Married Couples a minority in U.S.

lucky-E-leven

Aphrodisiaddict
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Posts
17,241
Full Article

WASHINGTON (AFP) - It is by no means dead, but for the first time, a new survey has shown that traditional marriage has ceased to be the preferred living arrangement in the majority of US households.

The shift, reported by the US
Census Bureau in its 2005 American Community Survey, could herald a sea change in every facet of American life -- from family law to national politics and its current emphasis on family values.

The findings, which were released in August but largely escaped public attention until now because of the large volume of data, indicated that marriage did not figure in nearly 55.8 million American family households, or 50.2 percent.

More than 14 million of them were headed by single women, another five million by single men, while 36.7 million belonged to a category described as "nonfamily households," a term that experts said referred primarily to gay or heterosexual couples cohabiting out of formal wedlock.

In addition, there were more than 30 million unmarried men and women living alone, who are not categorized as families, the Census Bureau reported.

By comparison, the number of traditional households with married couples at their core stood at slightly more than 55.2 million, or 49.8 percent of the total.

Unmarried couples gravitated toward big cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, while the farm states in the Great Plains and rural communities of the Midwest and West remained bastions of traditionalism, according to the survey.

The trend represented a dramatic change from just six years ago, when married couples made up 52 percent of 105.5 million American households.

It indicated that efforts by
President George W. Bush and his allies, who over the past five years have made a concerted effort to shore up traditional marriage and families through tax breaks, special legislation and church-sponsored campaigns is bearing little fruit.

The shift, experts said, also raises the question about the future effectiveness of so-called "family value" politics currently played by both Republicans and Democrats.

Douglas Besharov, a sociologist with the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said it is difficult for the traditional family to emerge unscathed after three and a half decades of divorce rates reaching 50 percent and five decades out-of-wedlock births.

"Change is in the air," Besharov said in a recent interview with the State Department journal called US Society and Values. "The only question is whether it is catastrophic or just evolutionary."

He predicted that cohabitation and temporary relationships between people were likely to dominated America's social landscape for years to come.

"Overall, what I see is a situation in which people -- especially children -- will be much more isolated, because not only will their parents both be working, but they'll have fewer siblings, fewer cousins, fewer aunts and uncles," the scholar argued. "So over time, we're moving towards a much more individualistic society."

In the opinion of Stephanie Coontz, who heads the Council on Contemporary Families, growing life expectancy as well as women's earning potential are impacting the traditional marriage in unexpected ways.

If before World War II the typical American marriage ended with the death of one partner within a few years after the last child had left home, she pointed out in the journal, that today couples can look forward to spending more than two decades together in an empty nest.

"The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company, in some instances, has made individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so," Coontz wrote.
 
I sure hope nobody expects me to do anything to change this statistic.

I served my time. ;)
 
My area would make you believe that there aren't any single women left. they are all wearing diamonds (on the souls of their shoes) on their marital fingers.
 
SelenaKittyn said:
all this fuss about 3%? Am I missing something?

3% is much more than the difference between a Republican or a Democrat in the White House.

Og
 
I'm not surprised about this. Look at the Federal Tax Tables. You pay a 3.5% tax permium for being married. Everyone who can is working and covered by some health plan or other.

Is there any reason to get married now? All the incentives have been removed.
 
SelenaKittyn said:
all this fuss about 3%? Am I missing something?

Theat 3% represents a gap that might as well be as wide as the Grand Canyon to the Religious Right. Marriage, the 'nuclear' family, is no longer the preferred way of life.

Good god, they must be tearing their hair out.

Me, I'm delighted. :D
 
I was a little staggered by the number of unmarried families they figured were gay and lesbian headed. I believe the numbers will only be climbing higher, as we filled out our census form quite honestly last month.
:cool:
 
Ah well, in the minority again.

Wonder what polyamorous families fall into? Considering that it's me, my husband, and my (technically our) girl soon to be forming the head of this household, working as equal partners in the relationship and responibilities of raising our children and providing for our community as upstanding citizens...

Does that make us married, or just another part of the minority?
 
FallingToFly said:
Ah well, in the minority again.

Wonder what polyamorous families fall into? Considering that it's me, my husband, and my (technically our) girl soon to be forming the head of this household, working as equal partners in the relationship and responibilities of raising our children and providing for our community as upstanding citizens...

Does that make us married, or just another part of the minority?

I would say that's marriage with an add-on. Does she have children that will be brought into the fold? If so, there should be some very clear understandings about lines of authority. It's bad enough when your own children play one parent against the other in an attempt to get permissions, but three parents will add another dimension.
 
Um, excuse me, but...

At the "young" end of things, people are getting married later in life. This is a trend that has been going on for a few decades, caused in no small part by the fact that women are able to have real careers. In the "old days" a lot of women got married younger because they didn't have other choices.

Also, we have an aging population. The older the population gets, the fewer men there are relative the the number of women (which won't change unless men start living as long as women do). So, there are an increasing number of marriages that are ending the old fashioned way (death, that is). Those marriages aren't being replaced because there aren't enough older men around to marry.

These two factors may seem small but they are probably larger than the small amount of change in the number of married households.

Of course, we could make a big dent in the numbers by recognizing same sex marriage. I would be that if same sex couples could get married, we would have a couple of million more married households after a year or two.
 
I see a LOT of marriages fail in the first few years because there is no real dedication to the marriage, and it's so easy to get a divorce now. I guess they see it as a trial run, and if it doesn't work out, it's easy to back out.

Such an outlook would never fly back when I got married, 52 years ago.
 
It confuses me that people have the idea divorces are easy. I'm sure there are exceptions on both ends of the extreme, but I've been through a divorce (quite amicably) and it was one of the most difficult, time consuming, expensive things I've ever done. It might've been more frowned upon forty or fifty years ago, but it is certainly not an easy thing to accomplish in most cases.

The above is really the reason I think more people (of all sexual bents) are choosing to live out of wedlock. There are simply not enough benefits and it is too difficult to dissolve a marriage once it's contracted. People can meet nearly all of their needs without marriage vows, and it looks to me like they're doing just that.
 
lucky-E-leven said:
It confuses me that people have the idea divorces are easy. I'm sure there are exceptions on both ends of the extreme, but I've been through a divorce (quite amicably) and it was one of the most difficult, time consuming, expensive things I've ever done. It might've been more frowned upon forty or fifty years ago, but it is certainly not an easy thing to accomplish in most cases.

The above is really the reason I think more people (of all sexual bents) are choosing to live out of wedlock. There are simply not enough benefits and it is too difficult to dissolve a marriage once it's contracted. People can meet nearly all of their needs without marriage vows, and it looks to me like they're doing just that.


Maybe so, but in my state a no-fault divorce doesn't even require the parties to appear in court. The lawyers do it, and six months later, freedom.
 
Skip1934a said:
Maybe so, but in my state a no-fault divorce doesn't even require the parties to appear in court. The lawyers do it, and six months later, freedom.
There are still states that don't have no-fault divorces as an option. i happen to live in one of them. i had to fight for a good couple of years to settle an amicable divorce.

In some places it's still pretty rough.


eta: heeheee... pi...
 
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609... :devil:
 
Skip1934a said:
Maybe so, but in my state a no-fault divorce doesn't even require the parties to appear in court. The lawyers do it, and six months later, freedom.

So, it's not a legal hassle. It's still an extraordinary pain in the ass to sort out finances, utilities, car titles, house deeds, furniture, possessions, etc.
 
Evolutionary????

This is the statement that I find really ridiculous:
lucky-E-leven said:
Full Article
"Change is in the air," Besharov said in a recent interview with the State Department journal called US Society and Values. "The only question is whether it is catastrophic or just evolutionary."
Um. HELLO? :rolleyes:

1) "Traditional" marriage in the past was statistically superior because society made it hard to be anything else. Unmarried women were looked down on, children born out of wedlock held in contempt. It's not as if this is a some sort of natural, evolutionary state and suddenly we're moving out of it. It's rather as if it were imposed by our particular society on us whether we were suited for it or not.

In other countries men can marry many women and THAT is normal. In past societies there was no marriage at all, just extended families. WHAT is normal for human beings? Marriage is not a "natural" thing, it is a social construct and it can be changed to be any way we want it to be. And if society wants it that way, then society can force it on people whether it suits them or not. For example, we could decide that women should have three husbands and give any woman hell for having only one.

It's all in the mind.

2) Prior to WWII, the typical American family (Western family come to that) was extended. I'm not say there weren't husbands and wives, of course there were, but usually they lived with grandparents, children, unmarried siblings, aunts, uncles....

This 1950's ideal of a family that is only mom-dad-kids is absurd. It puts way too much pressure on mom/dad to maintain a house and family, with no help from anyone else in the "tribe." Once the kids are adults, they now need to care of aging mom-dad (who still live in their house), while taking care of kids in their own house!

This is not how human families were in "the wild" (sic), i.e., evolutionarily. And again, how can a nuclear family be seen as an evolutionary step when it's only been around for a tiny fraction of human existance and was only imposed on the people in one society?

I rather think that, contrary to what this idiot is saying, this subtle shift is neither catastrophic nor evoution (for humankind or America). It's merely human society trying to slip back to the way families work best...which is however they work best for the individuals involved.
 
Alessia Brio said:
So, it's not a legal hassle. It's still an extraordinary pain in the ass to sort out finances, utilities, car titles, house deeds, furniture, possessions, etc.
No fault divorce is for people who typically have maintained their autonomy re: possessions anyway. I know of very few couples that move through marriage without joining at least some of their belongings and purchases. It's a total hassle, no matter how you slice it, in most cases. Which was why I was kind of linking that to the decline in the marriage rate. I tend to believe that people have finally realized the hassle in joining assets and other such things. It is why my mother, even though I'm quite certain she'll be with her current man for the rest of her life, is refusing to get married again. It was enough of a pain in the ass the first two times. *sigh*

For the record: The only thing I think marriage protections are good for are those that grant rights for visitations to hospitalizations, property ownership upon a partner's death, and those that handle families in the event a partner passes away without warning. And since I am having to contract all of that to attorneys anyway (due to sexuality) I figure those reasons will grow less and less necessary to gain through marriage only.
 
3113 said:
I rather think that, contrary to what this idiot is saying, this subtle shift is neither catastrophic nor evoution (for humankind or America). It's merely human society trying to slip back to the way families work best...which is however they work best for the individuals involved.
I agree completely. I mainly posted a link to the whole article to illustrate that the shift has now been identified in numbers. I don't know that the shift is necessarily catastrophic, but I like that the point is being made that the old way is not necessarily the best way.
 
Trinique_Fire said:
"non-family"???

maddening.
Odd? Yes. I challenge any of the people that visited here last March to identify the members of this house as anything but family. They are, of course, quite open-minded folks and not all hung up in the traditional. I thought it would bother me more, this lack of acceptance from some. I find, though, that it really doesn't have much of an effect at all on how we operate or how we feel about one another.
 
Back
Top