National marriage rates in nosedive

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 26, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger
    The greatest attack on marriage has been waged by the religious right that has been telling everyone that you can get all the same rights as marriage without getting married, that marriage is only important if you have children and is purely a religious rite.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 26, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger --

    "We have free love to replace marraige. We have the education system trying to replace parenting. We have secularism replacing faith."

    And yet when people WANT to get married, you try to deny them that right just because they're gay.

    How does that make any sense?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Dec. 25, 2014 11:41 p.m.

    With religion being under constant assault, why would we be surprised that the religious institution of marriage is in decline?

    Why get married, if you don't believe it is important? Apparently all those government marriage benefits aren't enough to overcome the disdain for religious rite of marriage.

    As a society we have promoted women being in the workplace, replacing the need for marriage. We have sperm banks to replace marriage. We have free love to replace marraige. We have the education system trying to replace parenting. We have secularism replacing faith. We have selfcenteredness replacing sacrificing instant pleasure for long term joy and the greater good in life.

    And we certainly have a large part of society that doesn't want any information gathering that might show this is the case. They would rather pretend that married people are the reason for the decline in marriage and their personal failures.

    When do we come to our senses?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    "The only segment of the population researchers seem to agree that trends in marital stability look favorable for is for the younger, college-educated set who married after 2000."

    Generally this translates to income stability (at least eventually, not counting all that student loan stuff). If people are only making enough to barely get by themselves they aren't going to want to add someone else unless they're sure they can get by together. Usually requires a well-paying job with stability, something many aren't getting until the late 20s (as a single 27 year old graduate student, I would know).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    If a lot of these people have kids then you'd just call them irresponsible for having kids they can't afford (if they're on any sort of public safety net type things).

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 25, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    This is hilarious. Well-off, well-meaning white people CAUSED these social disruptions, with gentrification, urban renewal and welfare "reform," and are now blaming the victims for their inability to overcome the disruptions.

    As undesirable as "slums" were and are, when you bulldoze them in favor of middle-class housing, or gut and restore them as yuppie co-ops, you're driving the poor out of what housing they can afford. You're driving them out of affordable commuting distance, and you're lowering the number of jobs available in their neighborhoods.

    And, while you can pontificate that welfare makes people lazy, changing the rules to largely exclude able-bodied men of working years has consequences. It makes it very difficult for poor people to get or stay married through hard times.

    Together, it's a one-two knockout punch.

    Communities need to have or make room for poor people and need to have support systems in place to keep them integrated within the community. Chasing them out, punishing them for being poor is socially destructive.

    You're lamenting the results, but not the sources of the problem. Look in the mirror.

  • happymom123 Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 25, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    This says it all in a nutshell: "There are many reasons for the decline in marriage. Lack of faith is at the top. Selfishness is at the top. Greed is at the top. Lack of responsibility is at the top.

    And, as usual, it is the children who suffer because of the sins of adults." Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 25, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @mike
    I know you would like to play it all off as a crier of excess but the facts do not lie the gap between the rich and the poor has grown substantially since the 50's and the working poor cannot even dream of the excesses you are talking about and struggle more and more often having to make choices between food, heat or medications.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 25, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    Fifty years ago families didn't have $400 or $500 a month in cell phone bills. They didn't have $125 a month in cable fees. They didn't have 2,000 square-foot or larger homes. They didn't need two or three cars. They didn't have ATVs and boats in the garage. Fifty years ago, when I was a boy, people lived simply. We had a telephone party line. When we had a "barbeque, we just built a fire on the ground using a few pieces of wood and then roasted marshmellows or hotdogs. Our activities were centered around the family, the extended family and the church.

    There are many reasons for the decline in marriage. Lack of faith is at the top. Selfishness is at the top. Greed is at the top. Lack of responsibility is at the top.

    And, as usual, it is the children who suffer because of the sins of adults.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 25, 2014 1:55 a.m.

    50 years ago,
    a man could get a job and provide for his family.

    Today, he can not.

    And you can't figure out WHY marriage and family's are failing?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2014 12:24 a.m.

    The writer is probably right in wanting the Census to collect marriage and divorce data.

    But I checked up on this organization and in addition to what is advocated here they want to require minimum 8 month "cooling off" periods before a divorce can be finalized. They make an exception for "spouses who are victims of domestic violence." Note that they say violence and not abuse. Willett's organization has a tin ear when it comes to domestic abuse, which is often sexual and emotional. Women who are in marriages where their husbands are violent to them or where the husband abuses them sexually or emotionally should not have to endure 8 more months of abuse. And here once again the woman has to prove she is being abused. Just like rape, it's the woman who is put on trial.

    Why is the political/religious right wing so unwilling to give women a break? Please, someone tell me.

    Oh, and getting back to the Census, the Census should also try to collect data on domestic abuse.