The M.Guy Tweet

06.12.2012, 3:17 PM

Marriage Media
Week of June 4, 2011
Courtesy of Bill Coffin


1. The Single-Mom Catastrophe, Los Angeles Times

The embrace of “lone motherhood” — women bringing up kids with no dad around — has been an American specialty.

2. 20 Years Later, It Turns Out Dan Quayle was Right about Murphy Brown and Unmarried Moms, The Washington Post

But in the end, Dan Quayle was right. Unless the media, parents and other influential leaders celebrate marriage as the best environment for raising children, the new trend — bringing up baby alone — may be irreversible.

3. Going to the Chapel of Love: Does College Marriage Make Sense?, USA Today

Although many college students are committing to marriage at an even younger age than the national average, it seems those going for it have strongly considered their personal and professional goals before doing so.

4. The Economic Inequality of Unwed Births, The National Review Online

What research does imply, however, is the central importance of marriage in general. Married couples — at all education levels — are significantly less likely to be poor.

5. Marriage And Happiness: Does Marriage Make People Happier?, The Huffington Post

Our data suggests that married people are happier than they would have been if they didn’t get married. Marriage protects against age-related declines in happiness.

6. Anger in Disputes Is More About the Climate of the Marriage Than the Heat of the Moment, Science Daily

Previous research has found that genuine expressions of sadness during a conflict can sometimes draw partners closer together, and it potentially can enable couples to break out of a climate of anger.

7. Gay Parents and the Marriage Debate, The New York Times

But a growing body of research indicates that no other parental arrangement, from single motherhood to cohabitation to shared custody, affords as many social, economic and emotional advantages as being raised by two biological parents joined in a lifelong commitment.

For more, see here.

2 Responses to “The M.Guy Tweet”

  1. La Lubu says:

    Sigh. Y’know, I’ve been reading this blog for quite awhile, and my perception is that there is a strong emphasis on form (heterosexual married couples with their own biological children) over substance (physically and emotionally healthy, functional families). There seems to be the assumption that if one follows the correct form, the substance will flow naturally from that form.

    Yet we know this isn’t true. I think the biggest disconnect between me and many of the authors on this blog (and many of the cited articles offered) is that…when looking at the tendency of heterosexual married families to have more positive outcomes than many other types of families, my focus is how can we ensure that as many families as possible, regardless of form, have positive outcomes and access to the strategies and resources that produce those positive outcomes. It seems to me as if the focus of most of the folks at Family Scholars is how can we ensure that no family forms other than heterosexual married couples with their own biological children exist?

    Is this true? Because perhaps my memory is failing me, but I can’t recall any articles cited that affirm that other family forms can be functional and healthy, or that acknowledge that while there may be added challenges in other family forms, that there are also strategies that mitigate those challenges, and there could be public policy changes that would further mitigate those challenges (and that could also mitigate challenges experienced by married hetero families as well).

  2. olterigo says:

    La Lubu, I think you’re right. There is a certain pattern of putting up studies that focus on exclusion rather than inclusion, on the non-biological relationship rather than methods of making children’s lives better. There is a focus on one specific group’s ability to enter marriage.