an unmarried partner has risen from 3% to 7%.” The report also noted that 78 percent of young adults gave an indication of approval for a couple cohabiting (compared to only 36% of 65 and older adults giving approval to cohabitation). (Marriage and Cohabitation in the U.S., 6 Nov. 2019 retrieved 1 July 2020 from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/11/06/marriage-and-cohabitation-in-the-u-s/ ) Interestingly, the same report evaluated results from PewResearch surveys and found out that the majority of U.S. adults who cohabit and those who are married expressed a great deal of trust in their partner or spouse. But the married adults expressed more trust than the cohabiting ones in their spouse/partner’s: being faithful to them (84% Mar. & only 71% Cohab); acting in their best interest (74% Mar. & only 58% Cohab.); always telling the truth (68% Mar. & only 52% Cohab.); and handling money responsibly (56% Mar. & only 40% Cohab.).
When asked why they cohabited, they replied: “love” (90% Mar. & only 73% Cohab.); “companionship” (86% Mar. & only 61% Cohab.); “wanted to make a formal commitment” (63% Mar. & only 63% Cohab.); “it made sense financially” (38% Mar. & only 13% Cohab.); “they wanted to have children someday” (31% Mar. & only 14% Cohab.); “it was convenient” (37% Mar. & only 10% Cohab.); and “wanted to test the relationship” (23% Mar. & only 23% Cohab.). Figure 9 shows the PewResearch reports diagram of U.S. cohabitation rates between 1995 and 2018. These have flattened in recent years (there is not a real increase or decrease for most age groups).
Figure 9. PewResearch Diagram of U.S. Cohabitation Rates* 1995-2018
In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that there were also 7,845,000 million heterosexual cohabiters and about 687,000 same-sex cohabiters (retrieved 6 June 2014 from America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012, P20-570, Tables 3 & 7). But, in 2017, Gallup reported that Same-sex cohabitation had declined from 12.8 percent before the Supreme Court Ruled in favor of Same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 26 June 2015) down to only 6.6 percent by 2017. Why the change? The same Gallup report found an that there were about 10.2 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT) adults who were legally married to a same sex spouse. The report stated that:
“Two years after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states could not prohibit same-sex marriages, 10.2% of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) adults in the U.S. are married to a same-sex spouse. That is up from 7.9% in the months prior to the Supreme Court decision in 2015, but only marginally higher than the 9.6% measured in the first year after the ruling.” (see Jones, J. M., (22 June 2017) “In U.S., 10.2% of LGBT Adults Now Married to Same-Sex Spouse, retrieved 15 July 2020 from SOURCE
There have been a few large-scale studies which measured how long first cohabitation relationships lasted until the breakup. The same report mentioned in the quotation above reported that based on complex life-table analysis (used to predict life expectancies) about 42 percent of cohabiting women transitioned to marriage in 3 years of cohabiting; 32 percent remained together as a couple; and 27 percent had broken up (Table A. Median duration of first premarital cohabitation among women aged 15–44: United States, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010, page 5).
David Popenoe reported on attitudes about cohabitation and said that most teenagers report the belief that living together before marrying is a good (D. Popenoe, 2009, "Cohabitation, Marriage, and Child Wellbeing: A Cross-National Perspective," Social Sci. and Public Policy, Vol 46: 429-436). Generally speaking, cohabiting relationships are much more unstable than married ones (Popenoe, 2009; K. Williams et al, 2008, "For Better or For Worse? The Consequences of Marriage and Cohabitation for Single Mothers," Social Forces, Vol. 86, No. 4[June], p. 1481-1511). Popenoe is very clear about his argument that cohabiting is not as healthy in terms of the well-being of children as marriage has proven to be. He also identifies the trend of unmarried pregnancies that come with cohabitation trends. Others have discussed the issue of cohabitation as a predictor of later divorce for those who ever cohabited. It has been argued that those who cohabit have less clarity on the intention and direction of the relationship than do marrieds. Also, people who cohabit then later marry are more likely to divorce than those who never cohabited.
Not all cohabitation experiences are the same. There are people who cohabit more than once. Serial Cohabiters are persons who have a series of cohabiting relationships over the course of time. These persons tend to be poorer and less educated in the U.S. When or if these persons ever marry, their divorce risks are more than twice as high as those who never cohabited in a series (see D.T. Lichter and Z. Qian, 2008, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 70, No. 4[Nov.], p. 861-878).
Regardless of the structure of a couple’s relationship, the research on marriage shows that they are sought after and preferred by most adults. Cohabitation will likely continue to increase as a choice for many adults. Divorce will likely continue at some level. Marriage is less common, but at this point is still the most preferred structure. Polygamy has been rare in the U.S. and will likely to be practiced by a relatively few in the future. Same-sex marriage has been legal in the U.S. for about 5 years. That leads us to observe two important factors, pertaining to it. First, don’t assume that same-sex couples experience all the same patterns of relationships such as divorce risks, marital challenges, and others that heterosexual couples have been found to experience. The field of research is likely going to clearly establish similarities and unique differences and scientific studies done in the right way can benefit all married people once completed. Second, and most importantly. The Civil Rights Leader Martin Luther King Jr. has social reform principles that have been used by many interest groups for nearly 5 decades.
The best possible use for you as a student might be to find how to apply them to your own quality of life and relationships skills, especially as they could help you not feel or practice evil acts toward anyone who may be different from you. This is especially true on the issue of heterosexual versus same-sex legal marriage. Noone can make you change even if they have you at gun point, have killed all your family members and are starving you to death in a World Ward II Jewish concentration camp and perhaps more powerfully read the paperback reprint of his book, “Man’s Search For Meaning” original Frankl, V. (1959) ISBN 9780807014295.). Millions have found personal and interpersonal strength from his refusal to hate and eventually his development of compassion and love for his Nazi tormentors while still being beaten by them. There are many others who chose a better quality of life and a much more peaceful path for themselves.
Additional Reading
University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project free report called, "The State of Our Unions"
Which marital status is the safest/healthiest?
20 Year study of Marital Quality Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 75, Issue 3, pages 667–680, June 2013 Marital Quality and Health Over 20 Years: A Growth Curve Analysis Richard B. Miller1,*, Cody S. Hollist2,†, Joseph Olsen3,‡ and David Law4,§ Article first published online: 20 MAY 2013 DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12025
Other study of marital quality and health The longitudinal associations between marital happiness, problems, and self-rated health. Proulx, Christine M.; Snyder-Rivas, Linley A. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 27(2), Apr 2013, 194-202. doi: 10.1037/a0031877 SOURCE