 |
 |
My parents' silver wedding anniversary passed this summer. They celebrated the bliss, toil and triumph of 25 years of marriage, and I sat there in awe.
I guess being married for that many years is hard for me to fathom, considering the longest relationship I've had is with my golf clubs.
But not every couple is so lucky to claim a silver or gold medal. Statistics show that divorce has been on the rise since the mid-1900s. Among white women married in the 1940s, 14 percent eventually divorced. Of couples married in the late 1960s and early 1970s, 50 percent eventually split. Today, there is a 60-40 chance that a marriage won't last.
What soothing statistics. They beg the question, "Why get married at all if it won't last?" They are a sad commentary on the direction our society is headed and they reflect our changing moods about marriage.
The word "divorce" has a mean little head that was once topped by a devilish halo, but its mention no longer elicits the same negative images it did when marriage was seen as a lifetime contract. No, now society accepts the creature and rewards it with no -fault divorce laws that allow unilateral break-ups.
Social scientists are finding that there's been a dramatic shift in marital practices from the 1940s, a time of rapid domestication that preceded the baby boom. Ernest Burgess, a prevalent sociologist of his generation, wrote in 1953 that "urbanization, g reater mobilization, individualization, and the emancipation of women had transformed the family from an institution based on law and custom to one based on companionship and love" (The National Times, October 1996).
Forty-three years later, it's easy to see why he was so optimistic about the family's destiny. Divorce was not as prevalent then, and men and women seemingly accepted without question the traditional roles urbanized society placed them in: In general, men worked outside the home and women worked as housewives.
But men's and women's roles have changed considerably, and along with this came a change in the traditional vision of marriage Burgess spoke of. It seems that the concept of marriage is reverting back to one based on laws rather than everlasting love.
It's no wonder that marriage has strayed from its traditional "contract for life" implication. We live in a society that glorifies change, spontaneity, and "safe" experimentation, one where infidelity is becoming woven into the fabric of our bed sheets.
Today, mentioning marriage does not bring immediate thoughts of lasting love to mind, but thoughts of prenuptial agreements, divorce papers, and decisions about who gets the car when it's over.
Ideally, marriage means that you will be with someone forever. Reality, however, boasts divorce statistics. Idealism and realism are antonyms that mix as well as oil and water.
It's a sad commentary on the direction society is moving, but explaining the divorce phenomenon is difficult. Maybe, we are becoming far too individualistic and are letting go of the notion that companionship is necessary to survive. Perhaps marriage's li fetime contract is too much of a burden on those who think it thwarts their freedom. Or maybe commitment is just an unattainable goal in today's pick-up-and-go society, where it seems easier to move on than to work through tough times.
Maybe those with kids who get divorced are selfish and put their own needs ahead of the needs of their children. Comparison studies of children from intact families to those being cared for by one parent show how harmful divorce really is to children. The y are twice as likely to drop out of school, their scholastic performance suffers considerably, and they are two to three times more likely to suffer from emotional problems.
There must be some moral obligation in this society that pressures spouses to stay together, at least for the sake of the children who are negatively affected by a split. Surely, Dan Quayle was on the right track when he embarked on his mission to preserv e, protect and defend the family.
A couple major changes to divorce and marriage laws are in order. As Gov. John Engler (R- Mich.) wrote, "Over the past quarter century, easy divorce laws have helped tear apart American families."
First, in her book The Abolition of Marriage, Maggie Gallagher suggests to only allow divorce with fault if the decision is bilateral. As for contested no-fault divorces, she suggests imposing a five-to-seven-year waiting period to encourage spouses to "n egotiate with their marriage partner before they get it."
Second, Jessie Dalman, a Michigan state legislator, has sponsored legislation to require a 30-day waiting period before marriage and encourage pre-marriage counseling.
Changes like these would not eliminate divorce. But they would attack the root of the problem: It's too easy to get married, and it's too easy to get divorced.
Adam Djurdjulov is opinions editor and a journalism senior. His column, 'Airing it Out,' appears Mondays.
|
|
|