The new British Millennium Cohort Study of babies born in 2000-01 compares how the parents' relationships fared in the stressful first five years after the birth. The result:
Married couples divorcing: 6%
Cohabiting couples breaking up: 32%
"Closely involved" fathers disappearing: 74%
It will come as no surprise to Gruntled Center readers that marriage works better in holding families together than does hanging out together and hoping for the best. Even I was surprised, though, at the magnitude of the difference that appears already in the first few years of the young family's life.
The other half of this story, though, is that some leaders of the Conservative Party are touting the study to push for a pro-marriage campaign. Critics, both within and outside the party, are afraid that a pro-marriage position will make unmarried parents feel bad and not vote Tory.
I don't usually find myself praising Tory leaders. In this case, though, I think Iain Duncan Smith, the former head of the party who is pushing the current leaders to take a more pro-marriage stand, is right. Marriage is better for children than cohabitation is, and miles better than "closely involved until the going gets hairy" fatherhood. Promoting marriage for parents is the right thing to do regardless of whether it wins votes or not.
I think that promoting marriage to unmarried parents is also politically savvy. Yes, some people will get their backs up and vote against you. But most parents are more concerned about what is good for their children than anything else. Parents will gravitate to parties that tell the truth about what really helps children. As our own politics shows, the party that talks pro-marriage and pro-family will keep winning elections – even if they don't actually do much to help families or promote marriage.
Pro-marriage is good politics. It also has the advantage of being true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Russell Kirk talks about how the family is the most important institution to preserve -- go get em Tories (who'd have thunk -- 200 years ago, Tories were the really bad guys)
I just want to know what kind of definition of 'marriage' is being used here. civil, religious, otherwise? one of the most successful families i know is a three parent family in which none are technically 'married' and all refer to each other as partners or co-parents. they have made personal committments and agreements that supercede everything else. would this fall into the category of marriage?
No state in this country allows three people to marry. If the trio you speak of live in the USA, they are not married.
Caroline,
A sociologist doesn't make inferences singular cases... and won't predict the outcome of singular cases. A sociologist can only make generalizations and predictions of trends in society.
If the deal that your friends have worked out works for them in the long haul, then they gambeled on a risky venture and won. When we, as sociologists, find that most people benefit in one situation, lets say marriage. Other don't. And while most people who co-habitate do not enjoy the benefits of marriage, we admit that some do.
Amen.
And, Caroline, in answer to your previous question, government can only talk about civil marriage. Religious marriage is a different issue altogether.
Post a Comment