At CNN, David Frum writes about the new conversation on marriage:
…The United States is becoming an increasingly class-stratified society. The few at the top enjoy unprecedented affluence. The many in the middle and at the bottom face narrowing opportunities and declining standards of living. The dwindling of marriage is both cause and consequence of America’s evolution away from a society of equal chances. The restoration of marriage is crucial to reviving the middle class and offering hope to the poor.
Marriage means two incomes at a time when most Americans find two incomes essential to earning a middle-class livelihood.
Marriage secures the active presence of fathers in children’s lives.
Marriage means more asset accumulation: Married families save more at every income level.
Marriage means fewer accidents and illnesses, less stress, and more happiness and personal fulfillment.
Yet even as we reach a new social consensus about marriage’s importance, marriage seems to have become increasingly elusive, difficult, and uncertain. It’s time for all Americans, left and right, gay and straight, to join David Blankenhorn’s “new conversation.”
Categories: Marriage
I am slightly embarrassed for David Frum that he would make such assertions.
Well, yes: marriage is the means by which we prevent a permanent underclass from forming, enable children to be upwardly mobile, and enable mothers to avoid a lifetime of poverty.
Somehow, the Left painted these things as the workings of an evil, repressive patriarchy hell-bent on creating, not eradicating, a caste system.
Bridget, do you really think working class pregnant women are sitting around thinking, “should I marry this guy? Or am I better off waiting…..hmmm…..what would The Left say…..”?
La Lubu: I’m not sure I understand your statement. Back in the 1950s, only about 6% of children were born out of wedlock; that number is north of 40% today. Are you seriously arguing that society does not matter in terms of the number of children born out of wedlock?
Obviously, that’s absurd: social mores play a huge role in whether people have sex out of wedlock, have shotgun weddings, give babies up for adoption, raise babies without a father, have sex with numerous unknown partners or only with the person they are about to marry.
Obviously, no one becomes pregnant by falling on a turkey baster. The Right isn’t running around impregnanting women to punish them for having sex. Pregnancy, in about 99% of cases, is the result of a volitional act. Culture absolutely matters in terms of whether women will hold out for a commitment before risking pregnancy.
Bridget says, “Well, yes: marriage is the means by which we prevent a permanent underclass from forming, enable children to be upwardly mobile, and enable mothers to avoid a lifetime of poverty.”
I think marriage is often an excellent option that offers important protections for couples. That is why I support same-sex marriage as well as opposite-sex marriage.
But it is certainly the panacea some conservatives seem to think it is. When we had a huge percentage of people marrying and a huge percentage of children born to married couples, we also had an underclass, people who did not have upward mobility, and mothers who endured a lifetime of poverty. In other words, the good old days were not so good.
If the goal is to end poverty, restore upward mobility, and achieve a fairer and more equal society, I think there are a number of more obvious ways to achieve those goals than insisting that everyone marry.
@Rob – Yes, but.
“When we had a huge percentage of people marrying and a huge percentage of children born to married couples, we also had an underclass, people who did not have upward mobility, and mothers who endured a lifetime of poverty.”
I think upward mobility has already decreased in America. Certainly more children are living in poverty than in the past.
But my real fear is that we are going to see an increase in people who are stuck in a permanent underclass.
Lack of education and good jobs play a big role, but being raised with only one parent adds to the problem. The things aren’t completely unconnected.
There was a study that found that at ivy league colleges, the kids are almost all coming from two biological parent homes. That is really weird in our society, given that so many kids are not from two biological parent homes.
There is evidence that having divorced parents hurts a kid in math achievement years later.
Children with only one parent are much more likely to be poor, not finish school, etc.
Homes and apartments in neighborhoods with good or decent schools tend to cost too much for a single-parent family to live there.
The end result for the kids who are being raised by only one parent could easily be not being able to get a good education or not going as far as they could in school. Then not having as good a job.
Marriage is not the only solution to the problem. Jobs and schools matter, too. However, for some children it could make a difference.
@mythago – what specifically do you find wrong with Frum’s assertions?