We crossed a new threshold recently. According to Sam Roberts of the New York Times, more American women are living without a husband than with one. Married couples are now officially in the minority. Singleness is the majority.
"Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.
In addition, marriage rates among black women remain low. Only about 30 percent of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with about 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women and more than 60 percent of Asian women."
Divorced women delighting in their new-found freedom? That is the way America sees it. Marriage is a prison. Singleness is freedom.
What a tragic commentary on our society.
I was listening to Jan 14th, 2007 podcast by Stand To Reason when Greg interviewed Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. Morse has a Phd in economics and focuses her research on the effects of marriage on societies. The interview covered the subjects of women's roles and marriage. Morse will be speaking at STR's Masters Series as well (I will be ordering the series and you should too).
The bottom line is that marriage is the safest relationship -- according to studies -- for women who are in a sexual relationship. Marriage does a better job at preserving wealth in our society and is therefore a compelling social justice issue. Marriages produce children that are more likely to be well parented and have well formed consciences than any other living arrangement. A society ought to care about that since kids with poorly formed consciences with poor family models will result in higher welfare dependence, increased child abuse, increased sexual abuse, increased substance abuse, more homicide, more unwed pregnancy, higher suicide, higher juvenile delinquency, more educational failure and the list goes on.
Marriage is good for a society. It is the ideal relationship for adults who are in a sexual relationship. It is best for children.
Sadly, this article promotes the belief that marriage is entrapment. Just look at the quote the author chose to print. He interviewed Ms. Terris of Marietta, GA -- a woman who had been trapped married for 34 years before breaking free getting a divorce.
“Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options,” Ms. Terris said. “There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.”
There ya go. Options are good right? We all want choices. Who wants to be stuck looking at the same person every morning for the rest of your life, right?
Note: I am not against divorce in an absolute sense. I recognize the Biblical basis for it. What I am critiquing is the philosophy that marriage is prison and singleness is freedom. I oppose a philosophy that thinks that societies should promote singleness because it is optimal for selfishness self-fulfillment and life is all about my happiness.
I entered the married state six months ago and have loved every minute since. Call it honeymoon bliss~
In Oklahoma I bet the statistics are magnified greatly. Almost all social indicators are in the bottom ten of the fifty states. The common pattern for native Okies goes like this: bear a child around highschool graduation, marry the father, separate from father after becoming pregnant again, father returns after birth, get divorced, remarry somebody else who has a kid or two, repeat as desired. One sidenote of history: Oklahoma was one of the first states to ratify "easy" divorces shortly after statehood in 1915.
Yep, the glorious buckle of the Bible belt!
Posted by: Anna | January 18, 2007 at 09:18
Another excellent post. Keep up the great work. It summons Proverbs'teaching regarding wisdom and foolishness.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 18, 2007 at 16:46
delighting in their new-found freedom. >>
Hi there. I'm one of the divorced women who is delighting in her freedom, even with the price tag of loneliness and extra work that comes with it. When I was married, I was lonely and did extra work anyway.
When my husband divorced me (over my objections), I found social freedom, financial freedom, and less work (at least I didn't have to clean up after him too).
Marriage is only good for women if the men are pulling their weight.
I also believe it's in keeping with the teachings of Christ that I don't remarry. And I know a lot of widows and divorced women who likewise never plan to remarry.
Everything you said about marriage was true. But here's something that hasn't been said: marriage is between sinners, and some sinners are unrepentant, willing to take advantage of other people and make marriage so miserable that it really is possible to delight in being divorced, even being divorced over your own objections.
Take care & God bless
Posted by: Anne | January 18, 2007 at 20:06
Anne,
Thanks for commenting. I had a feeling you would have something important to add to this discussion.
Your marriage sounded less than ideal (and understatement, I know). Marriages that make people lonely are not really marriages -- I am not sure what you would call them -- business arrangements, loose partnerships, or something like that.
That is not the design for marriage, obviously.
I put my disclaimer on my post precisely because I thought people would interpret my post as a blanket statement against divorce -- or an argument that divorcees ought to remarry right away. That is not my argument and I am glad you commented so I could restate that.
Again, my objection is to the philosophy that argues that marriage is a prison -- even the best of marriages.
I think marriage is a sanctifying process that brings freedom -- freedom from selfishness and self-absorbtion. You have to die to yourself and your own agenda if your marriage is going to make it -- dying to yourself does not fit the world's definition of freedom -- but it does fit in God's economy.
Please don't read my statements as criticisms of your view or your situation. Your point about marriage being between two sinners is a valid one. Marriage and family are gifts to us precisely because we are sinners in need of sanctification, in addition to being an expression of common grace.
By the way, do you have a post on your blog about remarriage for Christians? The case to remarry is a prickly issue and you have given it a lot of thought. Others could learn from you. I'd like to link to it.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 19, 2007 at 08:31
Married couples are now officially in the minority.
Only if you squint at it just right. There are a lot of non-remarried widows, for example, skewing that statistic.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 19, 2007 at 13:24
The bottom line is that marriage is the safest relationship -- according to studies -- for women who are in a sexual relationship. Marriage does a better job at preserving wealth in our society and is therefore a compelling social justice issue. Marriages produce children that are more likely to be well parented and have well formed consciences than any other living arrangement.
Chicken, meet egg. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've got the cause-and-effect exactly backward here. A stable marriage doesn't make one more likely to have "safety" and personal wealth. Having security and personal wealth makes one more likely to enter into a stable marriage.
Similarly, poverty and insecurity are often what lead people into bad relationships, unwed pregnancies, etc., rather than the other way around.
Marriage is good for a society. It is the ideal relationship for adults who are in a sexual relationship. It is best for children.
On the first and third points, we agree. On the second point, it depends on the nature of the sexual relationship. Setting religious aspects aside for the moment, people can and do have non-wed sexual relationships all the time, in ways that do not result in unwanted children, and are not deleterious to society as a whole.
[Warning: Tom's about to veer off-topic]
In my bound-to-be-unpopular opinion, waiting until marriage to have sex is actually a bad thing; it increases the likelihood that people will get married simply because they want to have sex, instead of getting married because they truly want to spend the rest of their lives together.
Speaking anecdotally, my brother and sister got married young (both at 19) because that was the "right" thing to do. Both are divorced (my sister twice so). I waited until I was 26 to get married, having already been in a committed (and, yes, sexual) relationship for nearly five years, and we remain very happily married, with no regrets. It will be ten years this coming October.
Neither of us was the other's "first," but this doesn't lessen our relationship, and in my opinion, it deepens and strengthens it. We got married first and foremost for one another's company and support, not for sex.
And as a side note, this reminds me of how the old "why buy the cow when you're getting the milk for free" saying really bugs me. It implies that the only reason you'd want the "cow" is for the "milk."
[Tom remembers himself and veers back on-topic]
Who wants to be stuck looking at the same person every morning for the rest of your life, right?
The mentality makes all the difference, but not in the way that you think. As far as I can tell, a loving relationship is always superior to an unloving one, irrespective of marital status. I have friends who grew up in married-but-unhappy homes, and others who grew up in unmarried-but-happy ones. The latter fared much better than the former. And getting back to religion for a moment, I really don't think that a miserable marriage does anything at all to glorify God or anyone else.
I recognize the Biblical basis for it.
Must... resist...! :)
What I am critiquing is the philosophy that marriage is prison and singleness is freedom. I oppose a philosophy that thinks that societies should promote singleness ... my objection is to the philosophy that argues that marriage is a prison -- even the best of marriages.
Here I think you're reading too much into things. To say "single good, married bad" as if it's some kind of one-size-fits-all solution is every bit as silly as saying it the other way around. I don't think anyone is arguing that "even the good marriages" are like prison. Not seriously, anyway.
People who want to get married and are in stable relationships ought to do so. People who don't want to, or aren't in stable relationships, shouldn't. It's really that simple.
When you're married, as in my case, because you love your partner and want to be married, marriage is nothing at all like a prison. But when you're married because you feel like you should be married (or, worse, have to be married), then it is a whole lot like a prison. Getting married because you feel obligated to do so is almost never a good idea.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 19, 2007 at 13:49
"A stable marriage doesn't make one more likely to have "safety" and personal wealth."
The word safety, in the context I was using it, actually meant physical safety. In other words, the least likely to suffer sexual assault. Statistics bear this out, according to Dr. Morse.
Posted by: Mr. D | January 20, 2007 at 07:07
re: getting married for sex.
I agree that getting married so you can have sex is really stupid.
I disagree that freely having sex before marriage will result in stronger and longer lasting marriages. I think open sex diminishes the purpose of sex.
[ course correction ]
This thread is veering off course badly. If you want to know my views on sex, then you will have to watch the film documentary on sex where I was interviewed. Yes, it is true. I was in a sex film. No, there were no naked people ... it was not that kind of sex film.
Posted by: Mr. D | January 20, 2007 at 07:16
"I really don't think that a miserable marriage does anything at all to glorify God or anyone else."
Agreed, which is why I am not promoting miserable marriages. I am promoting making our marriages what they are supposed to be, by God's grace.
If you live in union with Christ, then it becomes possible for you have a fulfilling and strong marriage.
Posted by: Mr. D | January 20, 2007 at 07:20
"If you live in union with Christ, then it becomes possible for you have a fulfilling and strong marriage."
So if you don't, does that mean you can't? And is this a specific statement, that there's something specific about marriages that belief in Christ improves, or is it a blanket statement that union with Christ improves everything, including marriage?
Posted by: Paul | January 21, 2007 at 14:01
Hi Jeff
It's kind of you to be so delicate in the way you word things, but I'm awfully comfortable with my views.
Look, you're a C.S. Lewis fan ... have you ever read his essay "The Sermon and the Lunch"? I have a copy in The Grand Miracle: and Other Selected Essays on Theology and Ethics from God in the Dock. I'd recommend it for his take on discussing family ethics. He makes a point more eloquently than I'm likely to make it, but I'll give the short version from my viewpoint here.
I think you assume a lot when you say
>
They're not at that moment good marriages, but they are part of the marriage experience for a lot of people; and when you're in such a marriage, I think it would be great if there were a practical way out besides divorce. This would mean we'd have to recover the arts of justice and forgiveness and reconciliation. Even good marriages are bound to have rough spots to where you know what I'm talking about, where the empty spot next to you in bed, or the church pew, or the dinner table, or while doing chores or raising the kids -- that empty spot is very pointedly cold and empty because you know exactly who ought to be there.
But I think you assume even more when you say:
>
That is ideal. But there is nothing about the marriage bond that *inherently* makes it a sanctifying process. It can just as inherently be a de-sanctifying process. Let me explain what I mean ...
>
It can just as easily be an escalating cycle of selfishness, resentment, taking advantage, and grudges. And even if one side is trying not to play that game, even one person playing that can still make a mess that leaves both miserable. I don't know if you ever said "marriage is a good thing" exactly so don't take this as directed at you; it's directed at the rosy-picture phenomenon in general. As far as general human experience, statements that "marriage is good" without qualification are so over-simplified as to be a little misleading; they arouse suspicion and distrust. "Marriage is intended as a blessing", sure, or "Marriage with forgiveness and a dedication to fairness and to mercy is a good thing". But marriage without any rules becomes, as Lewis said, the tyranny of the most selfish member, and often unknowingly.
>
** Which, I think, is what some people mean when they say marriage is a prison. Consider the size of the sacrifice you just named. Just speaking of "dying to yourself" in general, most Christians (who in principle acknowledge that it is good to die to our sinfulness) are only up to it on good days; some worldviews may not even have the resources to consider selfishness as a sin, which makes a lasting and happy marriage really unlikely. And I think the more we minimize the problems, the more we create a distorted image that people distrust and (at least as important) the more people suspect something is abnormally wrong with their own marriage if it doesn't meet the rosy picture painted.
I think we do marriage a better favor to be plain about the difficulties involved in even good marriages, just as I think we do parenting a better service if we are plain about the difficulties involved in even good parenting.
>
I think the most closely related posts I've done are on promiscuity as sexual homelessness and on how no healthy human relationship can possibly last without mercy in Let Mercy Be The Measure.
But neither of those is directly about what you'd asked, something specifically on remarriage. I've skipped writing that piece (so far) because I still ponder exactly what is useful to others for me to say. As you say it's a prickly topic; what is most desired is mercy, and either release from blame or forgiveness, and permission to remarry, and hope that it might not be too late to find someone who will consider us worthwhile. I've taken a harder road than that, and the only piece I'm really tempted to write on that -- out of consideration for those who are still in fresh pain from a divorce -- is what the road looks like if you take the road less traveled. Is it really the road less traveled? But it is a road less embraced, less chosen.
Take care & God bless
Posted by: Anne | January 22, 2007 at 00:31
"Look, you're a C.S. Lewis fan ... have you ever read his essay "The Sermon and the Lunch"?"
No, I have not. Thank you for the reference.
"I think we do marriage a better favor to be plain about the difficulties involved in even good marriages, just as I think we do parenting a better service if we are plain about the difficulties involved in even good parenting."
I could not agree more. I am not intending to promote a naive, simplistic, rosy, (fill in your favorite adjective), view of marriage. Marriage is hard. Parenting, in some ways, is just as hard. Sanctification is hard. Your point is well taken.
Life, for those in union with Christ, is about dying to sin and living to Christ. It is the process of having the dragon skin pulled off, for those of you familiar with the story of Eustace in the Voyage Of The Dawn Treader. As relational creatures, our sin is most exposed in our most intense relationships. It is hard to get more intense than husband and wife; parent and child. Our sin nature will not show up in the easy relationships. It shows up in the ones where we are called upon to sacrifice. It is no wonder marriage is now in the minority. Once the shiver in the liver phase wanes, then what?
In God's economy, paradoxes seem to be the norm. Real freedom comes when we are made more like Christ. We become free to chose to live unselfishly. We become free to show mercy and grace instead of seeking payback and holding grudges. We become free to grant forgiveness and cancel debts (i.e. grievances).
That is the kind of freedom I want. Freedom from the grip of sin.
Marriages that feel like prisons feel that way because of sin. In other words, it is not the relationship of marriage bringing about the bondage ... it is sin.
Thanks again for sharing your wisdom. I will check out Lewis on the subject like you suggested.
Posted by: Mr. D | January 23, 2007 at 05:49
Jeff:
In other words, the least likely to suffer sexual assault. Statistics bear this out, according to Dr. Morse.
Possibly so, but again, keep on eye on the chicken/egg thing. That's the main point I was trying to drive at.
As to the purpose of sex, the purpose is procreation. But I don't think anyone seriously suggests that this is the only reason you should ever have sex -- not even the most fundamentalist of Christians would argue that. (As a side note, the idea that sex is some kind of special gift from God to mankind to strengthen marriage is more than a little bit weakened by the fact that he gave the same "gift" to virtually every other creature in the animal kingdom, with no such intent or effect...)
And I wasn't accusing you of promoting miserable marriages, at least not directly. Nobody intentionally promotes miserable marriages. But I do think you (and Christians in general) err too much on the side of marriage-as-obligation (which, frankly, is why so many see it as a "trap" to be "escaped"), rather than marriage-as-ultimate-act-of-love. I can't stress this enough: you should get married because you want to be married, not because you feel you should be or must be. Even more specifically, you should get married only because you want to be married to the person you're marrying; and because you love that person more deeply than you love yourself; and because you trust that person implicitly with all that you have and all that you are; and because you are totally committed to that person; and because that person feels the same way about you. If any of those things is not true, then you absolutely should not get married.
Based on your previously-established stance on arranged marriages, I'm sure you disagree with me on that, but it's something I feel very strongly about. I've seen more than my fair share of failed marriages, and also a few successful ones, and the common thread in the failed ones hasn't been lack of "faith" or "commitment to Christ" or any of that. It's been because of lack of trust, or a lack of commitment to each other, or a lack of love, or some combination of these.
I've been married for nearly ten years (married before God for nearly nine), but I've been totally committed to my wife for even longer than that. Marriage for us was just a way of formalizing what we already knew to be true. And I say "just" there not to trivialize it, but to emphasize that all of the most important factors for a successful marriage were in place before we got married.
Arcing back around to this topic, I think that the decline in the number of married people has less to do with any decline in morality or with a decline in the stature of marriage in the public mind, and more to do with the fact that it's become more socially acceptable for people who ought not to be married to actually not get married.
Anne:
Even good marriages are bound to have rough spots
This is absolutely true, and this is why I insist that all of those other elements need to be there before you get married. Even that is no guarantee, but it greatly increases your chances of getting through those inevitable rough periods.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 29, 2007 at 11:37