http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/12/19/why-remarry
Updated December 20, 2010 06:10 PM
Why Remarry?
Introduction
Ed Nacional
December may be a popular month for marriage proposals, but it hasn't been the season for
universal affirmations of the institution itself.
The Times reported last week that French couples are avoiding traditional marriages and
increasingly opting for civil unions. In the United States, two recent studies, one by the Pew
Research Center and another by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virgina, noted
the rise in cohabitation, which has doubled from 1990 to more than six million households in
2008, as an alternative to marriage.
This rise is not simply a reflection of the decision by the young and never married to delay taking
the big step. The number of couples living together who were previously married is also on the
rise, both among those who are still raising children and among older partners.
More second marriages fail than first marriages. With the increasing acceptance of cohabitation,
why remarry? Why risk that nightmare all over again?
Debaters

How to Make It Work This Time
Stephanie Coontz, Council on Contemporary Families

The Childlessness Factor
Ralph Richard Banks, Stanford law professor

Think of the Children
Andrew Cherlin, sociologist, Johns Hopkins

The Higher Risks of Cohabitation
Sharon Sassler, Cornell University

Laws Should Reflect Reality
Nicky Grist, Alternatives to Marriage Project

Why the Ring Matters
W. Bradford Wilcox, director, National Marriage Project
How to Make It Work This Time
Updated December 20, 2010, 04:33 PM
Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at the Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Wash., and wrote "Marriage, A History." Her new book, "A Strange Stirring: The Feminine
Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s," will be out in January.
Second marriages, on average, are slightly more likely to break up than first marriages, but the
difference is quite modest. Twenty-seven percent of women in their second marriages divorce
before their 10th wedding anniversary, compared with 23 percent of women in their first
marriage.
First, you have to admit that your first marriage's failure wasn't all your ex-spouse's fault.
These averages hide big variations by class and educational level, with educated, economically
secure couples having a much lower rate of divorce. Furthermore, they lump together those
people who learn from their first marriages how to make a relationship succeed and those for
whom the second marriage is simply a way station on their way to a second, third or even fourth
divorce – none of them, of course, in any way their fault.
Interestingly, women initiate two-thirds of all divorces, and only half as many divorced women
as men want to marry again. When women do decide to marry again, says Lawrence Ganong, a
step-family expert at the University of Missouri, they usually seek more power in their new
relationship than they had the first time around, and in successful remarriages husbands tend to
be more willing to yield such power.
Over the years, I have taken oral histories of many couples whose second marriage had lasted
longer than their first marriage and was still going strong. In almost every case, two things stood
out. One was the willingness of these individuals to admit what they had done wrong the first
time around, instead of putting all the blame on their former spouse. The second was that both
spouses felt they had discarded older gender-stereotyped attitudes and behavior that had created
problems in their first marriage.
But this occurred in different ways for each sex. The men I interviewed tended to attribute the
success of their second marriage to their having learned to be a more involved father and a more
egalitarian partner. The women, by contrast, usually reported that they had changed what they
were looking for in a potential mate. The second time around, they said, they were drawn to men
who listened to them rather than trying to impress them.
The psychologist Joshua Coleman, co-chairman of the Council on Contemporary Families, says
he has found the same patterns in his work with clients. “When people take some responsibility
for why and how the first marriage ended,” he says, “that allows them to work on the challenges
of a new relationship in a more productive way, or decide to not take a problematic relationship
any further.” And when they do establish those relationships, Coleman observes, "women in
successful remarriages often become more independent than they were in their first marriages,
while men learn to be less independent."
Breaking with traditional gender patterns is especially important when children are involved.
Successful step-families are more flexible in their family boundaries than couples in a
“traditional” nuclear family, and less rigid in assigning parenting roles by gender. A wise
stepfather, for example, doesn’t try to become the family disciplinarian. A stepmother may find
it more effective to act like a friendly aunt than to try to become an instant “mom.”
But this doesn’t mean these relationships are “second best.” Second marriages can and do create
“real” families.
Topics: Culture, family, marriage
The Childlessness Factor
Updated December 20, 2010, 04:33 PM
Ralph Richard Banks is the Jackson Eli Reynolds professor of law at Stanford and the author of
the forthcoming book, “Is Marriage for White People?” which you can follow on Facebook or on
Twitter.
Remarriages have been more likely than first marriages to fail for a number of reasons. One is
that the same personal characteristics contributing to a first divorce might lead to a second.
Another is that entering a new marriage with children from a former marriage increases the
likelihood of conflict and, in turn, another divorce. A third factor is that a divorced person, in
particular a woman with children, might encounter difficulty finding a suitable partner.
The prospects are better for second marriages, but for older couples, the obligations outweigh the
benefits.
While remarriages still pose distinct challenges, divorced people, including women with
children, should find it easier now than ever to form new relationships. The decline in marriage
rates, ironically, makes it more possible to remarry after divorce.
There are now many potential partners for divorced people to choose from. Being divorced at,
say, age 33 in 1962 meant becoming a singleton amid a mass of married people, as the
overwhelming majority of the population married by age 30. Available potential partners in their
30s were often people who had themselves married, had children and then divorced. Now, in
contrast, with a majority of the population remainsingsingle at age 30, opportunities to remarry
are plentiful. Remarriage to someone without children is more likely, increasing the chance that
the relationship will succeed.
The prospects are also better for second marriages among the increasing number of people who
divorce later in life after long-term marriages. These unions often involve either those whose
children from the prior marriages are grown or nearly so, or people who are childless, reflecting
the fact that higher percentages of women and men are childless now than in earlier generations.
But here's the catch: for a couple in their 40s or older who don't intend to have children together,
it’s not clear that marriage benefits them in any substantial way that simply living together does
not. In the absence of shared children — the interest the best justifies state involvement in
people's relationships — there is not much need for a couple to marry.
As courts and legislatures have relaxed the regulation of marriage during the past several
decades, marriage has become less distinctive as a legal matter, less a basis for the allocation of
rights. In fact, there are fewer rights associated with marriage than ever, though there remain
many legally imposed obligations.
Landlords, mortgage companies, credit card providers are no longer allowed to discriminate in
the granting of credit on the basis of marital status. Governments distinguish much less than they
used to on the basis of marriage. Meanwhile, couples remain subject to legally imposed
obligations. To take one example, spouses are liable for each other's debts. Her hospital bills
become his obligation; his credit card charges may subject her to liability, even if the credit card
is in his name alone. In contrast, unmarried intimate partners are not liable for each other's debts.
In sum, the supposed legal benefits of marriage are often illusory, and in any event they are
probably more than offset by legally created burdens.
Marriage confers fewer rights now, but still many obligations. The question for any mature
couple then is simple: Why do it?
Topics: Culture, family, marriage
Think of the Children
Updated December 20, 2010, 04:33 PM
Andrew J. Cherlin is professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. He
is the author, most recently, of “The Marriage-Go-Round.”
When we refer to cohabiting couples, we tend to think of young adults who are trying out a
relationship to see whether it might lead to marriage. There are large numbers of those, to be
sure, but cohabitation is at least as common among people who have ended their first marriages
and are looking for new partners.
Americans form new partnerships after a divorce faster than people in most other wealthy
nations. But these relationships also break up faster.
In fact, about 60 percent of women in second marriages have lived with their husbands before
remarrying (and an additional 9 percent have lived with someone and ended that relationship
before remarrying a different partner). Other divorced individuals may have a series of
cohabiting relationships without ever remarrying. Overall, cohabitation has become a much
larger part of the "repartnering" process than was the case a few decades ago.
That people who have had an unsuccessful marriage would be cautious about starting another
one makes sense. Some may have promised themselves that they wouldn’t get trapped in a bad
relationship again. Others may have good practical reasons for not remarrying: They may want
to avoid being legally responsible for the financial problems like credit card debt that a partner
may have.
They may want to preserve their assets for their children in the event of their death rather than
having a large amount go to a second spouse who survives them. They may be receiving
payments from an ex-husband that stop if they remarry.
But however cautious they are about remarrying, it’s clear that previously married people are not
being cautious about forming cohabiting relationships. The ease with which you can both start
and end one makes it an attractive way to live with a partner while leaving the back door open
for a quick exit. Surveys show that Americans tend to form new partnerships after a divorce
faster than people in most other wealthy nations.
Is the growth of cohabiting relationships among the previous married a problem? Not
necessarily, especially if no children are involved. If a mature adult, having already gone through
a first marriage, decides that he or she would rather avoid the ceremony, the legal entanglements,
or the lifetime commitment of another marriage, then so be it.
We are living in a era when marriage is simply less necessary than it used to be. One can live a
respectable life without it. The Pew Center reported last month that when a sample of Americans
were asked whether they thought that marriage was becoming obsolete, 39 percent agreed.
But adults who are repartnering often bring children with them. (More than half of all divorces
occur in the first 10 years of marriage.) These children typically live with their mothers, but
many spend at least a few days a month with their fathers. What children need after experiencing
their parents’ break-up is a stable living arrangement.
Studies suggest that experiencing a series of parents and parents’ partners moving in and out of
the household may cause difficulties like behavior problems in school for some children.
Unfortunately, cohabiting relationships tend to be unstable. Indeed, Americans’ cohabiting
couples break up in a shorter time than do cohabiting couples in most other nations. Children
whose parents form new partnerships therefore face a high risk of seeing those relationships end,
after which there may be additional partners coming and going.
So while it may be fine for divorced adults without children to explore new live-in partnerships
without the commitment of marriage, those who have children would be wise not to enter into
one unless they are confident that it will last.
Topics: Culture, family, marriage
The Higher Risks of Cohabitation
Updated December 20, 2010, 04:33 PM
Sharon Sassler is an associate professor in the department of policy analysis and management at
Cornell.
Previously married people have probably heard the warning that divorce rates are even higher in
second marriages. But I ask you, how could remarriage possibly be any worse? After all, 100
percent of marriages ended unhappily among the currently divorced. Second marriages on
average cannot possibly fare any worse statistically.
Yes, second marriages have a high failure rate. But dissolution rates are far greater among
cohabiting couples of any age.
Just as with marriage rates overall, remarriage rates have declined. Divorced individuals are
increasingly choosing cohabitation as an alternative to marriage. Living together is sometimes
believed to be a safer, if less formal, relationship.
But the reality is that dissolution rates are higher among cohabiting couples than remarried
couples. According to results from the National Survey of Family Growth, only 13 percent of
cohabitations remained intact (that is, did not make the transition into a marriage or dissolve)
after five years; in contrast, 77 percent of couples that remarried were still together five years
after the ceremony. The odds of remaining in a long-term partnership are higher when there is a
legal tie.
As for those who are parents, remarriage is sometimes unfairly maligned for the impact it can
have on children. It is often difficult for children to adjust to a parent’s new spouse, and on
average, research shows that children who spend time in step-families fare less well than those
who grow up with married biological parents.
But on many dimensions children whose parents enter into second marriages have better
outcomes than do children whose parents cohabit. They are less likely to drink or smoke, have
higher levels of economic well-being, and as adults have better relationship quality than their
counterparts whose divorced parents formed cohabiting unions or remained solo. Parents’
intimate relationships serve as templates for their children, long after the divorce and its
aftermath.
Finally, looking at those who do remarry reveals a well-kept secret.
Just as the advantaged are now more likely to tie the knot in the first place, they are also more
likely to remarry following a divorce. Men, for example, are more likely to remarry than are
women (especially if they are custodial fathers), and remarriage rates are also higher for whites
and the college educated. That suggests that marriage – even second marriages – confers social,
legal, and personal benefits that those in positions of power or authority take advantage of.
Remarriage may be less beneficial among those nearing retirement age. Some recent studies have
found that later-life cohabitations are more stable than those entered into by younger adults,
though they are still less durable than remarriages. There may be other reasons to avoid
remarriages among those who are retirement-aged; concerns with children’s inheritance, reliance
on a former spouse’s pension, or a desire sometimes expressed by widows to enjoy the chance to
do what they want without concerning themselves with another’s wishes.
But for those interested in establishing intimate relationships with new partners, there are many
reasons, well supported with the scholarly research, to put aside the fear of failure that divorce
represents to many Americans, and engage in “the triumph of hope over experience.”
Topics: Culture, family, marriage
Laws Should Reflect Reality
Updated December 20, 2010, 04:33 PM
Nicky Grist runs Alternatives to Marriage Project.
Marriage has too many meanings. Can we have a debate about marriage in which all parties are
talking about exactly the same thing? Is it religious or civil? Economic or cultural? Should you
marry for yourself, your children, your parents, civilization or the benefits? Should you avoid
marriage because of politics, family history, world history, separation of church and state, or the
costs?
The growth of civil unions in France demonstrates that couples are eager to commit, but avoid
institutional pressures to marry.
Even more than first-timers, individuals considering remarriage may find at least one meaning of
marriage unappealing. The popularity of civil unions in France demonstrates that couples are
eager to be recognized and take responsibility, even while avoiding cultural, religious or family
pressure to marry. People still fall in love and commit, but the diversity of relationship and
family structure is increasing.
In the United States, only 49 percent of households contain married couples and 6 percent
contain unmarried partners (2009 American Community Survey). So 45 percent of all
households get left out of most debates about the costs and benefits of caring.
What should we do about that? First, lighten our focus on legal marital status. Second, strengthen
our focus on the myriad values of diverse relationships between interdependent adults. Business
and government policies that assume “a caring relationship equals marriage” are sorely out of
date.
What if policies were based instead on the belief that diverse relationships are good for people
and good for society? Governments would help people register their relationships and share
resources (see Colorado, Salt Lake City, Washington D.C., etc.). Employers would extend health
benefits to any household member (see Nationwide Insurance). Hospitals would let patients have
any visitors they want (a new federal requirement).
These policies demonstrate that caring goes beyond coupledom. Helping diverse caring
relationships is realistic, not radical and will make us all better off.
Topics: Culture, family, marriage
Why the Ring Matters
Updated December 20, 2010, 04:33 PM
W. Bradford Wilcox is the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of
Virginia and author of "When Marriage Disappears: The Retreat From Marriage in Middle
America."
Cohabitation is now an increasingly attractive option to many Americans — including middleaged and older adults who have recently lost a spouse to divorce or death. We can debate about
whether cohabitation is good for the adults involved, especially given the financial penalties
often associated with marriage for low-income and older couples.
But a growing body of social scientific evidence strongly suggests that cohabitation and children
don’t mix, even though more than 40 percent of American children will spend some time in a
cohabiting household.
Compared with children in married step-families, children in cohabiting homes are more likely to
fail in school, run afoul of the law, do drugs and be abused.
Compared with children in married step families, children in cohabiting homes are more likely to
fail in school, run afoul of the law, suffer from depression, do drugs, and — most disturbingly —
be abused. (Note that children in in-tact, married homes do best on all these outcomes.) In the
words of a recent Urban Institute study, “cohabiting families are not simply an extension of
traditional married biological or blended families.”
Indeed, a recent federal report on child abuse found that children in cohabiting stepfamilies were
98 percent more likely to be physically abused, 130 percent more likely to be sexually abused,
and 64 percent more likely to be emotionally abused, compared with children in married stepfamilies.
There are at least three reasons why cohabitation is so risky for children:
1. Unrelated males. Cohabitation often puts children in contact with unrelated males, who are
significantly less likely to invest in these children, and to control their tempers and rein in any
sexual attraction they may have, compared with men who have made a public commitment to
them and their mother through marriage.
2. Instability. While it is true that remarriage is less stable than marriage, cohabitation is still
less stable than a remarriage. This is bad for children, who thrive on stable routines and
relationships with caretakers.
3. No norms. Cohabitation doesn’t enjoy the host of social and legal norms that lend marriage
direction, stability and status. Consequently, children, grandparents and friends find cohabiting
relationships more difficult to negotiate than remarriages.
So, if you are a parent and have lost a spouse to divorce or death, don’t shack up. For the sake of
your children, put a ring on it.
Topics: Culture, family, marriage