The
two words, marriage and love often appear together. This leads people to perceive
that these two words go hand in hand. According to Stephanie Coontz, however, love
has not been compatible with marriage throughout most of human history (“The
Radical Idea of Marrying for Love” 251). In the essay “Marriage and Love,” Emma
Goldman, a Russian-born American writer, even describes “[love and marriage] are, in fact, antagonistic
to each other” (Goldman). Nevertheless, the marriage model which advocates the
idea that marriage should be based on love and companionship has prevailed in most
Western societies and motivated changes in marriage-related issues, such as meaning
of marriage, divorce rate, and family structure in the US (Coontz, “The Origins
of Modern Divorce” 9; Amato 961).
Coontz traces the history
of “marrying for love” (“The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love” 250), and she
reveals that Enlightenment signaled the advent of this marriage model (257). According
to Coontz, Enlightenment and individualistic philosophy fostered freedom,
individual rights, equality, justice, and market economy in Western societies through
the eighteenth and nineteenth century (257-58). These social changes encouraged
people to choose their partners based on love (257). In the paper “Tension
Between Institutional and Individual Views of Marriage,” Paul R. Amato also
points out that by the end of the nineteenth century, urbanization,
industrialization, and revolutionary ideas, such as equality and freedom, were
widespread in the US; subsequently, individuals were increasingly free from the
influence of family, community, and traditional norms (961). Especially, as
young people’s socioeconomic status grew, individual preference expanded in
determining whether to marry, whom to marry, and when to end the marriage
throughout the 20th century (961).
As love increased
its significance in marriage, the transition from institutional to individual
views of marriage occurred (Amato et al. 18). In the book Alone Together, Amato et al. state that marriage has been referred
to as a social institution which regulated individuals’ behaviors and organized
interpersonal relationships in the US for a long time (1). Specifically,
according to Coontz, people married to expand resources which help their family
and race thrive regardless of cultural differences until social, economic, and
political changes affected people’s behaviors (“The Origins of Modern Divorce”
8-9). Marriage was, at times, used as a tactic to make alliances or an
opportunity to improve socioeconomic status in the past (8). However, as marriage
based on personal preference prevailed, marriage became a lifestyle choice rather
than social institution and a path through which individuals achieve
self-development rather than a goal in life (Amato at al. 2; Cherlin 853).
In the paper “Tension
Between Institutional and Individual Views of Marriage,” Amato points out that marriage-related
social phenomena have also notably changed in the US over the last several
decades (959). Amato et al. characterize the changes in marriage that have occurred
in the US over the last several decades as follows: “[t]he growing popularity
of nonmarital cohabitation, the increase in
the percentage of children born outside marriage, the rise in age of
first marriage, the continuing high divorce rate, and the declining of
remarriage rate” (1). Specifically, as of 2004, statistics of marriage show that
the divorce rate has doubled since 1960 and the number of unmarried
cohabitating couples is steadily increasing in the US (Popenoe and Whitehead 268-72).
Regarding divorce
rate, in the paper “The Origins of Modern Divorce,” Coontz notes that the marrying
for love model is responsible for the increasing rate of divorce (9). Marrying
for love has developed the “recipe for marital happiness” (Coontz, “The Radical
Idea of Marrying for love” 254) and has led people to have expectations to
fulfill happiness by pursuing the recipe: true love, intimate and egalitarian relationship,
mutual communication, and faith and loyalty to each other (254-57). Even though
the recipe was rarely practiced in reality, the expectations to realize happiness
by following this recipe were getting higher throughout the 20th
century (Coontz, “The Origins of Modern Divorce” 11). The more people pursued
their expectations, the more people were disappointed with marriage (11-13). This
led to the reality that divorce rate steadily increased in the US by the late 20th
century, points out Coontz (14).
Another considerable
marriage-related social issue that the marrying for love model brought about is
changes in family structure in the US. In the paper “The Deinstitutionalization
of American Marriage,” Andrew J. Cherlin, professor of sociology and public
policy at Johns Hopkins University, describes the trend that marriage is
becoming a personal choice as “deinstitutionalization of marriage” (848). Cherlin
then discusses two aspects of deinstitutionalization of marriage. One is the
emergence of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has received much attention
from the public since the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a law limiting
marriage only to opposite-sex couples was against the Hawaii state constitution
in 1993 (850). The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts accepted marriage
between same-sex couples on November 18, 2003 (“Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions
and Domestic Partnerships”). In 2007, New Jersey passed civil union legislation
which provides same-sex couples with state-level rights (Nelson). As of 2010,
according to National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Massachusetts,
Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and District of Columbia issue
marriage license to same-sex couples. Besides these legal changes, citing the
statistics of the US census, Cherlin points out that family structure in the US
has been changing (851). As of 2000, 33% of women and 22% of men in same-sex
partnerships lived with children (851). According to Cherlin, same-sex couples
already describe themselves as ‘family’ even though, by the definition, they do
not mean traditional family based on legally married opposite-sex couples
(851). The other aspect is the growth of unmarried cohabitation. The figures in
Popenoe and Whitehead’s paper “The State of Our Union” show the number of
unmarried cohabitating couples has steadily increased in recent decades (272).
Moreover, the population of unmarried cohabitants living with children has
grown (Seltzer 1247). California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington have laws that
provide unmarried couples with almost all spousal rights within the states (NCSL).
As Cherlin points out, cohabitation is gradually considered to be an acceptable
union in the US (849). In the study “Families Formed Outside of Marriage,” Judith
A. Seltzer also notes that cohabitation has become one of family types in the
US (1247).
According to the studies mentioned above, marriage in
the US has been in noticeable transition for the last several decades. Marriage
as an institution is losing its meaning and authority it used to have in the
past. Today, marriage is not just a goal in life but is considered to be a
lifestyle choice and a path through which individuals achieve self-development.
The change in points of view on marriage has led to the trend that union formation
and family type are gradually getting diversified. These changes in marriage followed
the expansion of individual rights and socioeconomic changes like the
improvement of woman’s socioeconomic status. Especially, according to Coontz, it
is marrying for love that has been the epicenter of the changes in marriage (“The
Radical Idea of Marrying for love” 260).
Works
Cited
Amato, Paul R. “Tension Between
Institutional and Individual Views of Marriage.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 66.4 (2004):
959-65. Print.
Amato, Paul R., et al. Alone
Together: How Marriage in America Is
Changing. Cambridge:
Harvard UP, 2007. Print.
Cherlin, Andrew J. “The Deinstitutionalization
of American Marriage.” Journal of
Marriage
and Family 66.4 (2004): 848-61. Print.
Coontz, Stephanie. “The Origins of
Modern Divorce.” Family Process 46.1
(2007): 7-16. Web.
26
Mar. 2010. .
---. “The Radical Idea of Marrying
for Love.” Writing and Reading Across the
Curriculum, 10th ed.
Eds. Laurence Behrens and Leonard Rosen. New York:
Pearson/Longman,
2008. 250-61. Print.
Goldman, Emma. “Marriage and Love.”
Anarchism and Other Essays, 2nd
ed. New York:
Mother
Earth Publishing Association, 1911. 233-45. Anarchy
Archives. Web. 25 Mar.
2010.
.
Nelson, Christine. “Civil Union
& Domestic Partnership Statutes.” NCSL.org.
National
Conference
of State Legislatures. Mar. 2008. Web. 1 Apr. 2010. .
Popenoe, David, and Barbara Dafoe
Whitehead. “The State of Our Unions.” Writing
and
Reading Across the Curriculum,
10th ed. Eds. Laurence Behrens and Leonard Rosen.
New
York: Pearson/Longman, 2008. 263-75. Print.
“Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions
and Domestic Partnerships.” NCSL.org.
National
Conference
of State Legislatures. Mar. 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2010. .
Seltzer, Judith A. “Families Formed
Outside of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage
and Family
62.4
(2000): 1247-68. JSTOR. PDF file.
