While single and working in the Boston area during the 1980s, I observed the cohabitation phenomenon up close. My friends moved in with guys anticipating stability along with the fun and, after a year or so, sought therapy for anxiety and depression. Whatever twinge of jealousy I felt at living my chaste Mormon life turned into gratitude for my congregation and its single young men willing to date and eventually commit to long-term relationships with an engagement ring rather than a U-Haul. I also felt a sense of je ne sais quoi when a friend in New York married via a circle of Catholic singles and a colleague at work found a husband through a Boston Jewish young adult group. Thank you, God, for organized religion! And for rabbis, priests, and other faith leaders who convince young men of marriage’s moral, spiritual, and emotional gifts.
But what of my secular friends? For many, no singles group will provide an alternative to their trajectory toward premarital sex, cohabitation, fatherless children, multiple partners, and uncommitted relationships—particularly among the poor where married role models are almost non-existent. The likelihood that young adults today will find the wherewithal to buck cohabitation is minute, the consequences gargantuan: adults who reap none of the proven physical, economic, and psychological benefits of marriage; children far less likely to succeed academically, psychologically, and economically; and communities upended by the crime and dissolution a dearth of marriage yields.
How then, as R.R. Reno recently called for in these pages, does society “restore a culture of marriage”? Those eager to make the case for marriage can take heart from public health campaigners who took on a cigarette culture that permeated movies, magazines, and television. Research is on our side as much as it was on theirs. The fact that it all seemed overwhelmingly futile didn’t dissuade those crusaders, or for that matter civil rights workers and suffragettes whose initial prospects of success seemed bleak indeed. Can it be that hard in this internet age to somehow get across the fairly unremarkable steps—finish high school, have children only after getting married—that will greatly increase the chances for achievement among all socioeconomic classes?
I had read few criticisms of cohabitation in publications other than First Things, Family Foundations, Christianity Today, and the magazines of my own community, the Latter-day Saints. But the New York Times recently ran an editorial by Meg Jay, a University of Virginia clinical psychologist, the title of which—“The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage”—says it all. Her therapy client example mirrors the experience my friends underwent in the 1980s: even if you do eventually get married, the chances for divorce skyrocket, and not just for the current relationship, but for those in your future as well.
A two-thirds majority in a University of Virginia poll agreed that “moving in together before marriage [is] a good way to avoid divorce.” Are all of these social scientists indefatigably collecting their longitudinal, cross-national, rigorous research working in a complete vacuum? But I digress. The good news is that an essay refuting the “cohabitation prophylaxis” theory appeared in the Gray Lady and, one way or another, the facts will inevitably emerge.
I also find hope in another fact: middle and upper classes still get it that marriage is far better for their children than any substitution. Academics are finding more and better ways to bring the crucial message to the poor that married parents are not only good for children, but will almost assuredly lead them into the middle class.
Another hopeful sign has emerged in a highly unlikely place: the engagement of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. I’m not at all calling the Brangelina engagement ring a sign of progress after seven years of living together. But I admit to taking heart and finding fascinating the reason Pitt and Jolie decided to wed after all these years:
“We’re getting a lot of pressure from the kids,” Pitt noted. “Yeah, it means something to them and they’re, you know, they have questions when their friends’ parents are married and why is that?”
“So what do you tell them?”
“We will someday, we will: ‘That’s a great idea! Get mommy a ring! Okay, I will, I will.’”
Even children, without being exposed to a speck of data, know that marriage is good for them. They feel anchorless without that piece of paper and ring saying Daddy and Mommy are in this for the long haul. All the French chateaus, private lessons, and front row seats at the circus can’t make up for it. Grown-ups probably intrinsically understand that, too, but need some cultural bulwarks to withstand the onslaught of misinformation and powerful trends. It’s up to those of us with ammunition—through church, the internet, and any and all means—to give them some reinforcements.
Betsy VanDenBerghe is a writer specializing in family and religious issues and lives in Salt Lake City. She can be reached at betsyvandenberghe@gmail.com.
RESOURCES
R.R. Reno, Whither Marriage
Meg Jay, The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage
Brad Pitt on "Moneyball," kids and marriage
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
"Academics are finding more and better ways to bring the crucial message to the poor that married parents are not only good for children, but will almost assuredly lead them into the middle class. " This is very interesting and, I think, makes sense too. I wonder whether there's any more detailed discussion on this, please.
Young people have been brow beaten by secularists to resist all urges towards normality as it has been understood for all history. The most ardent pro-choicers, pro-redefinition of marriage, pro-drug legalization, pro-polyamory, pro-sexual liberation types are know are happily married with kids, backyards, dogs and strong marriage bonds, even though they would resent my application of the term.
They are all monogamous well educated upper middle class post-Christians. It all comes down, today in our media culture, to being embarrassed of being plain old vanilla "colonialist", "racist", prudish White; boring, repressive, Straight and worst of all a debbie-downer, judgy judgy Christian. Young people are yearning for truth and an anchor and something to hold on to. If America can return to its roots it'll be just fine. If it can't it'll become more divisive more estranged from itself and weak. A culture divided can not stand.
The NY Times article had me thinking about my own religious-person ways of avoiding commitment, and I think they are just as unhealthy, so I'm going to try and work on that.
Thanks, Betsy.
Andrew, about advising cohabiting friends on the risks they're taking--I'll make a feeble attempt and hope for better responses. If the couple attends church, as you mentioned, hope exists for gentle and wise counsel from a faith leader. If they are truly your friends, though, you could approach them with the concern of someone worried about a friend who drinks too much. The main difference is that alcoholics are already aware of the danger, while our friends who move in together are not; instead, as several have mentioned, they get constantly reinforced by the culture at large. I would share as much information as they're willing to hear, and highly recommend reading the researcher whose “sliding into relationship” theories got mentioned in the NY Times cohabitation editorial, Scott M. Stanley. His book, The Power of Commitment, deftly combines research, counseling experience, and a subtle smattering of scriptures to illustrate the crucial role commitment plays in our relationships. His discussion and statistics on cohabitation are sobering, and couples considering living together would do well to consider them.
Celine, you asked about more detailed information on how marriage benefits socio-economic conditions, and I’d recommend The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher as the standard. Fortunately, the studies and books continue proliferating—though the public and media seem oblivious—and a researcher I admire, Alan Hawkins, from whose manuscript I took the smoking crusader analogy, is working on a policy book meant to educate and address this obliviousness.
But thats not because they married before they lived together. You are putting the cart before the horse.
Lets take two average marriage age kids. Lets take a woman that is studying to be a journalist. She works hard, and has learned to not worry about her home being all that neat. She likes dogs. Isn't sure she even wants to have kids. Ever.
Lets take a guy who is finishing up a business degree. He has always hoped his wife would cook for him like his mom. He is tidy. He really likes smart, adventurous women, but when he is at home relaxing, he likes to ramble, and just be agreed with, so most of his male friends usually know to just agree with him when he does this.
Put them together with no prior knowledge of what they like, and what happens? Disaster. If you somehow talked two smart kids like this into boom; we are married, they would not make very good partners. If they slowly got to know each other over a few years, staying over weekends and such, then moving in together with no pressure, they might make excellent spouses.
I couldn't agree more - we can start right here, where feelings are raw:
http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2012/04/06/how-should-men-go-galt-in-a-female-centered-society/
Excellent article, Betsy VanDenBerghe.
The latter approach does not seem to be addressing the overall trend of the flight from marriage.
While men have always been poked fun at for avoiding commitment, today's young men have taken that to new heights, or lows, I suppose. And why not? There has been a long, consistent feminization of males in America which has told them that the ideal male is more Robert Pattison than Clint Eastwood. Sensitivity over being a brute. Another part of that message is women need not be dependent on men for support, and in fact marriage itself is optional since men themselves are optional. Traditional male roles and duties, they're told, are outdated patriarchal artifacts. Well then, if I'm a young man being enculturated like this, I might not see the value of marriage and family. If I'm the slightest bit hormonally influenced and not looking for commitment, then being friends with benefits sounds pretty good to me. What we see is not new, but has accelerated over time to the extent we see today. The seeds were sown in the '60s. Interestingly, I've read some research that indicates women are not necessarily fans of this, and often wonder when men will again be men.
I'm giving only the outline of the issue as I see it or my comment would be several pages. My point then is that while we have the data that tells us how destructive this trend is, we will not see a shift until the societal norms that have changed over time and contributed to this trend shift themselves. And I'm not seeing any signs of that other than pockets of resistance largely from some churches and faith groups.
Personalities can be developed , with the help of te Holy Spirit and than God, there are movements such as this - http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3282, asking The Mother , who is ever shadowed by The Spirit , to come in , to help form the Spirit of The Lord , in each other , for all the blessings that it entails ..thus , when those greetings from heaven are uttered
' Hail Mary , full of grace ..' , it is pleading with Her , to invite in the power of The Spirit on behalf oof ecah other ..drive away enemy strongholds of lust or fear ..
Anyone in troubled marriages - may be try addressing the other with those heavenly verses - 'Hail Mary ..' :)
Was it Sen. Moynihan (D., NY) who observed that a downside of the anti-poverty programs of the Great Society was that the economic subsidies and accompanying conditions tended to tear apart black families? And that the economic disadvantages of staying married in effect drove the father to abandon the mother and children?
Sometimes our governmental policies cause results opposed to the stated purposes of the legislation. Sad!
TeaPot562
†