|
Marriage-Lite The
Rise of Cohabitation and its
Consequences by
Patricia
Morgan. (Review
by David W. Torrance, North
Berwick) Patricia Morgan, The Institute for the Study of Civil Society 2002. Printed by The Cromwell Press, Towbridge, Wiltshire. £6.00; ISBN 1-903 386-04-7
This
book explodes the myth of
cohabitation
being a
permanent stable
relationship
equal to
marriage. It is
a very important book
and
should be read by
every
minister, every MP and
MSP
and everyone concerned
about
the welfare of the
family, the
stability of
society and the good of
the
nation. It is not a
Christian book in that it is
not written
from a
Christian
perspective.
It does not mention
the
teaching of the
Church or
Scripture. Whether
or
not the author is a
Christian
or member of
the
Church is not
indicated.
Nonetheless its conclusions support
traditional
biblical teaching
about the importance
of
marriage.
Patricia
Morgan is a Senior Research
Fellow
at
the
Institute
for the Study of
Civil
Society. She is a
sociologist specialising
in
criminology and family
policy. She has
authored
several books and is
a
frequent contributor
to
television and radio
programs.
Marriage
has been demoted in society
as a
whole.
It has
lost the
support of
government, and is
neglected and
discredited in
the media.
Politicians
and
social
policy
intellectuals
frequently avoid
using the
term
'marriage',
claiming
that
cohabitation and marriage
are
essentially the
same. The Lord
Chancellor's
Department
stated its
belief
in a recent paper when
canvassing proposals to
give
unmarried fathers the
same parental rights as
married fathers. It said
that
"the growing acceptance
of long-term
cohabitation as a preliminary
or alternative to
marriage"
means that "many
such
relationships must
be
atleast
as stable as
marriage". Likewise, Jack
Straw when he was
Home
Secretary said, "we shouldn't
get in a paddy about
the
decline of formal marriage
…
other kinds of
families, including
single-parent
families,
parents who live
together
without choosing to
marry,
and
step-families, can do just
as well for
their
children" on
the
grounds that
"the most
important thing is
the
quality of the relationship,
not the
institution in
itself".
Those
holding this view believe
that the
term
'cohabitation'
or 'partnerships'
is more inclusive.
Whether or
not people are
married to each other, does
not
matter. To them marriage
is no
more than a
"piece of
paper".
What do
matter,
so they
argue, are
long-term, stable relationships.
This
was
frequently said
during the
debate concerning
the repeal of Clause
28,
section
2a. It is
more
inclusive, so they say,
where
there are
children. It
matters not
if
the parents are
married or
even if
both
adults
are
the biological
parents. Marriage is
just 'a piece of
paper'.
Gay
activists particularly have
pressed for
cohabitation
to be
recognised,
and
those unions
outside of
marriage
should be
legitimised.
This
book provides information
not
previously
available
about cohabiting
lifestyles.
Cohabiting
relationships do not have
the
stability
nor
permanency of
marriage.
The
reason for their fragility
is
largely
dependent on
the
attitude of
the
cohabitees.
For them,
cohabitation
seems to offer
the possibility of two
people coming together
and
being able, very largely,
to keep their
independence,
with each having
more
economic control over
their
own
affairs than in
marriage. If they prove
incompatible, then
breaking
up
is easier and less
messy. There
are no
legal formalities and
personal loss.
This is
true for younger people not
previously
married and
also
for those who
have been married and then divorced.
For
those
involved,
cohabitation is
simply either a
matter of
mutual need for
the time or a
way of
testing whether the
other is a
suitable
partner for
marriage. In either case they
do not enter in to the
partnership with the
same
commitment as their
married
counter-parts.
"Cohabitation
has become the dominant mode
of
first
partnership…
Those going
directly
into marriage (today)
are 21
per cent. More than a third of
first
cohabiting
partnerships
flounder…
As long-term cohabitations are
rare,
and since cohabitations
break
up at a higher
and
faster rate than
marriages,
this leaves more
people 'unpartnered'. After a
first
cohabiting
partnership
has
dissolved, the medium duration to the next
partnership is five years, so
that marriage is
surrounded by
longer
periods
of partnered or
unpartnered singlehood over the
lifetime. If
recent
generations
of
young people
are not
marrying,
part
-at
least of the
answer: …lies
in
… the large
proportion of persons who cohabit
before any
marriage, the
time spent
cohabiting, the
relatively
high risk that
cohabitations
dissolve and the
time
it takes to cohabit
again. All
these
contribute to a
longer
time
before any
marriage takes
place and
increase
the chance
that a person never
marries".
Cohabitation
does not lessen the
frequency of
divorce. Research findings
in
the UK,
indicate that
cohabitation prior to marriage can lead to higher
rates of dissolution, varying
from 30 to 50 per
cent.
. "In Canada,
premarital cohabitants
also
have over twice the risk
of divorce in any
year
of
marriage compared to
non-cohabitants".
Some
studies, however, indicate
that
the odds
of
dissolution for
those who have
only cohabited with
their
future spouse are no
greater
than for those who
marry directly.
These studies
would indicate
that
the higher rates of
divorce
among those who have
coinhabited are "due to those
who have
experienced
'partnership
turnover' -
or
multiple cohabitations
before
marriage". For,
"cohabitants
are more likely
to have
have
had a succession
of
'partnerships', compared
to
the married".
None
of this alters the fact that
marriages
are
more
stable than
cohabitations,
irrespective of
how they
began. Marriage calls forth a
higher degree of
commitment to lifelong
union.
Cohabitations
with children are also much
more
fragile
than
marriages. "A
study of
dissolution rates for 4,000
Swedish couples with one child
found that, on
average,
cohabiting parents
were three
times more
likely
to break up
than
comparable married couples".
Figures for the UK are
approximately the
same.
Cohabitations
with one or more children
are also
more
likely
to
dissolve eventually,
compared to childless
cohabitations. Figures are
quite startling in that,
"less than one in ten
British
women having their
first
child in
cohabitation
are
still
cohabiting ten
years on,
or only 8.7 per
cent!"
When
in cohabitation, a woman
becomes a
mother,
this
actually reduces
the
chances of her marrying
the
father. "The odds of
marriage (relative to not
marrying) for women
who
had
their youngest child
within cohabitation are
67 per
cent lower than for
childless
women in the
British Household Panel
Study".
The
reason for the increase of
dissolution
of a
partnership
after the birth of
a child is because
many men
who cohabit feel
that, with
the arrival of a
child,
their
independence is
threatened. They
lack
the commitment to
becoming a
father.
Cohabitation has become a major route into
lone
parenthood.
Cohabiting
couples who have children
and then
marry
are
also
more likely to
divorce
than couples who
have
children
within
marriage.
From
the many surveys that have
been
conducted,
cohabitations
are
not a helpful
way to
parenthood. They
are not
a helpful preparation
for marriage,
and do
nothing
to strengthen
marriage.
Frequently
they are
associated with
increased risk
of marital
breakdown. Contrary to public belief they
are a
major cause of the
rise in
numbers of people
ultimately
living
alone.
Lone
parenthood results in
increased
welfare
dependency.
Marriage
engenders a 'higher degree
of
investment
in
the
parental
relationship'. In
the UK
formerly
married
fathers in 68
per cent of
cases, provide
income
transfers to the mother
of
their children, (where
the mother had not
remarried
or begun cohabiting
with another man). This
compares to approx. 16
per
cent of the former cohabitant
fathers, and what
they
provide
is generally
considerably less than that provided by
formerly
married
fathers. Much
the same is true
of continued,
committed
contact
with the
children.
As
the author says, "Marriage
strengthens
the
children's
claim to the
economic resources and
social
capital of both their
parents - even when it
is ended".
Surveys
have also been undertaken
concerning the
quality
of
relationships. In
every
case cohabitants,
particularly if there are no
plans to marry, are
less
happy with their
relationships as well as less
committed than the
married.
There are more
frequent
quarrels, and
domestic
violence is higher
and more
severe among
cohabitants than
among the
married. According
to data examined by
the
US
Department of Health and
Human Services in
1994,
unmarried women were
three
or four times more likely
to
be
physically abused by
their boyfriends while
pregnant than married women
by
their husbands.
Figures in the UK are
approximately similar.
Furthermore, marriages
preceded by long cohabitations
(i.e. two years or
more)
are particularly
characterised
by low marital
quality and have a
higher
perceived likelihood of
divorce. This casts
doubts on the
hopes for
pre-marital
cohabitation as a
means of
ensuring the
compatibility of
prospective
spouses, and
building
the interpersonal
skills
important to successful
marriage. It is also an
emphatic rejection
of the
claim that
cohabitations are
as happy or
as stable as
marriages.
There
is considerable evidence to
show
that
marriage
is a
'healthy
environment'
associated
with
lower
mortality and
morbidity.
Divorce and widowhood lead
to greater
psychiatric
illness
and a reduced life
span than for those who
are
happily married.
Cohabitations, with
their
inferior quality of
relationships, do not
confer
the same advantages in
terms of
health.
Married
people are more structured
and
disciplined in
their
lives.
They lead a
more
health
-giving lifestyle.
According
to surveys in
the US,
cohabitants
report
significantly
more
depression
and nearly three times
more alcohol
problems than the
married. In
fact their
alcohol problems
were the
highest of all
groups. For
the
US
annual rates of
depression
among
cohabiting
couples are among three times
what they are among
married
couples.
Marriage
influences men in the labour
market.
They
generally
manifest greater
involvement and success
than
do men or men who are
single
or
cohabiting.
Another
issue is that of
faithfulfulness.
In the
UK 43
per cent of
cohabiting
men have reported
being
faithful to their
partners
in a
five-year
period,
compared with
nearly 90 per
cent of married men.
Indeed,
24 per cent
reported running
two or more
relationships at the same
time! Data from a US
survey of 1,235 women in
relationships in 1991
show
how
20 per cent of women
of the cohabiting women cheated
on their
partners,
as opposed
to only four per
cent of the
married
women.
There
is a higher rejection of
parenthood by
cohabitants
compared to
married
people. Abortions are
around
four times more frequent with
pregnancies
involving
cohabiting rather
than
married
women.
From
all this the author is able
to say
that
cohabitation
is different
from
marriage in terms of relative
stability, satisfaction,
health outcomes and
acceptance of parental
responsibility. Cohabitants,
especially male
cohabitants,
have economic,
social
and sexual patterns and
attitudes to
parenthood,
which
are more
akin to single people than to those who are
married.
The
outcome for children of
cohabiting
couples.
Research
in this area
is not
so great as
research on
the
outcome for the
couples
themselves.
Nonetheless from the surveys
available, a number of
things
do
emerge.
Neglect
and abuse is particularly
associated
with the
presence
of new 'partners'
of
the
mother.
Step-fathers, or
'live-in' and visiting
boyfriends
constitute
the most
powerful risk factor
for child
maltreatment.
According
to one study, "the
rate
of
severe abuse was
14 times
higher than
in a
biological married family
for
a child living alone with
a biological
mother,
20 times
more likely
where the child was
living with
cohabiting
biological parents
and 33
times higher where the
mother was cohabiting
with a
man who was not the
biological
father". Remarried
and cohabiting
mothers
were
not so involved
with
their
children as
in a
married
biological
family.
Cohabiting
fathers, whether the
biological father
or
stepfather
are generally
not
so
committed.
With
regard to education children
of
married
couples are
significantly more
likely to do well at
school, in
academic and social terms, than those of
cohabiting
heterosexual and
homosexual couples.
Delinquency
is more frequent among
children
from
cohabiting
couples. In
one
survey,
nearly
three-quarters of the
children who committed
criminal offences were
those
of cohabiting couples
and just
over one-quarter were
children of
married
couples.
Significantly more
offenders come
from
broken
compared to
stable
homes.
Children of
cohabiting
couples also appear in larger
proportions
than children of
married
couples among those
who have used
illicit
drugs,
begun drinking
earlier
in life
and
drink
more.
In
regard to mental health, a
survey
in the
UK
carried
out on behalf of
the
Department of
Health,
found
that children
living
with cohabiting couples
were
50
per cent more likely
to
have a
mental health
problem,
as distinct
from
those of married couples.
Again, there is an
increase among children
from
broken
homes.
Families
underpinned by lifelong
commitment
in
marriage
provide the
most stable
and
enduring environment in
which
children can grow,
emotionally, physically,
mentally and
intellectually.
One
survey concerning Marital
Instability
over the
Life
Course,
indicates that
couples
cohabiting
increased
the
chances
that their offspring cohabited
prior to,
or instead of
marriage. It
also indicated
that, "mothers'
full-time employment
increased
the likelihood of
relationship
dissolution
by
131 per cent
for both
sons and daughters,
and their
married daughters
divorcing by
166
per
cent"!
According
to the various surveys
cohabitation
offers no
positive contribution to
marriage.
Multiple
cohabiting, where one
or
both partners have
had
experience with cohabitation,
is a strong
predictor
of the
failure of
future relationships and
an
increased likelihood of
divorce. Those who
have
experienced one
partnership
breakdown have a
higher risk of
experiencing the dissolution
of a subsequent
partnership.
Happily
married couples report that
commitment
is one
of the
most important
factors
in the success of
their
marriage.
The
final four chapters explore
at
greater
depth
the
meaning and
implications
of
cohabitation
and
marriage.
Marriage
and cohabitation are not the
same
and
are not
comparable,
although there
is
much
pressure from all
sides, not
least from
government circles to
regard
them as
equal.
Cohabitation
in contrast to marriage is
marked
by
less
commitment
within unions
of men
and women to each other
and to
their relationship as an enduring unit, in
exchange,
as is supposed, for
more freedom, particularly by
men.
Marriage
takes place as a public act
before
family and
friends. It
involves
depth of commitment on
the
part of two people and the
promise to love and
care
for each other for
life.
It
involves
constraints,
but
constraints
"are part of the
creation of a
'secure and
predictable
environment to
which real
and durable choices
may take
place.
When we
lose the
constraints we lose
choice; we
lose
a species of liberty and the
guarantees the unique
and
productive environment
that
marriage can
create'". Marriage
offers stability, security
and
a lasting
happiness,
which
those who cohabit
desire
but cannot
obtain.
For
marriage cohabitation is
"far more
threatening
as
an
institution
than mere
promiscuity could
ever
be…
cohabitation apes
marriage and thus creates the
external
appearance of a
union
of lives without
creating the internal,
moral,
legal, or emotional
reality of
such a
union. The result
is
highly
destabilising not
just
for
marriage as
institution, but for the
young men
and women who
mistake a
substitute for the
real
thing."
Furthermore,
as the alternatives to
marriage
are
strengthened, so
the
institution of
marriage is
progressively
weakened. This undermines the
only institution
ever
shown to
be capable of
raising children successfully.
The
collapse of
marriage means
growing family
instability, declining
investment in children
and in
the end to more men and women
living
alone. It
also
undermines
society.
Marriage
today has sadly lost the
support
of
government
and
is neglected
and
discredited in the
media.
There is
vast ignorance
about
the meaning,
implication
and
far-reaching
effects of
cohabitation, for
those involved
and for
the
whole of
society.
Revitalising
marriage requires
considerable
re-education of society,
and the elimination
of the
anti-marriage bias currently
prevalent in school
curricula.
We need to
make the
information provided
in
this book widely
known. We
are
immensely
indebted
to
Patricia
Morgan.
Feedback to David Torrance
welcomed (torrance103@btinternet.com)
' Faith and the Modern World' Home
Page.
|