The Right Opinion
Marriage at Risk in America
Institution's decline means greater poverty
"Marriage is a wonderful institution," H.L. Mencken once quipped, "but who would want to live in an institution?" Great line. But in the real world, the more we learn about marriage, the more we realize how vital it is.
For example: Social science finds that more than 30 percent of single-parent families with children are poor. The figure for married families: 7 percent. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the overwhelming majority of nonmarried fathers have jobs and typically earn more than the mother. If the couple was married and the father stayed in the home, the probability of child poverty would drop by nearly two-thirds. Wedding ceremonies could dramatically reduce child poverty, and it wouldn't cost the government a penny.
Instead, we're spending plenty trying to help needy children. Last year alone, all levels of government shelled out some $330 billion to provide food, housing, medical care and social services to poor and low-income single parents. It averages out to about $30,000 per poor family.
Again, the social science is clear: Single parenthood tends to go hand-in-hand with poverty. In fact, some 70 percent of poor families with children are headed by single parents -- usually single mothers. Many are doing a heroic job, but there's no denying the fact that single-parenthood often leads to long-term problems.
Having a father in the house does more than add income -- it gives the children a role model. For example, compared to children in married-couple homes, children living with single parents are:
More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime.
Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems.
Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school.
A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.
There's an aspect of equality at play here as well.
"The U.S. is steadily separating into a two-caste system with marriage and education as the dividing line," says Heritage Foundation welfare expert Robert Rector. "In the high-income third of the population, children are raised by married parents with a college education; in the bottom-income third, children are raised by single parents with a high school degree or less."
If we want to promote fairness, we ought to be promoting marriage, particularly among poor Americans. The question is how.
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey has been conducted jointly by Princeton and Columbia universities for decades. It tracks at-risk families across years. The survey shows that most low-income young women dream of having a husband, children, a minivan and a house in the suburbs "with a white picket fence." They just don't take the path in life that leads to those goals.
Instead of getting married before becoming pregnant, they tend to have the child first. Marriage, in their mind, comes later.
"Marriage is regarded as an important ceremony that will celebrate one's eventual arrival in the middle class rather than as a vital pathway that leads upward to the attainment of middle-class status," as Mr. Rector puts it. For these women, "The idea that you should carefully select a suitable partner and diligently build a successful relationship with him before conceiving a child is a foreign concept."
An important step toward changing this attitude would be to reduce the penalties against marriage that the welfare system imposes. A single mother can receive far more from welfare than if she can if she gets married. So for many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple's joint income. That's a clear disincentive.
Lawmakers could also encourage public advertising that promotes the importance of marriage, as well as expand the small "healthy marriage initiative" that's currently run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In 2010, only 59 percent of all births in the nation occurred to married couples, down from 93 percent in 1964. The trend lines are definitely running in the wrong direction. Marriage is at risk -- it's time to save it.

5 Comments
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM
Save Marraige? That is going to be a steep uphill battle when the dependent class gets rewarded by government to remain a slave to the system with handouts rewarding multiple pregnacies. Stop subsidising these leaches. Stop voting for Democrats, who enable and encourage the dependent class. We will see in November if the leaches outnumber the producers, and if so, they will kill the American Host.
Abu Nudnik in Toronto
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM
the dependent class gets rewarded by government to remain a slave to the system with handouts rewarding multiple pregnacies. Stop subsidising these leaches.
Amen! That's the big problem. Let the fathers and mothers pay.
Old Sarge in Hinesville, GA
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Whatever happened to taking care of your own in this country? These dead-beat fathers brag about the kids they have fathered but share no responsiblity for their upkeep or upbringing. It is a badge of honor to them in how many kids they have but not enough honor to do the right thing. If child support is threatened to be taken our of their wages (that is if they work) they quit the job. No pride or work ethic is the norm for these parasites.
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 10:57 AM
This represents a pretty simplistic view. Which is why I say this article largely ignores the real problems.
Single mothers are rarely "heroic." Except for widows, the word that describes the vast majority of them is "irresponsible."
The reason behind most fatherless households is that the mother does not want the father around, and the police will happily eject him at her whim, for any reason or no reason at all, and judges will reward her with cash and prizes that the father is required to supply.
More than 70% of divorces are initiated by women. They can do so with the virtual certainty of receiving primary custody of the children and a sizable portion of their husband's future income... and the house... and the car... -- He does get ONE thing though: the bills she ran up.
When the author throws around semi-factoids like this, "the overwhelming majority of nonmarried fathers have jobs and typically earn more than the mother," he is ignoring the assets the mother receives either through transfer payments by the man (he doesn't even have to be the real father), and subsidies by the state. Nor does it consider that his payments to her are usually taxed on his end rather than hers.
Women are naturally hypergamous, and encouraging young women to pursue degrees while they put off marriage and children until half their years of fertility are gone results in a lot of "high-mileage," sassy "career gals" who are "heroically" raising the kids they had with the bass player or the quarterback, then looking for a nice beta-male provider to "man-up" and rescue her and her brood.
Marriage is a sucker's bet for men today. Want to fix it? Here's how:
Eliminate no-fault divorce. In no other area of law can one person benefit from a contract, then quit before completing their part, then force the injured party to continue to uphold their end while providing nothing in return. Stop forcing ex-husbands to subsidize contract-breaking by their ex-wives.
Mandatory paternity testing. No man's name should ever go on a birth certificate unless he is the actual father. Except in cases of adoption, no man should be forced to pay for a child that is not his. Infidelity that results in pregnancy is FAR more common than most people realize. Stop forcing ex-husbands to subsidize cuckoldry by their ex-wives.
I'm out of space, but that's a good place to start.
Stan in Dallas
Monday, October 8, 2012 at 4:26 PM
Army, You are on the right track. However, I would go further. If women can have a physical abortion then men should be able to have a 'civil abortion' where he can terminate his fatherhood role. That will put the stop on meal ticket mommys lying about being on the pill. Also, any voluntarily single mother should be solely responsible for the expenses of her child. It was her choice to have sex; have sex without a condom; have sex without being on the pill; have sex without a diaphram, without a spermicidal cream; without a morning after pill; or without an abortion (a murder of a baby). The guy had two abstinence and a condom. He could have been defrauded into parenthood by a wannabe lying meal ticket mommy.
If you translate the $330 Billion into the next 10 years we are looking at 3.3 Trillion Dollars.
95% of our drug addicts and prostitutes come from our single mother homes. That means that 95% of the funding for the mass murders in Mexico and points south are a result of our incentivizing single mother hood with our federal dollars. That war is coming to a town near you very soon.
Stan