John Miller reviews Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen's new book about masculinity, My Brother's Keeper: What the Social Sciences Do (And Don't) Tell Us About Masculinity. Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec 12, 2025 | Link.
The federal government in Canada is considering making some changes in Canada's Divorce Act. Apparently the current processes leading to "custody of" and "access to" children following parental divorce would be replaced by the goal of individual "parental responsibilities" plans worked out by the two divorcing parents. I'd be interested in posting any analysis and commentary focusing on this issue as it is developing in Canada. Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec 12, 2025 | Link.
The federal government in Australia is considering establishing the right to 14 weeks of paid maternity leave. From a U.S. perspective, two themes in the Australian discussion stand out. First, the Australian proposal is for mothers only. In the U.S., by contrast, almost all advocates and analysts use the term "parental leave" and insist that any benefit be gender-neutral. The Aussies seem relatively unmoved by this argument. Second, like most U.S. proposals, the benefit would be available to employed mothers only. For mothers who are already forgoing a great deal more than 14 weeks worth of prospective family income by staying at home with children, there is nothing -- nothing, that is, except their spouses' new obligation to help pay for maternity benefits going to other families, most of whom (precisely because they have two earners) are more affluent than theirs. But at least in Australia, the government official making the proposal is addressing the issue of whether all mothers, or only employed mothers, should receive maternity subsidies. In the U.S., as far as I can determine, the basic question of maternal equity is seldom even raised. Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec 11, 2025 | Link.
Reply to Marshall Miller: Do I think that unmarried couples should be prohibited from obtaining certain legal protections, such as a durable power of attorney? No. If nothing else, the situation for same-sex couples, who cannot marry, is a compelling argument here. But, as the Alternatives to Marriage Project website notes, unmarried couples can already obtain many of these legal protections.
Based on my understanding, the ALI proposals would automatically give many of these protections to couples who are in "intimate relationships" for "a significant period of time." Yet those can be murky definitions, especially when relationships end badly ("You said you loved me!" "I didn't think we were that serious!").
But more to the point, by greatly expanding the protections and obligations that were formerly restricted to marriage, the unique status of marriage is weakened -- both legally and, since law and culture shape each other, culturally. I think this would be a bad thing, since, as Kathryn Edin has said, "[Marriage] is the best environment for ensuring investments to children that we've invented as humans." Weakening the unique status of marriage would introduce greater instability into the lives of children.
Marshall Miller might respond that children grow up in a variety of situations, and that the best way to strengthen families is not to privilege marriage, but to support and celebrate family diversity. I'd reply that, while all kids need support, a policy of family relativism would lead to the disturbing prospect of more children growing up without their fathers, who can't be replaced by social policy and feel-good affirmations.
And that is where Marshall Miller and I agree that he is wrong. Ok, ok, where we agree to disagree.
Even the football ticket policy is revealing. Of course Ohio State students who get married to get an extra Fiesta Bowl ticket are acting silly -- Miami is heavily favored to win. And I don't think Wade Horn will try to institute that "pro-marriage" policy nationwide. But what if the ticket policy covered "intimate relationships"? People who get married make an explicit, legally binding commitment to each other; most commitment in cohabitation is implied and amorphous. True, a couple of fanatics got married for tickets. But if the policy included close relationships, I bet a whole bunch of people would suddenly discover and insist that they are in "intimate relationships," including a bunch of previously homophobic frat boys. Posted by Tom Sylvester, Dec 11, 2025 | Link.
Like the marriage movement, those who are interested in alternatives to marriage are a diverse group. As Tom Sylvester rightly points out, some would run screaming from government interference, while others actively advocate for government recognition of their partnerships. Personally, I'm undecided on whether the family dissolution guidelines proposed by the ALI should be opt-in (like a cohabitation agreement) or opt-out (like a pre-nuptial agreement), but I could be convinced that they are "in the best interest of society" as written.
But I do question the idea that what you call the "benefits of marriage" should be allotted only to those who have marriage licenses. I don't think marriage as a cultural institution suffers if more people are protected legally, particularly with the types of things Tom refers to in our FAQ. In fact, it may actually benefit it because there would be more people marrying for the right reasons.
Recent case in point, a deliberately lighter example than my earlier one: Ohio State students marrying so they could get an extra football ticket (if you were single, you'd only get one). Aside from the issue of whether changing Ohio State's policy could strengthen marriage by preventing the hasty, potentially higher-risk-for-divorce marriages the newspaper article details, it raises a fundamental issue. Why should an extra ticket be a marriage-limited benefit? Maybe your Dad's always dreamed of seeing the big game, and your spouse could care less. A touchdown for "close relationships"? Posted by Marshall Miller, Alternatives to Marriage, Dec 11, 2025 | Link.
Salon Says: "No major characters got whacked in the `Sopranos' season finale. The destruction was way bigger than that." Posted by Tom Sylvester, Dec 10, 2025 | Link.
Not to Pile On, But: I also am ``puzzled" by what I see as an inconsistency in the Alternatives to Marriage approach. They say they are ``advocates for equality and fairness for unmarried people, including people who choose not to marry, cannot marry, or live together before marriage." For those in that first group, couples who choose not to marry, my reaction is ``Fine, don't get married, that's your business." Some of these couples, however, don't want to be ``discriminated" against because they are unmarried -- meaning they want some of the benefits of marriage. In fact, their website's FAQ includes, ``How can I make sure we have the same protections as married people?" So this group essentially wants to be legally married, just without the piece of paper. Certainly, this would weaken the status of marriage (which they think is good, I think is bad).
On the other hand, among those who choose not to marry are people who ``feel it should not be the role of the government to decide whom people can love and live with…and when/how they end their relationships." They recognize that they miss out on some legal benefits by not being married, but they don't want to assume the legal obligations of marriage. Along come the American Law Institute's recommendations, which would have the government decide some outcomes (alimony, etc.) for some ``intimate relationships" that end, even if the individuals did not explicitly choose to assume legal obligations toward each other. One would think these unmarrieds, with their libertarian bent, would oppose the ALI's proposals.
Marshall Miller seems to lean toward the first group, cohabiting couples who want the legal status of married couples, but want to remain free from the cultural baggage of ``being married." They want to have their cake and eat it, too. Um, just not wedding cake. Posted by Tom Sylvester, Dec 10, 2025 | Link.
Reply to Marshall Miller: I feel sorry for the woman in your hypothetical case, but since she's fictional, let's be honest: She must be pretty dumb if she is willing to amble along for years imagining that society, and her boyfriend, are going to treat her as though she is married when in fact she isn't.
For people who want to meet the obligations and benefit from the protections of marriage, the best and pretty-easy-to-figure-out strategy is to get married. If this woman's boyfriend, as you stipulate, won't marry her, that should tell her something about her boyfriend. (At a minimum, it tells her that the guy doesn't want to marry her.) I admit, she has problems -- a jerk boyfriend who mistreats her, and she can't seem to figure out whether she's married or not -- but I honestly doubt whether these problems would be solved or made much better by the folks at the American Law Institute giving this particular pair a few more legal options with which to threaten or sue one another. Anyway, given that he's rich and ruthless, as you say, and that she seems gullible and naive, it's not hard to guess who is more likely to come out on top in any legal contest between them. And lots more of these kinds of legal battles -- with society trying to impose a regime of marriage-lite on people who never wanted to marry in the first place -- is supposed to make the world a better place?
Also, given your advocacy of "alternatives to marriage," don't you see an inconsistency in your position? You disapprove of society expecting or pressuring cohabiters to marry, but approve of that same society imposing on cohabiters, without their consent, a set of marriage-like laws governing their private behavior. Apart from a desire to weaken or radically transform marriage, I can't figure out how you can logically hold both of these views at the same time. Posted by David Blaneknhorn, Dec 10, 2025 | Link
Let's Get Close (cont.): John Leo weighs in on the American Law Institute proposals. Posted by David Blankenhorn, December 9, 2025 | Link.
Normalizing Family Fragmentation (con't): Newsweek has an essay entitled, ``I'm a Better Mother Since I Left My Child." Recently, The Washington Post Magazine had a lengthy cover story on a happily divorced couple with kids. I suppose exceptions make for more interesting and inspiring reading (that's probably what Al and Tipper Gore hope). A happily married couple with kids? Boring. And who would publicly proclaim, ``I'm a Worse Father Since I Left My Child?" Other than Jon McNally, that is. Posted by Tom Sylvester, Dec 9, 2025 | Link.
Immigrant Families (con't): Earlier this month I wondered if the New York Times's coverage of an Urban Institute study was more dismissive of marriage promotion than the study itself. Now the study is available online. We report, you decide (though I italicize): From the study:"The prevalence of these low-income, two-parent families suggests that antipoverty policies intended to promote marriage--including those being discussed within the context of welfare reform's reauthorization--may be less successful for immigrant than for native families." The first sentence of theTimes article:"Many programs intended to lift people out of poverty by promoting marriage and mandating workdo not address the realities of poor immigrants, a study released today has found." Posted by Tom Sylvester, Dec 9, 2025 | Link.
In Sunday's Washington Post, Sylvia Ann Hewlett generously but carefully reviews Al and Tipper Gore's new book, Joined at the Heart: The Transformation of the American Family. I'm glad that she points out that the Gores, intent on describing all types of families as wonderful, fall oddly silent on the relationship between family structure and child well being. This omission is particularly disappointing to me, not only because the Gores have missed an opportunity to contribute positively to the debate, but also because I know from personal experience with him that former Vice President is quite familiar with the basic social science findings on this issue. With his wife, he has obviously made a conscious decision to refrain from saying something that he knows is both true and important to say, even if saying it would have required a bit of courage. But isn't he also insisting these days that he is going to speak from his heart and let the political chips fall where they may? Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec 9, 2025 | Link.
Family Values: Last night's HBO season finale of "The Sopranos" focuses on separation and divorce. One of Tony's Russian mistresses, upon hearing of his marital problems: "Divorce is very hard on children. After this, they don't trust." P.S.: More on last night's show here. Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec 9, 2025 | Link.
Let's get close (cont.): David Blankenhorn's response to the ALI proposals, both here and in his other public comments (here and here), puzzles me around a basic point: namely, what's in the best interest of society, and in particular, women and children. The "best interest" argument seems so core to the work for of the Institute for American Values. The American Law Institute's logic seems pretty clear to me: They are seeing more cohabitors in family court, that they want to protect partners who are in the weaker position, and that they have found a way to do it based on successful models in other countries. Consider this hypothetical, based on the report, that's right up Blankenhorn's alley: Man is rich and doesn't want to marry, woman does. The years go by, she loves him and thinks she has a common law marriage with him, but in fact she doesn't. One day he dumps her, she has no legal standing. Is it not in her best interest, and society's, for her to have standing in family court? The ALI certainly thinks so. Posted by Marshall Miller, Alternatives to Marriage, Dec 9, 2025 | Link.
Al Knight, a columnist for the Denver Post, weighs in on the American Law Institute recommendations (see below). Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec 9, 2025 | Link.
"Why can't we?": Interesting article in The Age by the Australian columnist Bettina Arndt on how, in the U.S., marriage is a legitimate policy issue and "most politicians and social analysts agree that tackling fatherlessness must be a national priority," whereas in Australia, father absence "has never even made it on to the agenda of social science conferences" and "the M-word is still too hot to handle." Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec. 9, 2002 | Link.
Let's Get Close (cont.): The libertarian author and leader David Boaz looks at the culture wars over marriage, especially regarding same-sex marriage, and offers a way out: "Privatize Marriage": "But why should anyone have -- or need to have -- state sanction for a private relationship?" And: "... let's get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts, as befits a secular, individualist republic at the dawn of the information age."
I think this point of view may be gaining ground in our society, for a number of reasons. As Boaz suggests, this notion "befits" a society in which institutions and vows (such as "I do") are increasingly expected to bend to the individual, not the other way around. It's also a near-perfect fit for a society in which the language and values of the market place -- let's the two of us do a deal -- increasingly trump non-market social, moral, and spiritual values and ways of thinking. Privatizing marriage is quite consistent with the push for same-sex marriage and, more broadly, equal respect for homosexuality and for all nontraditional family forms. On the other side of the culture divide, for people of orthodox religious faith and for those who, for whatever reason, hold to traditional values regarding marriage, this solution is also a way out of the societal mess in which they find themselves. They can say: let the broader culture (sadly) fall apart, as long as I can keep the private right to marry as I wish.
The temptation fully to privatize marriage is likely to be encouraged further by the recent American Law Institute recommendations for changes in marriage and family law (about which I complained earlier). On the one hand, moving the law away from a marriage model and toward a "close relationship" model may generate new business for lawyers, at least in the short term, since under a "close relationships" regime, almost everyone with a sexual partner (not just married spouses who want a divorce) is a prospective plaintiff or defendant. But the same time, effectively eliminating the protected legal status of marriage does tend to beg the question: Why is the state involved in these matters at all? If there is no state interest in marriage, intervening legally in people's sexual and procreative lives makes less and less sense. Why not simply leave it up to each individual to make private contract? Fall in love, go to bed, draw up the papers. It has a certain logic.
The alternative argument -- which is also my own point of view -- is that marriage is more than a private relationship, and that saying "I do" should not be dumbed down by redefining it as two individuals negotiating a contract. But that is the debate that needs to be engaged, and it seems that a lot is riding on the outcome. Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec 5, 2025 | Link.
Must See TV (con't.): Married in America will telecast tonight, Thursday, December 5th, from 9 to midnight, Eastern/Pacific on A&E. Viewer comments can be sent to A&E via http://www.aande.com/feedback/feedback.html Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, Dec 5, 2025 | Link.
Let's Get Close: According to recent stories in the New York Times and USA Today, the prestigious American Law Institute says that it wants to ``update" marriage law, primarily by largely eliminating marital status as a basis for how the law treats persons in close relationships. For example, the ALI is recommending that the law treat cohabiting couples essentially the same as married couples, thus effectively abolishing the protected legal status of marriage.
The theoretical underpinning for this recommendation apparently comes from the academic field usually called "close relationships." The basic concept is that society must not publicly recognize or favor any one type of sexually bonded, intimate relationship -- say, for example, marriage -- while ignoring or withholding equal regard from any of the many other possible types of close relationships. In the area of marriage law, implementing this idea would mean pretty much scrapping marriage law altogether, apparently in favor of new laws pertaining to, well, close relationships. (A recent Institute report by Dan Cere examines close relationship theory in some detail.)
This idea is not confined to the American Law Institute. Indeed, replacing a marriage model with a close relationships model seems to be approaching the status of conventional wisdom in the pages of many of our university-based family law journals. Colleagues in Canada report that this notion is already actually shaping law and public policy in that country.
I'd be happy to post people's comments on this issue. Let me put my own cards on the table: If any idea in today's mainstream family debate is more blatantly anti-child and intellectually vacuous than this one, I have yet to come across it. Posted by David Blankenhorn, Dec 4, 2025 | Link.
``Unmarriage" is the talk of the town. Posted by Tom Sylvester, Dec 4, 2025 | Link.
"...And Unmarried Women": Child Trends has released a new research brief on child poverty. In addition to reviewing poverty's negative impact on children, the authors recommend maintaining or increasing child care funding, work supports for poor families, and job training efforts. They also recommend reducing the marriage penalty in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and ``support[ing] efforts to strengthen marriages and to decrease births to teens and unmarried women" (emphasis added).
That little addition of "and unmarried women" is significant. Prior to welfare reform, few mainstream policy organizations would have put it that way. Almost invariably, the social problem to be addressed was described as "teen pregnancy." The issue was the age of the mother ("teen"), not marital status. A 1999 report by Maggie Gallagher did much to highlight this limited conceptual framework and encourage the much better way of framing the issue used by the Child Trends researchers and others.
Some people, of course, still stick to the old formulation. Stephanie Coontz recently wrote, "With better support systems, we may be able to save more potentially healthy marriages and further reduce rates of unwed childbearing among teenagers" (emphasis added). As if once these young women reach age 20, having children outside of marriage is no problem. Posted by Tom Sylvester, Dec 4, 2025 | Link
|
