|
|
|
Jewish Public Forum Archive
Welcome to the
Jewish Public Forum Archive, where you will find materials
published under the auspices of the Jewish Public Forum, including articles by, and
interviews with, Forum participants.
For more information about the Jewish Public Forum, click here.
To access the Jewish Public Forum Archive, click here.
"The Future of Family and Tribe," a seminar of CLALs Jewish
Public Forum held January 28-29, 2002 in New York City, brought together a dozen leading
thinkers on gender, gay rights, adoption, reproductive law, bioethics, and aging. eCLAL
is publishing a series of articles based on participants contributions to the
seminar. This seminar was part of Exploring the Jewish Futures: A
Multidimensional Project On the Future of Religion,Ethnicity and Civic Engagement.
For more information about the project, click
here.
Dorian Solot, Executive Director of the Alternatives to
Marriage Project (www.unmarried.org), a national
nonprofit organization for unmarried people, participated in "The Future of Family
and Tribe" seminar. Her contribution follows below.
No Ring To It: Considering A Less-Married Future
By Dorian Solot
We'll start with a marriage quiz.
Which of the following statements is true?
a) 90% of Americans marry at some point in their lives.
b) Most Americans spend the majority of their lives unmarried.
c) The marriage rate in the U.S. is significantly higher than
marriage rates across Europe.
d) The majority of Americans who marry today have lived together
first.
e) All of the above.
The answer is (e), all of the above
a collection of contradictions. Americans
love marriage to death, though not necessarily 'til death do we part. We love marriage so much that 9 out of 10 of us
marry in our lifetimes,[i]
and that movies that include wedding scenes sell more tickets at the box office.[ii] We place so much importance on the marriage
ceremony itself that we delight in throwing the most lavish, elaborate weddings of any
culture in history,[iii]
spending on the average wedding nearly the amount the average American earns in a year.[iv] We have such confidence in marriage that it is an
unquestioned truism that children do best in married parent families, and that President
Bush has proposed promoting marriage among people on welfare as a plausible solution to
poverty.[v]
But even as Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? recently took the
country by storm, 150 years of demographic
trends paint a clear picture: marriage doesn't play the role it used to in most people's
lives.[vi] More than 3 in 7 American adults are not currently
married,[vii]
and at the rate of increase of the last five decades, the bare ring finger crowd will be a
majority in a few decades. The percentage of
Jewish adults who are unmarried, 35-45%, is only slightly lower than the overall U.S.
population.[viii] But even if we're not marrying as soon or staying
married as long, Americans are forming relationships at about the same rate we always
have; the decrease in married couples is mostly offset by an increase in unmarried ones.[ix] In fact, unmarried partners are one of the
fastest-growing household types, increasing by 72% between 1990 and 2000.[x] These unmarried partner households don't
necessarily fit the stereotype of a young, childless couple either: 41% of them include
children.[xi]
I'm part of this fast-growing
constituency. I share my life and plans for the future with my partner of nine years. Our relationship is strong and committed; we take
out the recycling and consider each other's parents our in-laws (or, jokingly, our
"out-laws") just like the married couples on our block. But neither of us feels any desire to make a trip
down the aisle.
A few years into our relationship, I
was stunned at the pressure to marry directed at us from friends, family members, and even
strangers. Growing up Jewish I was told,
"You can be an astronaut! You can be
President of the United States!" I was caught completely off guard to learn in my
twenties that the one thing society considered set in stone was that I would become a
wife. Even though our relationship worked so
well, my partner and I ran into marital status discrimination everywhere we went. A landlord threatened not to rent to us. My employer told me Marshall and I couldn't get a
joint health insurance policy, even though we'd been in a relationship longer than some of
the married couples with joint policies. A
tenants' insurance company told us we'd have to take out two policies and pay double what
a married couple would.
Today, being unmarried is not just my
personal identity, but also my professional one. As
the Executive Director of the Alternatives to Marriage Project (ATMP), a national
nonprofit organization for unmarried people, I work full-time organizing the grassroots
movement advocating for fairness and equality for people who choose not to marry, cannot
marry, and live together before marriage. ATMP
has over 4,000 households on its mailing list, representing every state in the country,
and our staff, board, and members appear in the media hundreds of times each year to
provide an unmarried perspective to news about marriage and non-marriage. When Reverend Jerry Falwell, the Family Research
Council, or the Traditional Values Coalition are on national television commenting on the
latest census figures or welfare proposals, we're the ones sitting next to them providing
analysis from a family diversity perspective.
Who Are the
Unmarrieds?
The people the Alternatives to
Marriage Project represents don't all look like Marshall and me.[xii]
Although pundits often talk about marriage as an issue of morals and values, economics
provides a more accurate framework for understanding.
Poor people are much less likely to marry, for reasons ranging from an
inability to afford keeping a chronically unemployed spouse around the house, to the
realization that marrying a poor partner would likely put a permanent end to any dream of
upward mobility.[xiii] A vast body of research makes the links clear:
when the country's economy improves, marriage rates go up.[xiv] The same holds true on an individual level, where
rising incomes make people more likely to marry.[xv] As the gap between rich and poor widens in the
U.S., marriage patterns follow a similar pattern, leading demographer Frank Furstenberg to
famously describe marriage as a "luxury consumer item" and cohabitation and
single parenthood the "budget" approaches to family formation.[xvi]
But the poor aren't the only ones not
married. Many people are unmarried because
they haven't met a partner they find worthy of a lifetime commitment, because they want to
avoid the pain or expense of divorce, because they don't want the government to
"regulate" their relationship, or because they don't plan to have children and
see no other reason to wed. Same-sex couples
can't marry anywhere in the country, and thousands of different-sex couples have chosen
not to marry to avoid taking advantage of a privilege available only to some. Many senior citizens and disabled people would
lose significant financial benefits (perhaps a pension from a previous spouse) if they
married or remarried. Thanks to employment
for women and the invention of TV dinners and washing machines for men, husbands and wives
are no longer essential to survival.
For the most part, we unmarried folks
do just fine, thank you. If we're in
relationships our lives are more similar to married couples than different from them. But because of the ease with which couples move in
together, many of us are surprised at the "marital status-ism" we encounter. The first problem is a lack of social support
from families, communities, and religious institutions.
It's widely believed that social support is a key ingredient to making
marriages strong, yet cohabiting couples often see their partners excluded and
relationships ignored at family events, and shamed or stigmatized in faith communities. Many describe the pressure to marry as intense
(and without regard for whether marriage is in their best interest), and with it the
message that their relationship as it currently stands is second best, inadequate. Legal barriers compound the problems. Everywhere that families come into contact with
the law housing, employment, health care, insurance, taxes, immigration, adoption,
pensions, social security, inheritance, and more the legal system is oblivious
to the needs and realities of unmarried families.
Even the most basic issue of
self-definition creates problems when the language and categories available to us don't
adequately describe unmarried lives. Every
form seems to have checkboxes that ask us if we're married (no) or single (I certainly
don't feel single). And one of the most
common things unmarried couples wrestle with is what to call each other. Boyfriend and girlfriend sound too teenage;
partner leads people to think you're business partners or gay; significant other is trying
too hard; and spousal equivalent is just plain silly.[xvii] Everyone in an unmarried relationship has had the
experience of being introduced, "This is Margaret and her uhh
mmmm
eh
friend."
The Future of
Unmarriage
Projecting into the future based on
the demographic trends of the last century and a half, the continuation of the gradual
move away from marriage looks fairly inevitable. Writing
in the New York Times, social commentator Katha
Pollitt described the unlikely scenario that would have to take place to allow a return to
mythologized Ozzie and Harriet families: "We'd have to restore the cult of virginity
and the double standard, ban birth control, restrict divorce, kick women out of decent
jobs, force unwed pregnant women to put their babies up for adoption on pain of social
death, make out-of-wedlock children legal nonpersons.
That's not going to happen."[xviii]
The inescapable shift is taking place
not just within our borders but also around the world. In the last decade marriage rates
fell in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK, just to name a few.[xix] The percentage of births to unmarried parents rose
in 14 of the 15 European Union countries, and is 39% or higher in a third of them.[xx] The number of unmarried parents in Japan grew 85%
in the last five years,[xxi]
and in 2001 the Swiss marriage rate fell faster in a single year than it had in the
previous eighty years.[xxii] There's nothing to suggest people will quit the
institution cold turkey. Instead, more will
marry later or not at all; a significant portion of those who do marry won't stay together
for life; people will marry for specific, practical reasons (childrearing, immigration,
health benefits, etc.); and acceptance of cohabitation will continue to increase.
It also seems clear that, eventually,
the U.S. will give unmarried relationships and families social and legal standing
comparable to that currently accorded to married ones.
There's a lot to be learned by watching other countries grapple with
unmarried relationships. Some, like Canada,
France, and Sweden, have already overhauled their legal codes so that references to
"spouse" also pertain to unmarried partners, or so that partners who meet
certain criteria can register and gain "marital" rights as domestic partners.
Others, like Australia, Belgium, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa,
Uganda, and the UK have either taken initial steps toward broader recognition, or are
currently engaged in national debates about how to best reconcile the gap between real
families and those in the legal imaginary.[xxiii] Another set of nations is reacting to the changes
entirely differently, as seen in news articles about women and couples in Nigeria and the
United Arab Emirates who are sentenced to imprisonment, public floggings, or death by
stoning for the crimes of cohabitation and unmarried sex.[xxiv] It does not seem presumptuous to assume that the
U.S. will end up with a system more like Canada's than like Nigeria's.
There are two questions that remain. First, how much damage will we do to children and
families in the intervening time before we revise our social and legal codes? On a daily basis, unmarried people are denied
access to health insurance, bi-national couples are prevented from being together,
partners are shut out of hospital rooms, couples are shut out of faith communities, and
people lose their homes when their partner dies without a will. Groups that oppose expanding rights to unmarried
people and families base their arguments on the well-being of children and the
strengthening of families. Yet their
resistance functions to leave an ever-growing portion of American families out in the
cold. The reality is stark: two in five
American children live in a family other than their biological married parents.[xxv]
The second question is how the change
will come about. Shifts in social support are
likely to happen gradually on their own, as unmarried people and relationships become
increasingly commonplace. But updating laws
and policy is a more complex process. An
organized grassroots lobby of unmarried people could bring change, like the War Widows of
America who in the 1960s lobbied successfully to eliminate the "singles penalty"
from the tax code.[xxvi] A high profile case of discrimination on the basis
of marital status could turn legislators' sympathies, such as the scores of surviving
partners of people killed on September 11th who are currently denied access to most
survivors' benefits. The lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender rights movement has already succeeded in expanding recognition of
diverse families in a myriad of ways, and is another likely leader in the movement for
fairness.
Social theorist Peter Drucker said,
"The best way to predict the future is to create it." Lacking an obvious path to fair and equal
treatment, those of us who recognize marital status as a social justice issue need to
commit to making a difference where we can. Some
of us can implement or agitate for workplace benefits policies that include employees'
partners and dependents regardless of marital status.[xxvii] Some can create a culture of support and
acceptance for diverse families in synagogues and churches, encourage unmarried people to
take leadership positions, and offer relationship counseling in addition to marriage
counseling. Some can strengthen unmarried
couples' relationships by presiding over union or commitment ceremonies for those who seek
a religious blessing but cannot or choose not to marry.
Some can encourage legislators to expand the definition of family, so that
families are recognized as people linked by emotional and financial care and
interdependency, not limited to those connected by marriage, blood, or adoption.
All of us can become conscious of our
language and assumptions. We can talk about
partners along with spouses, pay attention to the word someone uses to identify his
partner/sweetheart/significant other, and make an effort to understand the meaning of a
couple's own relationship rather than applying a one-size-fits-all model to everyone. We
can learn more about the history and reality of marriage and families in the U.S. and
around the world, to better understand the dangers of regressive policies that would
"strengthen marriage" by increasing the privilege divide between married and
unmarried. We can make contributions to the
organizations the Alternatives to Marriage Project, the Council on Contemporary
Families, and others that are on the front lines, who are regularly called on to
debate spokespeople from groups with budgets hundreds of times larger than our own.
On a regular basis I still answer
questions about why I'm not married, and I still argue with unenlightened rental car
companies about why we should have to pay more than a married couple for a second driver.
But I can also feel things shifting all around me. I
receive my health insurance though the domestic partner policy at Marshall's workplace,
and my doctor's office has a "partnered" checkbox on its patient forms.
Recently, for our ninth anniversary, we got a card in the mail from my grandmother, which
read, "Your commitment and love for each other is all that really counts. Hoping you keep celebrating to eternity!"
If the octogenarians get it, the rest
of the country can't be far behind.
[i] Fields, Jason. America's Families and Living Arrangements 2000.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
[ii] Spindler, Amy. "The Wedding Dress That Ate Hollywood." The New York Times. 30 August 1998.
[iii] Gillis, John. A World of Their Own Making: Myth, Ritual, and the
Quest for Family Values. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.
[iv] Ingraham, Chrys. White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular
Culture. New York: Routledge, 1999.
[v] Office of the Press
Secretary. "Fact Sheet: President Announces Welfare Reform Agenda." Press
release. Washington, D.C.: The White House, 26 February 2002.
[vi] Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the
Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books, 1992.
[vii] U.S. Bureau of the
Census. Current Population Reports, Series P20-537, "America's Families and Living
Arrangements: March 2000," and earlier reports.
[viii] The rate varies depending
on how Jewish idenity is defined. "Highlights
of CJF's National Jewish Population Survey 1990." New York: North American Jewish
Data Bank.
[ix] Bumpass, Larry; Sweet,
James; and Cherlin, Andrew. "The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of
Marriage." Journal of Marriage and the Family.
53: 913-27, 1991.
[x] U.S. Census Bureau.
"Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for the United States: 2000." Table DP-1. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau.
"Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for the United States: 1990." Table DP-1. 1990.
[xi] Fields, Jason.
"American's Families and Living Arrangements 2000." Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Census Bureau, 2001.
[xii]
We're a young, white, educated couple.
[xiii] Edin, Kathryn. "What
Do Low-Income Single Mothers Say About Marriage?" Social Problems, 47: 112-133, 2000.
[xiv] Fitch, Catherine and
Ruggles, Steven. "Historical Trends in Marriage Formation: 1850 - 1990." In
Waite, Linda, ed. The Ties That Bind: Perspectives
on Marriage and Cohabitation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2000, pp. 59-88.
[xv] Smock, Pamela and Gupta,
Sanjiv. "Cohabitation in Contemporary North America." Presented at Just Living
Together cohabitation symposium, Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Smock, Pamela and Manning, Wendy. "Cohabiting
Partners' Economic Circumstances and Marriage." Demography,
34: 331-41, 1997.
[xvi] Furstenberg, Frank, Jr.
"The Future of Marriage." American
Demographics. 34-40, June 2000.
[xvii] Acknowledging this
challenge, I argue for the use of "partner" rather than the invention of a new
term. I like the equality and connection
inherent in the word, as well as the fact that its use de-emphasizes gender, marital
status, and sexual orientation. As partner
becomes more widely used by heterosexual and married couples in addition to
unmarried and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ones misunderstandings will
become more uncommon, a process already underway.
[xviii] Pollitt, Katha.
"Bothered and Bewildered." The New York
Times, 24 November 1994.
[xix] Eurostat. "First
Results of the Demographic Data Collection for 1999 in Europe." Statistics in Focus. European Communities, 2000. Cauchi, Stephen. "Tying the Knot Not What It
Used To Be." The Age., 9 January 2001. Gang, Deng. "Marriages Down, Divorces
Up." People's Daily Online. 25 April 2001. Sofer, Barbara. "Looking Around: The Singles
Among Us." The Jerusalem Post, 26 October
2000.
[xx] Thirty-three percent of U.S.
births are to unmarried parents, compared with 39% in the UK and Finland, 41% in France,
45% in Denmark, 49% in Norway, 55% in Sweden, and 63% in Iceland. Eurostat. 100
Basic Indicators from Eurostat Yearbook 2001: The Statistical Guide to Europe.
Luxembourg: European Communities, 2001.
[xxi] Tatsuta, Keiko. "More
Women Daring To Be Single Mothers." Japan
Today, 29 December 2001.
[xxii] Swissinfo. "Swiss Wedding Bells Fall
Silent." 10 February 2002.
[xxiii] Gibb, Frances. "Gays
Call for Married Couples' Status." The Times, 24 October 2000. Dombey, Daniel. "Belgium Approves Tax
Reforms." Financial Times, 5 July 2001. The Irish Times. "To Love Outside the
Law." 17 April 2001. Lloyd,
Marion. "In Mexico, a Mass Gay Wedding." The
Boston Globe, 16 February 2001. PlanetOut. "NZ Gay Couples Win Divorce
Rights." 22 November 2000. Solholm, Rolleiv. "Obligatory Mediation
for Cohabitants." The Norway Post, 7
February 2002. ANC Daily News Briefing. "Concourt Judgment
Welcome: Commission on Gender Equality." 3 December 1999. Balongo, Faith. "Perils of 'Come-We-Stay'
Marriages." The Nation, 23 January 2000. The
Telegraph. "Partners' Hopes for Equal Treatment Rise." 6 February 2002.
[xxiv] Zenit News Agency. "Unwed Couple Flogged in
Afghan Stadium." 24 May 2001. Daily Trust. "Another Unmarried Woman
Faces Trial for Adultery in Sokoto." 7 January 202.
Nazzal, Nasouh. "Preacher Lashed, Deported for Cohabitation." Gulf News, 24 June 2001.
[xxv] Brown, Susan. Child
Well-Being in Cohabiting Families. Presented at Just Living Together symposium,
Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Based on data from National Survey of Americas
Families, 1997.
[xxvi] This change resulted in the "marriage
penalty" we hear so much about today. Goodman, Ellen. "Marriage Penalty Isn't
What It Seems To Be." The Boston Globe, 13
April 2000.
[xxvii] "Inclusive"
domestic partner benefits plans have been shown to increase employers' costs by an average
of only 1-2%. For more information about
this, see the Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits, downloadable
from www.ngltf.org/library/dp_pub.htm . Badgett, M.V. Lee. "Calculating Costs with
Credibility: Health Care Benefits for Domestic Partners." Angles. Amherst, MA: The Institute for Gay and
Lesbian Strategic Studies, November 2000.
To view other essays from "The Future of Family and Tribe"
seminar, click here.
To join the conversation at Jewish Public Forum Talk, click here.
To access the Jewish Public
Forum Archive, click here.
To receive Jewish Public Forum columns by email on a regular basis, complete the box
below:
|