Is legal marriage necessary?

[missy]

Well, I'll chime in, since I've had perhaps a bit more experience here than most (although many might not think that "experience" qualifies me to comment, since much of it is of the "what NOT to do" category) I'm the child of divorce, I've cohabitated, and I've been married and divorced and am now married to the right guy, just for background.

On the whole, I think formal marriage has been and is, a good institution for society. Especially for children. As a child of divorce, blessed with a remarkable mother - mentally stable, constantly employed, partially college-educated, and with definite views on child-rearing and an iron will, I used to argue from my own experience that divorce had minimal impact on children. My husband, dealing with a large set of the kids resulting from the idea that marriage is dispensable and the view that fathers are going to be pretty much non-existent, has since disabused me of that notion. Children without 2 parents in the home - and let's face it, if marriage is dead as a concept, many men won't and DON'T stick around - are more likely to live in poverty, and to repeat the cycle. The children of single parent female-headed households are less likely to do well in school than kids with two parents or even those in single father-headed households. And of course the impact for male children, of not having a father is huge. The growth of gangs pretty much shows how desperate some of those young men are for a male structure that many females simply can't understand or provide. It's negative certainly, but there it is.

As an example of what the death of the idea of marriage has wrought as an unintended consequence perhaps, I would use this. I mentioned in another thread that a week or so ago one of my husband's students, a smart girl that he had hoped would break out and go to college - she had the chops - showed up pregnant, showing all the other girls her sonagrams. He said she was a minor celebrity, with all the girls crowding around and cooing and congratulating. Yeah. A 17 year old gets pregnant and it's a celebration?? This girl will likely NOT marry, and likely NOT go to college, and will likely struggle all her life, and her child along with her. And this is part and parcel of the death of marriage.

I'm not at all arguing that we should all be forced to stay married, or be forced to marry if a pregnancy occurs. But I do think we should be honest that the decline of marriage has some pretty large consequences for the structure of society and our economy, and some of those consequences we are dealing with now and they aren't very pretty.

I disagree with Kenny that marriage vows are meaningless when divorce is possible. I would argue the opposite. Marriage vows adhered to mean much MORE when you CAN walk with impunity.

Personally, I like marriage much more than cohabitating. I like it better even though my first marriage failed. It signaled my intent to the world, to make a relationship work for the long term. My husband and I are currently beating the odds of second marriages being more prone to failure. But then our situation is a bit different perhaps. He's kinda like athlete's foot - never can quite get rid of it, might as well accept that you're going to have it forever.

I agree with Karen totally. I love being married and sure it isn't for everyone but this is coming from someone who never thought she wanted to ever get married. It was the best decision that I have ever personally made. It did change our relationship- it brought it to a whole new level of commitment and caused other people to view our relationship differently as well. You can argue it doesn't matter what other people think and I for the most part agree with that but it sure feels good anyway to have other people view your relationship differently (better) when you are married. I admit it. It matters to me.

I feel more of a team with my husband than I did when we were dating and though we felt like a team before we were married it just feels more so now if that makes sense. I knew I could count on him before we were married but I feel that way even more so now. It just magnifies everything good (and bad too don't get me wrong) by being married and as another poster wrote I feel like we are 2 parts of a whole. We are separate individuals made stronger by being together. We make each other better people and we strive to be better for each other.

I am not saying that if you don't get married you cannot experience this but I am just relaying my own experience of what happened when we got married. I didn't realize how much it would change our already wonderful relationship (we were together 5 years before we got married) but the consequences of marriage for us were undeniable and very very positive. I should add for the sake of full disclosure that we did not live together before we got married so that might have something to do with it.

I think it would be a very very sad day if people stopped valuing what marriage represents and all that is associated with it. I believe everyone should be able to get married if they desire. Whether straight or gay. There should be no barriers to love between two people. I am not sure how I feel about polygamous situations but will save that topic for another day.

 

[elrohwen]

Two of my friends are getting a huge tax penalty from being married and are seriously considering "separating" in order to pay less taxes. Knowing their personalities, I'm not surprised at all - plus, it's a really large amount of money. If DH and I were in their position I'm not sure what we'd do. I would want to be separated to save a couple hundred dollars every year, but what if it was $10k?

Personally I love being legally married, but I absolutely understand the arguments from the other side.

 

[dragonfly411]

Is legal marriage necessary? - As an essential part of life no. To some people, to follow with their religions, beliefs, morals, or what have you, yes.

I personally want to know that I am married to the person that I am spending my life with. I want to know that we are vowing to be together and only together for our lives. I take that very seriously. I want to know I have that person's last name. I want to know that we are a family, and that our children will have OUR name, not just his or mine. I want to know that we have decided to face life's challenges together.

That may not be what everyone wants or needs and that is fine, more power to them. I do think it is a bit off base to say that marriage vows mean nothing when divorce is available. Many people take those vows, mean them, and stick to them. I plan to be one of them.

 

[lbbaber]

Obviously the vows don't mean as much to many Americans nowadays bc over 50% of marriages end in divorce....everyone thinks that they will be the exception but STILL OVER 50% are divorcing and the numbers are getting bigger.

Earlier it was stated: "Children without 2 parents in the home - and let's face it, if marriage is dead as a concept, many men won't and DON'T stick around - are more likely to live in poverty, and to repeat the cycle".

I am confused as to why we are assuming that "marriage" is going to stop a dead beat dad from becoming one? If a man is going to walk out on his children, you can be ASSURED that a peice of paper is not going to change that....and I feel bad for the children living in homes where the parents ARE staying together JUST FOR THE CHILDREN.....Ask an adult child that has grown up in a home like that and I am sure that MANY will say they would rather their parents have divorced.

I am not sure why poverty levels are coming into this equation again. I thought that was already discussed and pulled out of the equation. And to say that a single parent home = poor, uneducated, troubled children is the exact opposite of what the OP was referring to when she started this thread. MANY people are CHOOSING to raise children WITHOUT getting married ON ALL socioeconomic levels (or even ALONE sometimes). It's not always "an accident" or because one partner ran away.

 

[slg47]

Obviously the vows don't mean as much to many Americans nowadays bc over 50% of marriages end in divorce....everyone thinks that they will be the exception but STILL OVER 50% are divorcing and the numbers are getting bigger.

Earlier it was stated: "Children without 2 parents in the home - and let's face it, if marriage is dead as a concept, many men won't and DON'T stick around - are more likely to live in poverty, and to repeat the cycle".

I am confused as to why we are assuming that "marriage" is going to stop a dead beat dad from becoming one? If a man is going to walk out on his children, you can be ASSURED that a peice of paper is not going to change that....and I feel bad for the children living in homes where the parents ARE staying together JUST FOR THE CHILDREN.....Ask an adult child that has grown up in a home like that and I am sure that MANY will say they would rather their parents have divorced.

I am not sure why poverty levels are coming into this equation again. I thought that was already discussed and pulled out of the equation. And to say that a single parent home = poor, uneducated, troubled children is the exact opposite of what the OP was referring to when she started this thread. MANY people are CHOOSING to raise children WITHOUT getting married ON ALL socioeconomic levels (or even ALONE sometimes). It's not always "an accident" or because one partner ran away.

it's not. but it is the norm, and if guys impregnating their girlfriends in their 20s and then going on to live in some sort of Old School type fraternity when they grow up becomes the norm, that changes things.

 

[lbbaber]

Obviously the vows don't mean as much to many Americans nowadays bc over 50% of marriages end in divorce....everyone thinks that they will be the exception but STILL OVER 50% are divorcing and the numbers are getting bigger.

Earlier it was stated: "Children without 2 parents in the home - and let's face it, if marriage is dead as a concept, many men won't and DON'T stick around - are more likely to live in poverty, and to repeat the cycle".

I am confused as to why we are assuming that "marriage" is going to stop a dead beat dad from becoming one? If a man is going to walk out on his children, you can be ASSURED that a peice of paper is not going to change that....and I feel bad for the children living in homes where the parents ARE staying together JUST FOR THE CHILDREN.....Ask an adult child that has grown up in a home like that and I am sure that MANY will say they would rather their parents have divorced.

I am not sure why poverty levels are coming into this equation again. I thought that was already discussed and pulled out of the equation. And to say that a single parent home = poor, uneducated, troubled children is the exact opposite of what the OP was referring to when she started this thread. MANY people are CHOOSING to raise children WITHOUT getting married ON ALL socioeconomic levels (or even ALONE sometimes). It's not always "an accident" or because one partner ran away.

it's not. but it is the norm, and if guys impregnating their girlfriends in their 20s and then going on to live in some sort of Old School type fraternity when they grow up becomes the norm, that changes things.

I understand, and I do respect those that take vows and hold them dear and work to make their marriages a priority. I dont mean to sound like I am anti-marriage. Originally, I had stated that I understand that marriage is an essential part for some people..including certain religions.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems, to me, that there is no "norm" anymore. More people divorce than stay married. Marriage is not "the norm" necessarily. It's seems silly to try to lump everyone together when we are so diverse. There are many bad dads/moms---that ARE married AND good parents that ARENT married. A peice of paper will not make you a better parent. You either are or you're not. To imply that divorced/single parents = bad seems wrong in this day and age. Also, economic levels rely on much more than wether or not one is married. Heck, in many homes now the WOMAN makes MORE than the man. I would like to think there has been some progress in equality for ALL.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

I agree with ibbaber. Legal marriage won't turn dead beats into fathers, lack of marriage won't turn good fathers into dead beats.

My belief is, of course, coloured by my past experience. My parents are the most commited, loving couple I know (really). Yet they had two lovely daughters (well, one lovely daughter and me ), moved to a different country, bought a house together, my mother became a stay at home wife all without getting married. They knew they were in for it the long term and didn't think that the government or any outside organization had to recognize that. They did eventually sign papers, but only because of my mother's tax and visa situation.

My personal view is that government should recognize civil unions (which would be a mutual cooperation agreement, not recognition of a loving or sexual relationship) which would grant certain rights like next of kin, medical decisions and similar. Religious institutions should be able to conduct marriages in their terms and their views. And anyone may make whatever vows they wish to other people.

 

[HopeDream]

Necessary? no, Financialy a good idea in the long run? probably

In my country (Canada) upon separation, the courts don't treat married and common law couples the same when it comes to awarding financial assets. If I was common law and splitting up it, joint assets could easily go 25% to the wife, 75%to the husband, whereas if married it would be 50/50. As far as I know the courts are currently reviewing this problem and soon the asset distribution could be made the same for common law and legal marriage (both usually 50/50), but right now it is unequal.

Legal marriage is also important for inheritance - Stieg Larsson (Wrote the girl with the dragon tattoo, made millions) lived with his common law wife Eva Gabrielsson for many many years, but didn't marry - when Steig died suddenly, All his assets were transfered to his father/brother according to Swedish law and now there is a huge legal battle. Common law inheritance rules are not the same as married inheritance rules in many countries and often vary by state/province.

 

[suchende]

Two of my friends are getting a huge tax penalty from being married and are seriously considering "separating" in order to pay less taxes. Knowing their personalities, I'm not surprised at all - plus, it's a really large amount of money. If DH and I were in their position I'm not sure what we'd do. I would want to be separated to save a couple hundred dollars every year, but what if it was $10k?

Personally I love being legally married, but I absolutely understand the arguments from the other side.

This is sort of why I posed the question -- it's possible that, if I legally marry my boyfriend, it will cost us a great deal of money. So that was the question I should have opened with: if, instead of a tax benefit, you actually had a significant cost, would you still get married?

 

[anchor31]

Necessary? no, Financialy a good idea in the long run? probably

In my country (Canada) upon separation, the courts don't treat married and common law couples the same when it comes to awarding financial assets. If I was common law and splitting up it, joint assets could easily go 25% to the wife, 75%to the husband, whereas if married it would be 50/50. As far as I know the courts are currently reviewing this problem and soon the asset distribution could be made the same for common law and legal marriage (both usually 50/50), but right now it is unequal.

Legal marriage is also important for inheritance - Stieg Larsson (Wrote the girl with the dragon tattoo, made millions) lived with his common law wife Eva Gabrielsson for many many years, but didn't marry - when Steig died suddenly, All his assets were transfered to his father/brother according to Swedish law and now there is a huge legal battle. Common law inheritance rules are not the same as married inheritance rules in many countries and often vary by state/province.

I agree.

Re: bolded sentence - In Québec, common law marriage doesn't even exist. You could live with your partner for 25 years and have 3 kids, but upon separation or death, get nothing at all. Legally, you are not next of kin, family, anything. Child support can be legally asked for the children if the partner is listed on the birth certificates, but not spousal support. Everything that was not legally owned by both parties (ie: house) does not have to be split. Many women get taken advantage of this way. Since common-law marriage does exist in the other provinces and in the States, a lot of people think it exists here too by default. I've even talked to people who categorically refuse to believe me (to which I shrug and say "read the civil code, dude").

There's an ungoing high-profile case going on here regarding this. Billionaire Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté split from his long-time girlfriend, and she decided to sue so unmarried couples may be granted the same rights as married couples. She doesn't exactly need the money (I read he gave her one of his mansions and is giving her very generous child support and spousal support checks, even if he's not required by law to give her a house or spousal support), but it could definitely help women who end up in much more difficult situations, especially if they sacrificed their careers to take care of children with a man who refused to marry them.

To the original question - Necessary? No. Important? In my opinion, yes, for its legal, emotional and symbolic value. Now, is a wedding necessary? Heck no. If it'd been only up to me, I wouldn't have had one.

 

[mrswahs]

Two of my friends are getting a huge tax penalty from being married and are seriously considering "separating" in order to pay less taxes. Knowing their personalities, I'm not surprised at all - plus, it's a really large amount of money. If DH and I were in their position I'm not sure what we'd do. I would want to be separated to save a couple hundred dollars every year, but what if it was $10k?

Personally I love being legally married, but I absolutely understand the arguments from the other side.

This is sort of why I posed the question -- it's possible that, if I legally marry my boyfriend, it will cost us a great deal of money. So that was the question I should have opened with: if, instead of a tax benefit, you actually had a significant cost, would you still get married?

You can file separately.

It's what we intend to do. We both make (almost) the same amount of money (hooray co-breadwinners!) and as is, I'm already paying a ridiculous amount of taxes, especially on my untaxed freelance income. If we were to file jointly I would go from paying about 46% of my freelance income in taxes something absurd like 60-something% because we'd be in a different tax bracket. We're probably going to file separately for 2011 even though we'll get married in this tax year. We won't have any of the tax break benefits, so it would cost us significantly to file jointly. As is, we both paid thousands in taxes when tax time came, and that was on top of our withholdings, and in my case-- on top of my estimated quarterly taxes which I paid thousands of during the year.

When we purchase a house we will probably start filing jointly.

Many people overpay in taxes because they don't know that this is an option.

Have your accountant write up an estimate for joint & separate to see what the difference is. When I was a college student our accountant did an estimate for me as a dependent on my parents and not to see what the difference was. It saved me almost $2k by not being claimed as a dependent. Same goes for when you're married.

ETA link: http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/married-but-filing-separately-15597/

 

[suchende]

mrswahs, thank you for the clarification, but that's not exactly the issue.

 

[GingerP]

I am late to the party but thought I'd throw it out there....

Though I don't have the same experiences that ksinger has had, I generally agree with the message she is conveying. On a cultural, sociological, emotional, and moral level for U.S. society (and beyond, since the U.S. has become somewhat of a global "role model"), I believe marriage is an important symbolic (and psychological) institution. Necessary? No, I would not define it so. It is very subjective though, I am somewhat old-fashioned, and what works for one does not work for all...so this is all just opinion.

In relation to what Lady Disdain wrote here:

I agree with ibbaber. Legal marriage won't turn dead beats into fathers, lack of marriage won't turn good fathers into dead beats.

My belief is, of course, coloured by my past experience. My parents are the most commited, loving couple I know (really). Yet they had two lovely daughters (well, one lovely daughter and me ), moved to a different country, bought a house together, my mother became a stay at home wife all without getting married. They knew they were in for it the long term and didn't think that the government or any outside organization had to recognize that.

I think this is very much a minority situation. I mean this as a genuine compliment, but I think for your parents' situation and others' like theirs it takes a very emotionally mature, secure, and enlightened person/couple to be able to achieve this and achieve it successfully. I also believe that most people in their whole lifetime will not reach this level of maturity (myself included). Humans generally follow a very cultural, social code and either fight to fit in or fight to rebel against status quo (probably so others will try to fit in with them)--consciously or not. As a result, most people will relate to social norms or fall into societal pressure (emotionally, financially, what-have-you). Humans are also very fickle and subject to vigorous marketing (economically and politically). Look at the proliferation of "reality" TV and the rise of Snooki wanna-bes (I admit to liking some trash TV, but know nothing of Snooki aside from a pop-culture reference, so I apologize if that is an invalid example).

In any case, I personally find value in marriage mostly for two reasons: 1) psychologically/emotionally I feel a stronger bond and different level of commitment that a public union could provide and 2) legally/psychologically I feel more secure in the idea that as an individual within a marriage I am protected and recognized by law. Others may not find the same value, but to each his or her own.

 

[Pandora II]

I'm going to split my response into two parts: my personal situation and my thoughts on marriage and society as a whole. To preface, I am a staunch atheist and my political views are socially liberal, economically conservative. I also have a sister who is a single mother due to an accidental pregnancy that she would have terminated if it wasn't for the fact that she didn't find out till she was 7 months PG having split up with the ghastly ex-bf 6 months previously...

Personal: I very much wanted to get married, my husband did not as he didn't 'believe' in marriage. I am the product of a very happy marriage of 40 years. His parents divorced when he was 14, splitting the entire family - both parents are now happily remarried.

My reasons for wanting to get married (in no particular order):
- to celebrate finding the person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.
- to ensure our children had the same surname as their parents and we both have legal parental responsibility.
- to swap my very long hyphenated surname for one of 5 letters that I don't have people make assumptions about me from.
- to prevent the whole 'if he really loved you, he'd marry you comments' from relatives.
- to ensure that we inherit from each other without most assets going to the tax-man
- to ensure that we are each other's next-of-kin.
- career purposes (if DH moves overseas for a job, a financial and practical consideration is made for spouse and family).
- some nice bling, a pretty dress and a great party...
- I fundamentally believe in marriage as a good institution.

We don't share a bank account, nor do we gain any tax or health care benefits from being married as they don't exist in the UK. Common-law marriage does not exist here.

General:
- I am in favour of civil partnerships but would prefer them to be marriages for all.
- I am in favour of gay adoption - but would prefer the parents to be in a civil partnership.
- I am in favour of living together before marriage and see no issue with premarital sex.
- I believe that making a commitment to marry, a couple are thinking more carefully about their relationship than if they just shack up together.
- While I don't think we should return to the days where unwed mothers were hugely stigmatised, the tables seem to have turned a whole 360 degrees to the point that 48% of children born in the UK are born to single mothers - the vast majority of those born to married parents have mothers who were not born in the UK (predominantly ethnic minorities, especially those of asian origins).
- the welfare benefits system in the UK effectively penalises married couples and rewards single parents.
- children brought up in households where the parents are married tend to be better behaved, do better at school and are more successful in general.
- Marriage is a form of protection for women who give up work in order to raise a family - when husband runs off with his secretary, his wife doesn't suffer financially for his mid-life crisis - without marriage she would pay dearly for the sacrifices she has made to her own career and independence.

 

[ksinger]

I'm going to split my response into two parts: my personal situation and my thoughts on marriage and society as a whole. To preface, I am a staunch atheist and my political views are socially liberal, economically conservative. I also have a sister who is a single mother due to an accidental pregnancy that she would have terminated if it wasn't for the fact that she didn't find out till she was 7 months PG having split up with the ghastly ex-bf 6 months previously...

Personal: I very much wanted to get married, my husband did not as he didn't 'believe' in marriage. I am the product of a very happy marriage of 40 years. His parents divorced when he was 14, splitting the entire family - both parents are now happily remarried.

My reasons for wanting to get married (in no particular order):
- to celebrate finding the person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.
- to ensure our children had the same surname as their parents and we both have legal parental responsibility.
- to swap my very long hyphenated surname for one of 5 letters that I don't have people make assumptions about me from.
- to prevent the whole 'if he really loved you, he'd marry you comments' from relatives.
- to ensure that we inherit from each other without most assets going to the tax-man
- to ensure that we are each other's next-of-kin.
- career purposes (if DH moves overseas for a job, a financial and practical consideration is made for spouse and family).
- some nice bling, a pretty dress and a great party...
- I fundamentally believe in marriage as a good institution.

We don't share a bank account, nor do we gain any tax or health care benefits from being married as they don't exist in the UK. Common-law marriage does not exist here.

General:
- I am in favour of civil partnerships but would prefer them to be marriages for all.
- I am in favour of gay adoption - but would prefer the parents to be in a civil partnership.
- I am in favour of living together before marriage and see no issue with premarital sex.
- I believe that making a commitment to marry, a couple are thinking more carefully about their relationship than if they just shack up together.
- While I don't think we should return to the days where unwed mothers were hugely stigmatised, the tables seem to have turned a whole 360 degrees to the point that 48% of children born in the UK are born to single mothers - the vast majority of those born to married parents have mothers who were not born in the UK (predominantly ethnic minorities, especially those of asian origins).
- the welfare benefits system in the UK effectively penalises married couples and rewards single parents.
- children brought up in households where the parents are married tend to be better behaved, do better at school and are more successful in general.
- Marriage is a form of protection for women who give up work in order to raise a family - when husband runs off with his secretary, his wife doesn't suffer financially for his mid-life crisis - without marriage she would pay dearly for the sacrifices she has made to her own career and independence.

Excellent post. However, I have to say that a re-stigmatization might be in order, especially for teens. I mean, why shouldn't we stigmatize it? Because it might cause psychic pain? Even you agree that children do better with 2 parents in the home, so single parenthood can't be looked at as some overwhelming societal good, can it?

One has to ask, beyond the surface religious objections, WHY unwed motherhood was socially stigmatized before. Was it stigmatized because people were just intolerant bigots or was it because there was an understanding that unwed mothers were totally (then) and likely (still) to need help from society? My husband estimates (and his other coworkers agree) that about 20% of his students are dealing with "child" issues. Some are working on their SECOND child - before age 18. There IS no social stigma, in fact, they are petted and praised by their peers and even some adults, for their actions. And amongst them is the cavalier attitude that hey, if I can't get a job, my family has to support me. So what incentive - if not social stigma - is there for these kids to NOT get pregant or father a child?

My tolerance of tolerance only goes so far. When a social more is breaking down the fabric of the society, I have a problem.

 

[Jennifer W]

I'm going to split my response into two parts: my personal situation and my thoughts on marriage and society as a whole. To preface, I am a staunch atheist and my political views are socially liberal, economically conservative. I also have a sister who is a single mother due to an accidental pregnancy that she would have terminated if it wasn't for the fact that she didn't find out till she was 7 months PG having split up with the ghastly ex-bf 6 months previously...

Personal: I very much wanted to get married, my husband did not as he didn't 'believe' in marriage. I am the product of a very happy marriage of 40 years. His parents divorced when he was 14, splitting the entire family - both parents are now happily remarried.

My reasons for wanting to get married (in no particular order):
- to celebrate finding the person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.
- to ensure our children had the same surname as their parents and we both have legal parental responsibility.
- to swap my very long hyphenated surname for one of 5 letters that I don't have people make assumptions about me from.
- to prevent the whole 'if he really loved you, he'd marry you comments' from relatives.
- to ensure that we inherit from each other without most assets going to the tax-man
- to ensure that we are each other's next-of-kin.
- career purposes (if DH moves overseas for a job, a financial and practical consideration is made for spouse and family).
- some nice bling, a pretty dress and a great party...
- I fundamentally believe in marriage as a good institution.

We don't share a bank account, nor do we gain any tax or health care benefits from being married as they don't exist in the UK. Common-law marriage does not exist here.

General:
- I am in favour of civil partnerships but would prefer them to be marriages for all.
- I am in favour of gay adoption - but would prefer the parents to be in a civil partnership.
- I am in favour of living together before marriage and see no issue with premarital sex.
- I believe that making a commitment to marry, a couple are thinking more carefully about their relationship than if they just shack up together.
- While I don't think we should return to the days where unwed mothers were hugely stigmatised, the tables seem to have turned a whole 360 degrees to the point that 48% of children born in the UK are born to single mothers - the vast majority of those born to married parents have mothers who were not born in the UK (predominantly ethnic minorities, especially those of asian origins).
- the welfare benefits system in the UK effectively penalises married couples and rewards single parents.
- children brought up in households where the parents are married tend to be better behaved, do better at school and are more successful in general.
- Marriage is a form of protection for women who give up work in order to raise a family - when husband runs off with his secretary, his wife doesn't suffer financially for his mid-life crisis - without marriage she would pay dearly for the sacrifices she has made to her own career and independence.

Excellent post. However, I have to say that a re-stigmatization might be in order, especially for teens. I mean, why shouldn't we stigmatize it? Because it might cause psychic pain? Even you agree that children do better with 2 parents in the home, so single parenthood can't be looked at as some overwhelming societal good, can it?

One has to ask, beyond the surface religious objections, WHY unwed motherhood was socially stigmatized before. Was it stigmatized because people were just intolerant bigots or was it because there was an understanding that unwed mothers were totally (then) and likely (still) to need help from society? My husband estimates (and his other coworkers agree) that about 20% of his students are dealing with "child" issues. Some are working on their SECOND child - before age 18. There IS no social stigma, in fact, they are petted and praised by their peers and even some adults, for their actions. And amongst them is the cavalier attitude that hey, if I can't get a job, my family has to support me. So what incentive - if not social stigma - is there for these kids to NOT get pregant or father a child?

My tolerance of tolerance only goes so far. When a social more is breaking down the fabric of the society, I have a problem.

The part in bold sums up the main reason, I suspect. It's easy to demonise a sector of society, with disapproval that ranges from tutting and head-shaking to violence towards and abuse of transgressors. Religious belief had a very strong hold, too. I think that was part of the stigma. The concept of 'sin.' While some people may apply carefully thought out economic and social argument as a prerequisite to stigmatising someone else, I don't believe that the majority will do so. It will just be another socially sanctioned reason to hate. The people who will be truly stigmatised and suffer harm aren't the people who become pregnant without being married / of age, but their children. Since we know that some children may already be disadvantaged by their family situation, are we really going to heap social shame and stigma (back) onto them? I don't think that would help anyone.

Finally, I would point out that women do not have children, MEN and women have children. It's easy, isn't it, to stigmatise and hate the pregnant girl, or her baby. I think that would be a move back to the dark days of the worst sort of gender inequality.

No, I don't on balance think that stigmatism is the most humane or appropriate approach to offering an incentive not to have children in any situation where they can't be adequately supported.

 

[lbbaber]

Why are we wishing "a social stigma" on ANY PART OF SOCIETY???????????? I am STUNNED at that remark! It is 2011. Shall we start putting giant A's on their shirts? Does anyone else see how awful that sounds?

Also, since when do these girls make babies alone? Why is the man, once again, getting off scott free? Sure, lets "stigmatize" the woman and therefore hurt the child. Lets go back in time 100 years bc it worked out so well back then.

And, again, why are we refering to socioeconomic status again? There are plenty of ESTABLISHED UNWED couples in their 40's choosing to have babies WITHOUT getting married. I believe the question was meant for marriage as a whole, not just for low income families. The OP even mentioned as an example her college professors and celebrities. This wasnt a question about teen pregnancy.

 

[Pandora II]

As far as people who chose to become unmarried parents or even single parents, as long as they can afford to do this without recourse to public funding then my attitude is that it is their choice and more power to them. Better two happy, unmarried parents than two unhappy married ones...

I don't believe in stigmatising, but I do believe that we should be actively encouraging young women to have higher levels of self-esteem and ambition and both young men and young women to keep their trousers zipped.

Until 2010, I was a politician in one of the most deprived areas of London with the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe and I sat on one of the panels where we looked at what preventative measures could be put in place.

I would like to see:

- sex education classes starting at age 7. By the time the kids are 12, plenty of them are already having sex so it needs to start very early. These classes need to cover human reproduction, puberty, all forms of contraception, STDs, relationship advice, advice on resisting peer pressure and show young people exactly what having a baby at a young age really entails (perhaps bring in teen mothers to spell things out). Obviously the information should be tailored to the ages of the children, but no school should be allowed to opt out. (The Catholic girl's school in the area refused to allow our teen-pregnancy unit to go in and do sex-ed... until they were shown the statistics that demonstrated that their pupils had the highest abortion rate of any school in the district!). Both contraception and abortion are free in the UK and their are specialist clinics for teenagers.

Sex-education is generally aimed more at girls than boys and it's time for this to change. One thing that never seems to be taught are the practical issues that come with fathering a child. In the UK, an absent father is required by law to contribute 15% of his income until the child reaches the age of 16. I would guess that most teenage boys don't realise this - or that when they are in their mid-30's and perhaps wanting to settle down, 15% of your income going out every month can make a big difference to the quality of life that he and his family may have.

- more responsibility taken by parents for their children's welfare.

- sanctions applied to young men who become fathers even if they are not involved with the child. (In our area it was discovered that nearly half the teen pregnancies were down to 3 boys! )

- less benefits for single mothers - in this area of London we no longer give them apartments, instead they are offered a place in a hostel with other girls in the same position or they are placed in bed & breakfast accomodation.

The over-riding factors in teen-pregnancies seemed to be that the girl came from a home with either divorced parents or absent father, they came from a home where no adult was in employment, they wanted a baby, they wanted the baby so that they 'had something to love that would love them' and they knew that society would foot the bill in order not to penalise the child. The result is to create an underclass where there is intergenerational repetition of single parenting/unemployment/lack of qualifications, education or aspiration.

Finding a solution to this that doesn't mean leaving people to fend for themselves or risk penalising the children is I think one of the hardest dilemmas facing the modern world today. The status quo is fundamentally unfair both for the children born into these situations and also the tax-payer, many of whom find it hard to afford a house and a child themselves and yet have to pay for other people's irresponsibility and offspring - the majority of whom are unlikely to become upstanding citizens.

 

[Pandora II]

Why are we wishing "a social stigma" on ANY PART OF SOCIETY???????????? I am STUNNED at that remark! It is 2011. Shall we start putting giant A's on their shirts? Does anyone else see how awful that sounds?

Also, since when do these girls make babies alone? Why is the man, once again, getting off scott free? Sure, lets "stigmatize" the woman and therefore hurt the child. Lets go back in time 100 years bc it worked out so well back then.

And, again, why are we refering to socioeconomic status again? There are plenty of ESTABLISHED UNWED couples in their 40's choosing to have babies WITHOUT getting married. I believe the question was meant for marriage as a whole, not just for low income families. The OP even mentioned as an example her college professors and celebrities. This wasnt a question about teen pregnancy.

PS tends to go off on tangents... all adds to the general discussion IMO...

 

[ksinger]

As far as people who chose to become unmarried parents or even single parents, as long as they can afford to do this without recourse to public funding then my attitude is that it is their choice and more power to them. Better two happy, unmarried parents than two unhappy married ones...

I don't believe in stigmatising, but I do believe that we should be actively encouraging young women to have higher levels of self-esteem and ambition and both young men and young women to keep their trousers zipped.

Until 2010, I was a politician in one of the most deprived areas of London with the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe and I sat on one of the panels where we looked at what preventative measures could be put in place.

I would like to see:

- sex education classes starting at age 7. By the time the kids are 12, plenty of them are already having sex so it needs to start very early. These classes need to cover human reproduction, puberty, all forms of contraception, STDs, relationship advice, advice on resisting peer pressure and show young people exactly what having a baby at a young age really entails (perhaps bring in teen mothers to spell things out). Obviously the information should be tailored to the ages of the children, but no school should be allowed to opt out. (The Catholic girl's school in the area refused to allow our teen-pregnancy unit to go in and do sex-ed... until they were shown the statistics that demonstrated that their pupils had the highest abortion rate of any school in the district!). Both contraception and abortion are free in the UK and their are specialist clinics for teenagers.

Sex-education is generally aimed more at girls than boys and it's time for this to change. One thing that never seems to be taught are the practical issues that come with fathering a child. In the UK, an absent father is required by law to contribute 15% of his income until the child reaches the age of 16. I would guess that most teenage boys don't realise this - or that when they are in their mid-30's and perhaps wanting to settle down, 15% of your income going out every month can make a big difference to the quality of life that he and his family may have.

- more responsibility taken by parents for their children's welfare.

- sanctions applied to young men who become fathers even if they are not involved with the child. (In our area it was discovered that nearly half the teen pregnancies were down to 3 boys! )

- less benefits for single mothers - in this area of London we no longer give them apartments, instead they are offered a place in a hostel with other girls in the same position or they are placed in bed & breakfast accomodation.

The over-riding factors in teen-pregnancies seemed to be that the girl came from a home with either divorced parents or absent father, they came from a home where no adult was in employment, they wanted a baby, they wanted the baby so that they 'had something to love that would love them' and they knew that society would foot the bill in order not to penalise the child. The result is to create an underclass where there is intergenerational repetition of single parenting/unemployment/lack of qualifications, education or aspiration.

Finding a solution to this that doesn't mean leaving people to fend for themselves or risk penalising the children is I think one of the hardest dilemmas facing the modern world today. The status quo is fundamentally unfair both for the children born into these situations and also the tax-payer, many of whom find it hard to afford a house and a child themselves and yet have to pay for other people's irresponsibility and offspring - the majority of whom are unlikely to become upstanding citizens.

Perhaps "stigmatizing" is a loaded word. But still, why all the coyness about actually telling someone that what they did is wrong? It is wrong for them, wrong for their child, and wrong for society and you don't need to be all religioius or preachy to find any number of empircal sources that could demonstrate just HOW wrong it is. Honestly folks (general folks not you Pandora) by NOT taking a stance that these activities are wrong, and dressing it up as high-minded moral tolerance, we provide tacit assent to the perpetuation of poverty. Someone somewhere has got to start disapproving of this. Out loud. And as Pandora kindly ennumerates, having a few sanctions. (by that you may assume I find what she says to be emminently sensible) My personal number one would be don't LET the girl walk around school boasting and showing sonagrams for gosh sake. To do so is no different than if some kid was telling your child that smoking crack was a good thing. But now (around here at least) they are left in the general population and thus normalise something that SHOULD be disapproved of and should NOT be envied. Both sexes think this is just normal, no big deal. And there isn't a single person with the moral courage, out of school or in, who will tell them this is a very bad thing and draw a line in the sand. These girls are all starry-eyed about this stuff! And the boys, they've often fathered more than one or more than one, and they go around boasting about it. Pandora at least understands what I'm saying, (I hope), I don't advocate going back to the 19th century, but the social pressure that used to keep these things in check is just GONE. And we are reaping the whirlwind. And for what? So everyone can FEEL good? I don't get it.

And as for going tangential, yes, happens all the time. Just like real conversations. You can go off with us or try to address the OP narrowly. But nobody 'owns' these threads.

ETA - I stuck this as a reply to Pandora, but it's really more to show that I agree pretty much, and to address the outrage that I'm such a social neanderthal. That's truly a laugh. I'm not, but I'm also pretty darn tired of hearing about the new pregnant girl is this week. My husband deals with these kids and these issues daily. Your views that nobody's feelings should ever be hurt might change too if it was genuinely in your face all day.

 

[suchende]

I am all for trying to get teens to use birth control more effectively, but I'm not sure a stigma around being unmarried would do any bit of good. If my teen daughter were pregnant by some kid, I certainly wouldn't be pushing her to marry him or live with him.

Also, when it comes to second-generation teen motherhood, it's harder to convince girls that this is "bad" or ruinous to their futures. It's what they came from after all. A branch of my cousins are almost all teen mothers. The first "wave" were about 10 years older than me, then my "wave," and then the wave after mine. So of course, the "grown ups" would try to discourage teen pregnancy in subsequent waves, but their actions contradicted their message: they made sure their grandchildren were well cared-for, my cousins got pretty nice subsidized housing, and they still managed to work and go out occasionally since my aunts and uncles wouldn't let them fall on their faces. Not exactly discouraging.

 

[Jennifer W]

Ksinger, I did perhaps misunderstand your meaning, because I agree entirely with Pandora. I live in an area with a high teenage pregnancy rate and high social deprivation and perhaps more relevantly, worked for a number of years in child protection and criminal justice social work in an area where the figures were even higher. It was in my face, daily, and I think I have a fairly comprehensive grasp of the issue.

However, the difference as I read it between your stance and the one that Pandora has articulated is that she is a proponent of education and appropriate support for young men and young women. Actively and positively intervening to achieve prevention. Your post suggested something entirely different to me. Perhaps it's just semantics, but I read 'stigmatising' as something more passive that would happen after the fact, and to one of the two equally culpable (and one entirely innocent) party. It was the implied inequality there as much as anything else that jarred.

I don't much care about feelings being hurt by social policy, that isn't the point of it - the point is social justice (at least, in Scotland) and I don't believe that stigmatising members of society will help to promote that at any level.

 

[lbbaber]

"My husband deals with these kids and these issues daily. Your views that nobody's feelings should ever be hurt might change too if it was genuinely in your face all day. "




I, not "my husband", have and do work with teenage girls on a daily basis-troubled and at-risk teenage girls. Currently I am a SAHM, but before my 10 month old was born, I worked for 7 years in a Children/Adolescent Psychiatric Hospital and have my degrees in both education AND psychology, if you must know. So I based MY answer on MY EXPERIENCE

I stand by my satement that I am against stigmatizing ANY group in society. What good will that do? I can not believe that this is a debate we even need to have. Educate teens, YES. That is what I do for a living. But STIGMATIZE???????

And yes, conversations tend to go off on a tangent but I was under the assumption (based on numerous threads I have read here at PS) that we try not to "thread jack" and respect the original topic put out by the OP. If I am wrong on that than I apologize.

 

[ksinger]

"My husband deals with these kids and these issues daily. Your views that nobody's feelings should ever be hurt might change too if it was genuinely in your face all day. "




I, not "my husband", have and do work with teenage girls on a daily basis-troubled and at-risk teenage girls. Currently I am a SAHM, but before my 10 month old was born, I worked for 7 years in a Children/Adolescent Psychiatric Hospital and have my degrees in both education AND psychology, if you must know. So I based MY answer on MY EXPERIENCE

I stand by my satement that I am against stigmatizing ANY group in society. What good will that do? I can not believe that this is a debate we even need to have. Educate teens, YES. That is what I do for a living. But STIGMATIZE???????

And yes, conversations tend to go off on a tangent but I was under the assumption (based on numerous threads I have read here at PS) that we try not to "thread jack" and respect the original topic put out by the OP. If I am wrong on that than I apologize.

Fixate on my wording choice just a bit more, do. It's so helpful.

 

[Jennifer W]

I am all for trying to get teens to use birth control more effectively, but I'm not sure a stigma around being unmarried would do any bit of good. If my teen daughter were pregnant by some kid, I certainly wouldn't be pushing her to marry him or live with him.

.

I agree. I also think that it would result in some unintended consequences. Not all young people who find themselves dealing with unplanned pregnancy are disadvantaged. Some of them come from homes where bringing social shame or stigma home would be a bigger disaster than the pregnancy itself. That's the route to baby farming, illegal adoption and back street abortion, amongst other things (things that women have fought tooth and nail to free themselves from).

 

[ksinger]

Ksinger, I did perhaps misunderstand your meaning, because I agree entirely with Pandora. I live in an area with a high teenage pregnancy rate and high social deprivation and perhaps more relevantly, worked for a number of years in child protection and criminal justice social work in an area where the figures were even higher. It was in my face, daily, and I think I have a fairly comprehensive grasp of the issue.

However, the difference as I read it between your stance and the one that Pandora has articulated is that she is a proponent of education and appropriate support for young men and young women. Actively and positively intervening to achieve prevention. Your post suggested something entirely different to me. Perhaps it's just semantics, but I read 'stigmatising' as something more passive that would happen after the fact, and to one of the two equally culpable (and one entirely innocent) party. It was the implied inequality there as much as anything else that jarred.

I don't much care about feelings being hurt by social policy, that isn't the point of it - the point is social justice (at least, in Scotland) and I don't believe that stigmatising members of society will help to promote that at any level.

My mistake in wording then. No, I'm not for something like shunning or some medieval penalty that is going to make the innocent baby into a social pariah later in life, nor do I want to cut WIC, or Planned Parenthood, social services, or preach hellfire. Does that help? But I'm tired of the passive and amoral silence on this issue. We need to judge (the big scary judgement word that will get me eviscerated here again no doubt) teen pregnancy as wrong. Wrong like stealing is wrong. Wrong like smoking crack is wrong. It is bad for everyone and so calling it wrong is not beyond the pale. I realize that telling anyone they're wrong is out of fashion today, but hey, I'm old. I was raised on wrong as a pretty useful concept.

I'd like to elaborate more, but I have to go get some eggs to make icing, so please forgive the terseness.

 

[Jennifer W]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think that judging like that can only result in stigmatisation.

ETA I hope your icing turns out better than my macarons did.

 

[HollyS]

"Perhaps "stigmatizing" is a loaded word. But still, why all the coyness about actually telling someone that what they did is wrong? It is wrong for them, wrong for their child, and wrong for society and you don't need to be all religioius or preachy to find any number of empircal sources that could demonstrate just HOW wrong it is. Honestly folks (general folks not you Pandora) by NOT taking a stance that these activities are wrong, and dressing it up as high-minded moral tolerance, we provide tacit assent to the perpetuation of poverty. Someone somewhere has got to start disapproving of this. Out loud." (ksinger)


Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

Scary,isn't it, how we seem to agree on quite a lot, really?

 

[ksinger]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think that judging like that can only result in stigmatisation.

ETA I hope your icing turns out better than my macarons did.

Well it was touch and go there for a bit. Italian meringue buttercream, which requires a syrup at 245 degrees to be slowly poured into already made meringue. I was trying to halve the recipe, and long story short kinda burned the crap outta my hand with 250 degree syrup. Only a small spot, but there were some....let's say...expostulations going on. I got 'er done though and all is well now.

 

[ksinger]

"Perhaps "stigmatizing" is a loaded word. But still, why all the coyness about actually telling someone that what they did is wrong? It is wrong for them, wrong for their child, and wrong for society and you don't need to be all religioius or preachy to find any number of empircal sources that could demonstrate just HOW wrong it is. Honestly folks (general folks not you Pandora) by NOT taking a stance that these activities are wrong, and dressing it up as high-minded moral tolerance, we provide tacit assent to the perpetuation of poverty. Someone somewhere has got to start disapproving of this. Out loud." (ksinger)


Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

Scary,isn't it, how we seem to agree on quite a lot, really?

I'm truly a social liberal in that I have quite a bit live-and-let-live attitude, don't think morality can or should be legislated, and quite a lot of compassion for mistakes and don't like making people suffer or seeing their lives ruined because of it. I understand that you can't browbeat people with moralizing. I don't believe in true stigmas - in the sense I've been accused of - being applied. I also understand that teens are under enourmous pressures and many are in ghastly situations. But if morality cannot be legislated, then social pressures are the only thing left to enforce any standards of behavior. Unless of course we just want to admit that we're all too morally lazy and cowardly to demand any minimum standards of behavior at all. I think that's just about where we are now, really. Pretty chaotic. I DO believe in owning up to mistakes made and taking responsibility and not making them again. I will help you but you but it would be a big mistake to see my help as approval, because the two are not synonymous. Those here are saying that judging will lead to unfairness, well not-judging also has its own downside, not the least of which is that lack of any defined standard, and we all get to pay for that lack. I admit to getting more and more tired of paying for someone else to grow up, or work out their self-esteem issues. I don't think saying so out loud constitutes a stigma, but apparently anything resembling "judgement" is the thing-that-must-not-be-named.
Honestly, I really AM becoming my mother. Or maybe a male. My views don't seem to sync with women so much anymore. Impending menopause maybe?

And yeah, scary. It should be clear to you now that I was never on the lunatic fringe of the left much as you may have thought so back in the day. I've always considered myself pretty center. More liberal than you, but more conservative than most on PS (at least these days).

OK..and on that note I truly will bow out, quit the 'jack, and lapse back into a torpor, much to the relief of some no doubt.