marriage

[inked]

Of interest:
TITLE:
Evaluating Marriage: Does Marriage Matter to the Nurturing of Children?
AUTHOR(S):
Robin Fretwell Wilson, University of Maryland School of Law

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/faculty...facultynum=280

DOCUMENT TYPE: Article

Published in San Diego law review, v. 42 no. 3, 2005

Download the Document (PDF format - 372 K) - October 2005
Tell a colleague about it.
ABSTRACT:
Three decades ago, it would have been inconceivable for people to discuss seriously the idea of withdrawing the legal and financial support society gives to marriage. In recent years, however, thinkers and policymakers have given more serious thought to the possibility of eliminating marriage as a category entitled to the State’s support. An important consideration in this debate is whether keeping or eliminating the State’s support of marriage matters to the well-being of children. A wealth of studies contemplating modern family forms now exists, many of which invariably stack newer family structures up against the more traditional nuclear family. Until recently, such studies contrasted families that are so dissimilar that nothing meaningful could be drawn from them about the importance of marriage.

This article evaluates the extent to which newer, more carefully constructed studies can assist us in isolating the impact on a child’s well-being of living in a marital home. Part I describes the limitations of earlier studies of family structure. Part II examines a pair of studies published in 2003 that compare children’s outcomes and parental investments in children in families that contain biological, married parents with those containing biological, unmarried parents. These studies conclude that “marriage per se confers advantage in terms of” how children thrive and to the extent to which parents are willing to invest in children. Part III evaluates the degree of reliance we should place on these newer studies. It first identifies various selection effects that may color the study results. It then reviews scholarship that suggests that the transformative power of marriage may lie first in the greater permanence of marital relationships and, secondarily, in the motivation of the parties to invest in these relationships. This article concludes that perceptions of enduringness may shape not only relationships between the adults, but may also frame the adults’ relationships to their children.

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland....ntext=fac_pubs

[The Gaffer]

Interesting article, makes sense that a lack of investment/commitment by a step-father might lead to greater problems. The unmarried step-parents group, for example, we'd expect to contain the small but not insignificant number of men who are unconcerned about the children of the woman from whom they are sponging sex, a roof and food for a while.

On a more nitpicky level, the review doesn't report p values or confidence intervals, important where the odds ratio is as close to one as 1.15. Although one time they do report a p value, incorrectly describing p=0.06 as "marginally significant" when it's infact marginally insignificant. That suggests to me there is a bit of selection bias, not to mention innumeracy, in how the authors report the data.

Still, hard area to study empirically!

Marriage was originally a religious ceremony and rite. Kings and queens were married by the Church, and clashed with the church when they didn't get to change marriage to suit their taste, as any fan of the Tudors series and Henry VIII well knows.Marriage has undergone tremendous change over thousands of years. Today in few parts of the world and in few societies, marriage is an established social structure for a primary relationship between a Man and Women based on equality and shared bonding.

[Link edited out because I'm a silly spammer that failed to read the rules about no advertising and got spanked by the mods for it]

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I wonder on what basis you say that marriage was originally a religious ceremony. So far as I know, it seems to have been originally a social institution, but since it predates recorded history, it's difficult to say definitively what its original character was.

I know of no society where marriage is established for a man and women based on equality; either you get equality, or you get polygamy, but I know of no cross-over.

[Midge]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a story of a man in the Bible who took a woman into his tent to signify that they were married. Can't think of who or what story that is, but it seems like it's in there.

Anyway, not much of a religious ceremony.. or any ceremony at all.

[Earniel]

Bah, spammers will say anything to make their posts look less like advertising. At least this one actually searched for relevant threads.

[Nerdanel]

why is this thread so popular amongst spammers? :P

[Earniel]

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Spammer dealt with.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Midge

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a story of a man in the Bible who took a woman into his tent to signify that they were married. Can't think of who or what story that is, but it seems like it's in there.

Anyway, not much of a religious ceremony.. or any ceremony at all.

That sounds like Isaac and Rebekah - from Genesis (end of ch. 24)

[inked]

Taking her into his tent was the culmination of the process, ya'll. It covers two chapters and was an arranged marriage. Check out chapter 24 and 25 in toto before you go all simplistic and everything!

Bye the by, the original marriage was recorded in Genesis 2:15-24. It is an enlargement of the synopsis of the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-30.

Interesting to note about Genesis 2:
1)the Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and it becomes the proper name, Adam; and,
2)the wife's name is not given until 4:1 - "And Adam knew Eve his wife, ..." - Eve sounds like the Hebrew word for life-giver and is related to the word for living.

I would point out that Adam and Eve are an arranged marriage, too! God arranged it. Which brings up the question, why should you settle for a star-crossed love when you can have one from God?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

Interesting to note about Genesis 2:
1)the Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and it becomes the proper name, Adam; and,

Just to flesh that out a little more, ha-adam is a gender-inclusive term, like Latin homo, Greek anthropos, German mensch etc., rather than a male-specific term like vir, andros, mann, etc.

[deleted for spamming by Eärniel]

[Mari]

Does anyone else find the above post in relation to the quote hilarious?

[Earniel]

Very. *breaks out the plastic gecko*

[katya]

I may or may not have gotten married at the courthouse a month or so ago. But only a couple people know about it. I couldn't help but think of this thread that I made all those years ago. Anyway I think the main reason for getting it official was for stuff like insurance and rights as far as hospital visits and such, and for if one of us died. So there you go, kind of a weird case study.

[The Gaffer]

Congrats!

How come all the secrecy?

[Jonathan]

Congratulations Katya!
I guess there weren't many people present except you two and the priest?

[Acalewia]

Congrats!

My husband and I weren't married by a priest in a church.

We were married by a JP in a little apartment XD

[Mari]

Congratulations

[Valandil]

Congratulations Katya!

Long may it last. But you should start getting the word out to families.