Marriage: institution or relationship?

The summer that I was 24, I went to twelve weddings. In the years that followed, it seemed like every other weekend my partner and I grabbed a gift from Crate & Barrel, packed our fancy clothes, and traveled to a rustic inn, banquet hall, or strategically located backyard to watch our friends tie the knot.

The routine of a Friday night rehearsal dinner (they are no longer just for the bridal party), Saturday evening event, and Sunday morning brunch became second nature. We had fun at weddings populated by joint friends and learned how to make small talk at events where we knew no one but the busy bride and groom. We tried to be helpful guests, offering to pick up tuxes, bustle dresses, and even (once) ensure that the bridesmaids looked exactly alike by stealing pearls from the first guest to arrive wearing a strand.

In anticipation of our own wedding, which we had yet to discuss openly, we took notes, developed opinions (cocktail hours can be torture, especially when you know no one), and gathered ideas (scattering family photos around the reception area made it seem more like your own home).

We also asked questions. Why was it that our friends, the majority of whom were the product of divorced families, chose not only to marry, but to marry young? Why did my female friends, all products of feminist households, choose to enter into an institution that for generations had fostered traditional gender roles and the inequality of women? Why did so many of these women choose to change their names? Why did our otherwise liberal friends enter into an institution that they readily understood discriminates against our lesbian and gay friends? And, why did our friends, none of whom could be considered religious, fall back to the teachings of their youth and marry in traditional religious ceremonies?

If asked, many of my friends would likely say that they wanted to have the same name as their children or that they chose a church to please their mothers. I suspect, however, that the real answer may be rooted in one of the fundamental questions about marriage: is it an institution or is it a relationship?

In this issue we look at marriage from different perspectives--the public and the private, the historical and the current, and the personal and the political--in the hopes that we can answer some of these most basic questions.

MARRIAGE THE RELATIONSHIP BENEFITS COUPLES

During my summer-of-a-thousand weddings, few people were discussing the benefits of marriage. Now that the debate over same-sex marriage rights has gained so much political attention, many people realize that marriage provides numerous benefits.

The legal and financial benefits of marriage are well documented. As a number of our authors mention in this issue, a recent report from the U.S. Government Accounting Office identified over 1,100 direct benefits of marriage bestowed by the federal government, ranging from those related to family leave, healthcare decision-making, and parenthood to those involving taxes, property rights, and inheritance.

According to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, "the institution of marriage itself provides a wealth-generation bonus." They explain that married people are more likely to save money and that men in particular tend to become more economically productive after marriage. In addition, married couples can serve as an economy of scale "(two can live more cheaply than one)" and "act as a small insurance pool against life uncertainties such as illness and job loss." The Project acknowledges that some of these behaviors or benefits are likely the result of social norms, but suggests that many economic benefits of marriage are independent of government-provided support. (1)

Other research suggests that married people are not only wealthier but happier, healthier, and having better sex. Specifically, research suggests that married people take fewer risks, have better health habits, and enjoy a wider social support network. For example, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project, explains that married men are "less likely to hang out with male friends, to spend time at bars, to abuse alcohol or drugs, or to engage in illegal activities." (2)

Some argue, however, that any steady, long-term relationship is bound to increase happiness, promote good behavior, and allow for a better sex life. It seems logical, in fact, that any type of relationship could achieve these advantages if it were to be as universally accepted, both legally and socially, as marriage is in our society. Research comparing married couples to long-term cohabitating couples suggests that those who live together do not reap the same rewards. (3) Clearly, however, this is not an accurate or fair comparison because those who live together do not receive the economic or social blessings that society bestows on married couples.

The truth is that research cannot tell us if marriage is, inherently, the only relationship that can provide these benefits. Marriage is so ingrained in our culture that it is almost hard to imagine the circumstances under which a truly fair comparison could be made.

I am sure that most of my friends married with an expectation of happiness, but I doubt that any of them were thinking about the benefits that joining the institution of marriage would bring to them. Rather, they were focused on their own relationships and the personal benefits of a lifetime commitment to someone they loved.

MARRIAGE THE INSTITUTION BENEFITS SOCIETY

While some of my friends may have come to realize the benefits offered by marriage when they joined their partner's health care plan or filed their taxes jointly for the first time, I doubt that to this day they have given any thought to the idea that their marriage benefits society as a whole. Some researchers, however, would say that it does.

In her recent testimony to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, Dafoe Whitehead suggested that "marriage performs certain critical social tasks and produces certain social goods that are valuable to the community and far harder to achieve through individual action, private enterprise, public programs, or alternative institutions." (4) She argues that the ways in which being married changes an individual's lifestyles, habits, associations, and obligations are not only personally beneficial, but benefit society as well. "For example, married parents are more likely to vote and be involved in community, religious, and civic activities." (5)

Arguments about societal benefits often focus on the role that marriage plays in childbearing and the outcomes for children. Research has suggested that young people who grow up with two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage fare better educationally, economically, and emotionally than their peers with single-parents or step-families. Research has even suggested that the benefits of living with two biological parents who are married are not gained when two biological parents cohabitate. ChildTrends suggests that cohabitating unions are generally more fragile and that children are more likely to experience instability. (6)

The "fragile" nature of cohabitation, however, may say nothing about the relationships themselves and everything about the fact that society continues to withhold support from unmarried couples.

Nonetheless, some continue to argue that society benefits when children are raised within a marriage. Dafoe Whitehead says that marriage promotes parental investment and "reliably creates the social, economic, and affective conditions for effective parenting." (7)

Again, even if these assertions are true, it remains impossible to prove that these benefits are inherent to the institution of marriage and cannot be achieved in other ways. It is possible to argue, for example, that government support of a variety of family structures would alleviate the social and economic strain that many parents face and would help parents in all living situations effectively and successfully raise their families.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A THREAT TO THE INSTUTION?

Among those who believe that the institution of marriage brings benefits that couples, children, and society cannot find elsewhere, there remains a divisive split. Some, like Dafoe Whitehead, suggest that the beneficial relationship of marriage should be open to all, while others argue that despite--or even because of--these benefits, marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, they suggest, the traditional institution would be degraded to the point where it could never recover.

The conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, for example, suggests that "forcing marriage to mean all things will force marriage to mean nothing at all." (8) Writing for Heritage, Matt Spalding lists a host of "problems" that might arise from the legalization of same-sex marriage, including the fear that this will lead to federal laws banning discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation and concerns that those opposed to same-sex marriage would be "stigmatized as prejudiced." (9) Once same-sex marriage is accepted, he argues, "students will be instructed that marriage, like slavery before it, is a vestige of America's discriminatory past that was overcome by the latest step forward in the advancement of civil rights." (10)

Although Spalding is presenting this as a grim view of the future, I am sure that many people (including my married friends) see this as a giant step in the right direction. They would agree that marriage today is a discriminatory institution that should be changed just as schools were desegregated and men's clubs were forced to accept women.

ENTERING MARRIAGE

This brings us back to the idea that most couples appear to view marriage as a private relationship. Such a view helps explain why so many of us who would never have joined the all-male social club or the athletic club that did not allow Blacks or Jews, are willing to enter marriages long before the next wave of civil rights makes it a more equitable institution. It also explains why so many children of divorce choose to marry despite being warned that 50% of marriages will end in divorce. And, it may also help explain why self-proclaimed feminists choose marriage despite its history as a sexist institution and do not view changing their names as giving in to patriarchy.

When people look at marriage as their own relationship, rather than an age-old institution, they realize that they are able to mold it in their own image and create a partnership that is not discriminatory or sexist, and that they truly believe will stand the test of time.

IN THIS ISSUE

For this issue, we wanted to explore the institution of marriage from many angles and answer some questions that have been stirred up as marriage equality becomes the newest "wedge issue" in American politics. We wanted to question why, if most people see marriage as a personal relationship, it continues to hold a prominent and public place in society; why the debate over marriage equality seems so threatening to some; and why the government is doing so much to politicize marriage.

First, an excerpt from Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, by Harvard History Professor, Nancy Cott, examines the founding of the United States and explains that public policies on marriage have directly affected national understanding of gender roles, racial differences, and what it means to be a citizen.

Next, Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters, explains that today's debate over marriage-equality is in fact very similar to other civil rights movements. After carefully laying out the benefits of marriage and the need for marriage equality, Wolfson suggests ways in which we can push forward despite recent setbacks. He reminds us that achieving equality is a process that may take time but will ultimately be successful.

Jodie Levin-Epstein of the Center for Law and Social Policy then helps us understand how the government is currently working to promote marriage through the use of welfare funding. She goes on to make a series of recommendations on what Congress could do to ensure that funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and marriage promotion truly meet the needs of the populations for which they are intended.

Finally, Jennifer Gaboury tackles marriage from a more personal perspective when she explains why she and her (heterosexual) partner decided not to marry. Gaboury further examines the benefits of marriage and suggests that if given the same advantages, other institutions and relationships would better serve individuals and society.

CONCLUSION

Whether we see marriage as a personal relationship or an important social institution, or both, it is clear that the most important thing anyone can have is choice. We need to ensure that we all have the right and the ability to make our own decisions regarding relationships, free from implicit or explicit pressure, economic or social coercion, and discrimination. Acknowledging these freedoms, and the presumption of equality that underlies them, is itself a monumental societal benefit that can bring our nation closer to the principles and ideals on which it was founded.

References

1. The State of Our Unions 2004 (New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project, June 2004), 17.

2. Testimony of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, PH.D., Co-Director, National Marriage Project Rutgers University, given before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, 28 April 2004, accessed 14 March 2005 <http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/Pub%20Whitehead%20Testimony%20Apr%2004.htm>.

3. The State of Our Unions 2004, 17.

4. Testimony of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.

5. Ibid.

6. Kristin Anderson Moore, et. al., ChildTrends Research Brief: Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It? (Washington, DC: ChildTrends, June 2002), 2, accessed 14 March 2005, <http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf>.

7. Testimony of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.

8. What Are the Consequences of Redefining Marriage, Heritage Foundation, accessed 14 March 2005, http://new.heritage.org/Research/Family/ConsequencesMD.cfm.

9. Matthew Spalding, "A Defining Moment: Marriage, the Courts, and the Constitution," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder (#1759), 17 May 2004, 4, accessed 14 March 2005, <http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/bg1759.cfm>.

10. Ibid.

Martha E. Kempner, M.A.

Director of Public Information