Multiple Topics on Marriage

In the first article by Stephanie Coontz, entitled "The Future of Marriage," she discusses how many groups such as the Council on Families in America want to reinstitutionalize enduring marriage. The first issue is what exactly is the institution of marriage. "Social scientists believe that something institutionalized means it comes with a well-understood set of obligations and rights, all of which are backed up by law, customs, rituals, and social expectations. In this sense marriage is still one of America's most important and valued institutions" (78). "There are many indicators of the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Marriage has become and option rather than a necessity for men and women, even during the child-raising years" (79). "Divorce, cohabitation, remarriage, and single motherhood are other factors responsible for the deinstitutionalization of marriage as the primary instituion for organizing sex roles and interpersonal obligations in America today" (79). "Also more people are living on their own before marriage, so that more young adults live outside a family environment that in earlier times" (79). Coontz points out that there are problems with the proposal to reinstitutionalize marriage. "There is a limit to how many people can be convinced to marry and how many marriages can be made to last when women have the option to be economically self-supporting" (81). Coontz states, "Trying to reverse a historical trend by asking individuals to make personal decisions opposing that trend is usually futile," (81). One idea to reinstitutionalize marriage is to make divorce harder to get (82). However, making divorces harder to get would often "exacerbate the bittereness and conflict that are associated with the worst outcomes of divorce for kids" (83). Coontz's point is that we can't bring back the nineteenth century.

The next topic had to do with the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for men and women. The two articles dealing with this topic are "Can Marriage be Saved," by Elise Harris and "Marriage: the good, the bad, and the greedy," by Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian. Lets take a look at the good first. Harris states "that married men are half as likely as single men to commit suicide. Single men aslo drink twice as much as married men of the same age" (28). Gerstel and Sarkisian write that "some see marriage as a way out of poverty for young single mothers and route to responsibility for young unmarried fathers" (16). "They also state that marriage is good for one's health, happiness, sex life, and kids. Married couples cozying up at home have sex more often than singles who party until dawn" (16). "There are also physical and mental health benefits of marriage. Good marriage protects against everything from cavities to murder and suicide. Also marriage keeps adult men out of crime and their kids out of delinquency" (16). Then there is the bad. Gerstel and Sarkisian state "that women's housework increases after marriage" (16). "There is domestic violence that way too many married women endure and the isolation that violent husbands impose" (16). "Also bad marriages can be hazardous to mental and physical health. Also some people see marriage as a greedy institution demanding undivided commitment" (17). "Marriage can demand a kind of intense emotional involvement that by itself detracts from collective life. Married people lose touch with their parents and siblings more so than single people" (17). It is obvious that marriage can have good and bad elements.

The next article had to deal with cohabitation. It was by Susan Brown and entitiled, "How Cohabitation is reshaping american families." There are multiple different reasons why people cohabitat. "One half of cohabitators are in a "precusor to marriage", characterized by definite plans to marry one's partner" (34). "30 percent of cohabitators are people for whom cohabitation was essentially an alternative to singlehood. 15 percent of cohabitators are people who are not committed to their relationship but believed in marriage and hoped to marry someday. They are called trial cohabitators" (34). "The last 10 percent of cohabitators are those involved in cohabitation as a long term alternative to marriage" (34). Interestingly, "the well-being of cohabitators tends to be lower than that of married couples. Married individuals are psychologically better adjusted and adept at coping with stress and strain. Cohabitators report more psychological distress than married couples" (35). "Also, cohabitators are not as happy and experience more conflict in their unions than their married counterparts. And finally the economic well-being of cohabitators does not match that of married people" (35).

The last thing that must be addressed is the issue of selection effects on the benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation, as well as what selection effects means. The problem has to do with a self-selecting sample. Does marriage make people healthier, happier, and richer, or do healthy, happy, rich people get married more often than sick, miserable, and poor do? In the article by Gerstel and Sarkisian, skeptics say that marriage itself has no salutary effects. "The healthier, wealthier, sexier, and more law abiding are more likely to find and keep spouses. men with higher earnings are more likely to marry. Those in trouble with the law are less likely to go to the altar" (16). "The sick and the poor are more likely to divorce" (16). When dealing with the comparison between the well-being of those who cohabitate and those who are married, you run into this same problem. You are looking at a select sample that may not back up the claims being made.