There are millions of “missing” households in America that can appear—through childbirth, divorce, or moving out—very suddenly if people get a bit more in their pockets. And each new household carries with it not just a home, but a wide array of appliances, furniture, and other durable goods. An income boost, in other words, could create a wave of household formation that drives nationwide incomes even higher.

Sure, America, get divorced and go shopping.  A divorced household means two refridgerators rather than one, and what could be better for the economy? Except that non-married adults don’t accumulate as much savings and assets over time, are less likely to own their home, have children who are more likely to struggle, and have fewer family caregiving arrangements to fall back on when health or finances get tough. Short term gain, long term pain. Perhaps there is another way.

1. The Secrets to a Happy Marriage, The Telegraph

Research among 2,000 happily married couples has identified the main ingredients for a successful union.

It shows that couples benefit from taking a short break away together twice a year and eating out in restaurants at least three times a month. And it pays to be affectionate, as wedded folk tend to share a lingering kiss six times a week, have sex twice a week and say “I love you” up to nine times a fortnight. But it doesn’t need to be sweetness and light the whole time – as the average happy couple has at least one healthy argument a week.

2. 78% Rate Marriage As Important to U.S. Society, Rasmussen Reports

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of American Adults rate the institution of marriage as at least somewhat important to U.S. society, and that includes 60% who consider it Very Important. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 17% don’t believe marriage is a very important institution, with three percent (3%) who say it’s Not At All Important.

3. The New American Divide, The Wall Street Journal

When Americans used to brag about “the American way of life”—a phrase still in common use in 1960—they were talking about a civic culture that swept an extremely large proportion of Americans of all classes into its embrace. It was a culture encompassing shared experiences of daily life and shared assumptions about central American values involving marriage, honesty, hard work and religiosity.

Over the past 50 years, that common civic culture has unraveled. We have developed a new upper class with advanced educations, often obtained at elite schools, sharing tastes and preferences that set them apart from mainstream America. At the same time, we have developed a new lower class, characterized not by poverty but by withdrawal from America’s core cultural institutions.

4. The College Premium vs. the Marriage Premium: A Case of Double Standards, Library of Economics and Liberty

For males, the college premium and the marriage premium are roughly equal.  In the NLSY, for example, you earn 34% more if you’re a college grad, and 44% more if you’re a married male.

When people – economists and non-economists alike – look at the size of that college premium, they usually conclude that more people should go to college.  On a personal level, they urge individuals to enroll.  On a policy level, they don’t just favor all the existing measures that encourage college attendance; they want government to redouble its efforts.

Funny thing, though.  When people – economists and non-economists alike – look at the size of the male marriage premium, they barely respond. . . I could be missing something; if you think so, let me know.  My considered judgment, though, is that the double standard is all too real.  People should push both education and marriage – or neither.

5. Meet the Marriage Killer, The Wall Street Journal

Nagging can become a prime contributor to divorce when couples start fighting about the nagging rather than talking about the issue at the root of the nagging, says Howard Markman, professor of psychology at the University of Denver and co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies. . . The good news: Couples can learn to stop nagging. . .

The first step in curbing the nagging cycle, experts say, is to admit that you are stuck in a bad pattern. You are fighting about fighting. You need to work to understand what makes the other person tick. Rather than lazy and unloving, is your husband overworked and tired? Is your wife really suggesting she doesn’t trust you? Or is she just trying to keep track of too many chores?

6. The Leading Edge: HHS Department Releases Report on Relationship Education, American Association of School Administrators

School of Thought: Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Matters to Our Youth is a report by the US Department of Health and Human Services that looks at relationship education for our nation’s students. Despite the geographic and organizational diversity of these programs, five common themes emerged from their demonstration projects:

• Youth desire information about healthy relationships.
• Young people need facilitators they can relate to and trust.
• Participants are able to develop a vision about what a healthy relationship is, and what it is not.
• Relationship education can be a powerful change agent within youth relationships.
• Young people are receptive to positive money management/budgeting strategies.

7. How to Commit to the End, Simple Marriage

January 14th is my 40th wedding anniversary. I was 17 and pregnant when I got married. I was mom to four little girls by age 22 (my third pregnancy was twins). The odds were stacked against us. The first 10 years were filled with drama and insanity. We talked about going our separate ways. Deep down we knew we never would. We knew there had to be a better way. . .

We were ready for change, we let go of blame, excuses and took responsibility. We were willing to look at the good, the bad, and the ugly. Our therapist would give us homework. We never missed a lesson. The secret to a loving relationship is to do the work it takes to grow lovingly and peacefully into the future.

For more, see this site.

Supporters of same-sex marriage (SSM) are sometimes challenged to identify this core of marriage, since it is us (supporters of SSM, that is) who argue that marriage is something that two people of the same sex can have.

Why I view this challenge as problematic is because I contend that it is inaccurate to speak of marriage as though it has, or should have, one “core” that is universally-accepted by all in a society, much less across all societies that have ever existed. For one, it is a demonstrable statement of fact that people have differing beliefs as to what constitutes the, or even a, core of marriage. To some, the core of marriage is “one man and one woman.” To some, it is “two adults in a romantic and mutually-supportive relationship.” To some, it is “one man and one woman (and this same man and another woman, and this same man and possibly another woman).” To some, it is “a group of people who are all married to each other.” Further variations exist.

Two, a related point, marriage is a human construct and, as such, is given meaning by the humans who utilize it, recognize it, and speak of it.

Sure, some argue that marriage is not a human construct and that it instead comes from, say, God or is just a fact of nature. But, that argument is unconvincing. How does one prove that marriage comes from God? How does one recognize a marriage in nature, in the way that, say, we would recognize a tree or a flower?

Most of us understand how babies are made but, in nature, absent the existence of a marriage license, how do we know that a marriage exists? Is it every man-woman pair that engages in sexual intercourse? Is it only the ones who say they’re married? Is it any man-woman pair that has children, even if they don’t plan on staying together for life?

My point with these rhetorical questions is that marriage is not a universal, readily-recognizable entity in the way that tangible, natural phenomena are.

Abstractions aside, what matters to many same-sex couples isn’t where marriage supposedly comes from or what its “One True Core” is. Many do not view this conversation as an esoteric debating exercise. What matters are the rights, benefits, obligations, and privileges that flow from a state which grants some partnerships the legal status of marriage.

In legal terms, in the US, marriage has multiple meanings or “cores.” In New Hampshire, for instance, “[m]arriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.” The core of marriage is two people, of any gender, who meet certain requirements.
But, in Nevada, the state’s Constitution reads, “[o]nly a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.” There, the core of marriage is between two people, one of the male sex and the other of the female sex, who meet certain requirements.

From a religious standpoint, Catholicism defines marriage as a “covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. [It] has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptised.”

Other religious groups, such as the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), Unitarian Universalists, and some rabbis in the Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism movements view both mixed-sex and same-sex couples as capable of comprising the core of marriage.

In light of this definitional diversity, perhaps marriage doesn’t have to mean the same thing for everyone across all secular, societal, and religious contexts. Perhaps it is an institution that never can mean the same thing to all in a society. Certainly not in a society that is increasingly accepting of the equal dignity of non-heteronormative relationships and their needs to protect their families via the legal system.

If it involves consenting adults, I generally support the right of private organizations and individuals to define marriage as they deem fit. The Catholic Church doesn’t want to perform same-sex weddings? Fine. I don’t want a wedding in a Catholic Church anyway. (I recognize that some people might want that who cannot have it, but I would support that progressive change to come from within the church, rather than through the state forcing the church to solemnize same-sex marriages).

To me, those who make arguments about what marriage supposedly is are refusing to participate in the more relevant debate that needs to take place in a democratic society. When very real benefits, rights, obligations, and privileges are accorded to those who possess the status “married,” the only debate is what should the core of marriage, from a civil, legal standpoint, be?

Under Equal Protection doctrine in the US, we generally strive to treat “likes alike” and “unalikes unalike.” To continue being very general, it is okay for the state to discriminate, but it must have good enough reasons to do so. That is, those being discriminated against must be different in a manner that is relevant to why they are being discriminated against.

To get out of the realm of abstractions, I will note a core of marriage as articulated by Elizabeth Marquardt,at Family Scholars Blog:

“Rather, a core purpose of marriage is to channel the reality that heterosexual sex quite often makes babies into a stable (most likely to be found in a marital) union of the baby’s own mother and father, for the sake of the babies and the mothers and father.”

Here, an important core of marriage, according to Elizabeth, is for children to know and be raised by both of their biological parents. Thus, using this core of marriage, it would be acceptable to not allow same-sex couples to marry because they do not fulfill this core. There would be, it seems, no point to their marriage if marriage is about a man and a woman creating children together and then raising those children together.

And yet, we can easily think of other couples, couples who are allowed to marry, who similarly fail to fulfill this core of marriage:

1. A childless, post-menopausal woman who marries a man
2. A man and a woman who are fertile with other partners, but not with one another*
3. A man who lacks testicles who marries a woman
4. A woman who has had a hysterectomy who marries a man

I could continue.

These examples are not “gotchas.” I want to be very clear about that.

See, the only thing our legal system cares about in asking whether whether state discrimination is the acceptable kind of discrimination is whether a legitimate enough reason exists for that discrimination. And, on that front, if the purpose of marriage is to channel heterosexual sex into procreation that results in children being raised by their biological parents, couples 1-4 are just like same-sex couples: Any children they raise will not be both of their biological offspring.

And so, from an Equal Protection standpoint, the legal system should be treating likes alike. But, in most US states, it’s not. Most states grant marital status to some mixed-sex couples who haven’t “earned” it via reproduction and child-rearing, while denying that status to same-sex couples precisely because they haven’t “earned” it in that way.

Why observing this reality isn’t a “gotcha” is because I contend that, if the “core” of marriage is what Elizabeth says it is, then it degrades that core of marriage and confuses people about what that core is, when we allow couples 1-4 into marriage. Allowing such couples into marriage is to grant them a special privilege that is denied to those with whom they are similarly-situated.

Indeed, to many LGBT people and allies, it looks like couples 1-4 are granted marriage licenses not so they can fulfill the core purpose of marriage, indeed they cannot, but to give them a nod, a wink, and a pass because they look a lot like members of the Super Special Heterosexual Procreators’ Club. (And that’s before we even start looking at possible anti-gay/bigotry-related motivations that some harbor).

So, when we start thinking about whether or not discrimination against same-sex couples is the acceptable kind of discrimination in light of what marriage is purportedly all about, it begins looking less and less acceptable due to the overbroad nature of many marriage laws.

Now, I am not, of course, actually arguing that couples who cannot procreate degrade the institution of marriage. But, rather, that we seem to have a societal incoherence in talking about marriage, with those on all sides of the issue claiming that they alone possess its one true definition. (And here it is worth noting that Elizabeth said that she was stating “a” core of marriage, which suggests one of many possible cores, rather than “the” core of marriage).

Our overbroad (or is it underinclusive?) marriage laws are reflective not only of this incoherence, but of the reality that marriage simply means different things to different people.

Maybe we need to do a better job of becoming okay with that.

*In about 10% of infertility cases, a couple’s infertility arises from a combination of both of their individuals make-ups. They may be fertile with other people, but they cannot conceive with one another. Such a couple is a particularly apt comparison to same-sex couples.

Since they are failing to fulfill the purported core of marriage, I wonder, if marriage rights were denied to them on that basis, would people tell them they could simply choose to marry other people? Or would that be readily-recognized as cruel?

In 2008, California’s voters approved Proposition 8, which rescinded court-ordered same-sex marriage. Some angry gay activists then boycotted or protested businesses that employed Prop 8 supporters, even if all the supporters did was donate $100.  We don’t know how many people actually lost jobs because of these heavy-handed tactics. Probably very few. But never mind; the stratagem became the story. “Prop 8 Foes Turn to ‘Blacklist’ Tactics,” shouted a USA Today headline. Justified or not, fear spread in conservative circles that getting on the wrong side of gay marriage could cost you your job. “People tell us that their livelihoods have been threatened solely because of their public advocacy opposing same-sex marriage,” said Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage. “Fine,” say some gay rights activists. “If they’re going to be bigots, they should be afraid to speak out.” Wrong. What the gay-rights movement has always really stood for is a country where we can all express our identities and convictions without fear: a country without closets, gay or straight.  On precisely that principle, gay civil rights groups have for years pressed for laws protecting gays from workplace discrimination, with only spotty success. At the federal level, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has been stalled for years. Cultural conservatives insist it enshrines “special rights.” Enter Ben McAdams and Derek Brown. And a new idea.

“The average age of individuals experiencing homelessness is rising. Between the early 1990s and 2003, the proportion of homeless adults aged 50 and older increased from 11% to nearly one-third1. This trend continues. Demographic research has shown that for the last 20 years, adults born in the second half of the “baby boom” (mid-1950s to 1964) have experienced a sustained elevation in their risk of experiencing homelessness2. As this population ages, so does the average age of the homeless population…Widespread homelessness has persisted for 3 decades, but the face of it has changed. With the specter of large numbers of frail, older people living on our streets, there is a moral imperative to intervene. In light of a poor economic climate that may both place more vulnerable older individuals at risk of homelessness and threaten the safety net that cares for them, demographic projections of a continued rise in the proportion of homeless adults who are over aged 50, and compelling data describing the frailty of this population, we may have an economic incentive to do so as well…Read More…”

A study found that in polygamous cultures, levels of rape, kidnap, murder and robbery increase as the dissatsified men left on the shelf go on the rampage. Researchers from the University of British Columbia say that monogamous marriage has replaced polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems…

The number of Americans in prison older than 55 is growing at a faster rate than the group’s share of the population at large, and many prisons are unprepared to provide them with health care, which can cost as much as nine times more than for younger inmates, Human Rights Watch said in a report released Friday.

The complications in handling the swelling number of aging prisoners range from making allowances for those with Alzheimer’s or dementia and finding sufficient ground-floor cells for inmates in wheelchairs to ensuring that older prisoners are not exploited or robbed by younger inmates.

While you’re at it, see Adam Gopnik’s essay on U.S. mass incarceration in this week’s New Yorker.

“When I was younger, so much younger than today,
I never needed anybody’s help in anyway.
But now these days are gone, I’m not so self assured,
Now I find I’ve changed my mind, I’ve opened up the doors.

Help me if you can, I’m feeling down
And I do appreciate you being ’round.
Help me get my feet back on the ground,
Won’t you please, please help me?”  Beatles, “Help”

In today’s Dear Prudence column we read this question:

Prudie answers by supporting her to move on.  She cites the recent Washington Post article about Robert Melton and his wife who divorced him in order to remarry, while remaining the primary caregiver for her debilitated ex-husband.  In that piece, the wife genuinely wrestles with breaking her vow of “in sickness and in health” to her first husband, and overall, she and the author of the piece say that they are reinterpreting the vow and giving that vow new meaning.

Again, let me first say, I err on the side of compassion.  If either of these women were my friend, I would whole-heartedly want to support them in both honoring their vows to their debilitated spouse but also wanting them to be happy.  Having a spouse who changes physically, mentally and emotionally in ways that are irreversible is not something I have experienced, but through many years in hospice have observed to be gut-wrenching and full of sacrifices.  Change is not easy.  Vows are not easy.

And so I come back to some core questions:

Why do we make vows in the first place?  And why do we make them to mortals who inevitably change or as Shakespeare un-romantically says, “rot?”

How do we balance personal happiness or fulfillment with commitment?

I ask, because if you are in a committed relationship, rest assured that you and he/she will AGE!  At some point, either you or he/she will be caring for the other or being cared for.  In 2011, the National Family Caregivers Association’s Caregiving Statistics, reported that more than 65 million people, 29% of the U.S. population, provided care for a chronically ill or disabled person.  Most of those were spouses caring for spouses.  The average time span of care giving is 5 plus years.

At some point, we may all look at our spouses and think, “This is not the guy or gal I married!”  (and of course vice versa!)  What then?  Since I started with the Beatles, might as well end there…

“Will you still need me?  Will you still feed me, when I’m 64 (or 74 or 84 or 94!?”