Advocates of non-traditional marriage argue that allowing them to enter into a different form of mar- riage actually has no impact on traditional marriages, because such marri

Advocates of non-traditional marriage argue that allowing them to enter into a different form of mar- riage actually has no impact on traditional marriages, because such marriages would continue to be recog- nized as they currently are. These proponents also argue that labeling their unions “domestic partner- ships” or some other term implies second-class status in comparison to marriage, inherently degrading the new arrangement. Finally they argue that the tradi- tional definition of marriage is outmoded and irrele- vant in modern society, and that as a result many companies discriminate against non-traditional living arrangements by providing health and other benefits to spouses but not to unmarried partners.

While same-sex marriage advocates are the best- known and most vocal group fighting for legal recog- nition of non-traditional marriage, numerous smaller groups express similar aspirations. A small number of Americans practice polygamy, in which a person is simultaneously married to multiple spouses. The prac- tice is a felony in all fifty states, but continues to exist, mostly in rural areas. Polygamists cite Biblical prece- dent for the practice and believe it should be legalized. Other groups advocate legal recognition for common law marriages and marriages between blood relatives, which are prohibited in many states.

As of 2006 forty-nine states and the federal gov- ernment continue to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Numerous corpo- rations extend health and other benefits to domestic partners. A 2006 effort to amend the U.S. Constitu- tion to define marriage in the traditional sense failed to receive the needed votes in the U.S. Senate.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered

Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.

Lehman, Jennifer M. Gay & Lesbian Marriage and Family Reader: Analyses of Problems & Prospects for the 21st Cen- tury. New York: Richard Altschuler & Associates, 2001.

Richards, David. The Case for Gay Rights: From Bowers to Lawrence and Beyond. Lawrence: The University Press of Kansas, 2005.

Periodicals Frieden, Joyce. “Group Sees Harm to Kids in Marriage

Amendment.” Pediatric News 39 (2005): 49.

Pinsof, William. “Marriage in the Twentieth Century in Western Civilization: Trends, Research, Therapy, and Perspectives.” Family Process 41 (2002): 1.

Web sites CNN. “GOP Renews Fight Against Gay Marriage.” June 6,

2006 <http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/05/ same.sex.marriage/index.html> (accessed July 10, 2006).

DuPage County Bar Association. “Significant Amendment of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act Should Alleviate Role Confusion.” 2000 <http://www. dcba.org/brief/mayissue/2000/art20500.htm> (accessed July 11, 2006).

Stateline. “50-state rundown on gay marriage laws.” Novem- ber 3, 2004 <http://www.stateline.org/live/> (accessed June 15, 2006).

Just Whom is this Divorce ‘Good For?’

Newspaper article

By: Elizabeth Marquardt

Date: November 6, 2005

74 F A M I L Y I N S O C I E T Y : E S S E N T I A L P R I M A R Y S O U R C E S

JUST WHOM IS THIS DIVORCE ’GOOD FOR?’

A final dissolution of marriage and divorce decree docu- ment. © ROYALTY-FREE/CORBIS.

Source: Marquardt, Elizabeth. Washington Post. “Just Whom is this Divorce ‘Good For?’” (November 6, 2005).

About the Author: Elizabeth Marquardt is an affiliate scholar with the Institute of American Values, based in New York City. Marquardt is the author of Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce.

INTRODUCTION Divorce and the related consequences of marital

breakdown were a relative rarity throughout the Western world in the period prior to World War II. Divorce proceedings carried a significant social stigma for the partcipants; in religious faiths such as Roman Catholicism, divorce was discouraged. Divorce was not available to spouses on a consensual or on a no- fault basis, the platform upon which the modern ‘good’ divorce phenomenon is constructed. The cus- tody and day-to-day care for the children of the mar- riage fell to the wife, almost by default. Societal and legal expectations concerning the care of children after divorce assumed that the mother was naturally most suitable custodial parent.

The central issue that is stated by all sides as the premise for estranged spouses to seek a friendly and non-confrontational divorce resolution is the preser- vation of the welfare and the emotional stability of the children of the marriage. As the American divorce rate climbed in the late 1960s, an increase that was closely connected to the increased availability of divorce on a no-fault basis, the issues related to the impact of the divorce upon the children of the marriage became more prominent. The custody, visitation rights, and support to be paid for the children after the divorce frequently became bitterly contested issues between the spouses.

While the divorce rate in the United States crested in 1980, divorce remains a common legal con- sequence of American marriages. A number of statisti- cal analyses of recent census data confirm that the median length of a first marriage is 8 years; the likeli- hood of a 2006 marriage ending in divorce carries a probability of approximately 40 per cent. The number of children who are a part of a marriage ending in divorce totals over one million children every year in the United States.

It was against this statistical backdrop that the theory of the ‘good’ divorce was advanced by a num- ber of American social scientists and psychologists in the period following 1980. The most notable expo- nent of this concept is Constance Ahron, the author of the best selling book, Good Divorce published in 1994.

Ahron’s thesis was that children could be protected from the potential emotional damage of their parent’s divorce if the parents worked to minimize conflict between themselves.

Good divorce has been the subject of considerable study since the publication of the Ahron text; the research of Elizabeth Marquardt forms a prominent part of that body of research. A ‘bad’ divorce is gener- ally defined as one where the spouses wage a pro- tracted emotional war that is visible and experienced by their children. It is Marquardt’s thesis that, while a ‘bad’ divorce will invariably hurt the children’s emo- tional well-being, no divorce is ever good in their eyes.

� PRIMARY SOURCE

Sunday, November 6, 2005 It happens to about 1 million American children every

year. Their parents sit them down and deliver the news that they’re divorcing. But not to worry, they say, they’re parting amicably and assuming joint custody. The scene might go something like this:

“We’re splitting up the week, alternating days,” announces the dad.

“How are you splitting up seven days?” demands the son, reeling and confused.

“I’ve got Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday, and every other Thursday,” says Dad reassuringly. “That was your father’s idea,” notes Mom proudly.

“Well,” the son asks anxiously, “what about the cat?” A pause. “We didn’t discuss the cat,” says Mom with some consternation.

This scene, as it happens, is from a new movie, “The Squid and the Whale”—36-year-old director Noah Baum- bach’s wry take on his own parents’ divorce when he was a teen. But for those of us in the first generation to grow up in an era of widespread divorce, it perfectly cap- tures the emotional havoc wrought on children when their parents convince themselves that if they can work out the details of divorce—who goes where on what days—without rancor, they can reduce the pain for the children and pursue their own happiness without a lot of guilt.

Before the divorce rate began its inexorable rise in the late 1960s, the common wisdom had been that, where children are concerned, divorce itself is a problem. But as it became widespread—peaking at almost one in two first marriages in the mid–1980s—popular thinking morphed into a new, adult-friendly idea: It’s not the act of divorcing that’s the problem, but simply the way that par- ents handle it. Experts began to assure parents that if

F A M I L Y I N S O C I E T Y : E S S E N T I A L P R I M A R Y S O U R C E S 75

JUST WHOM IS THIS DIVORCE ’GOOD FOR?’

only they conducted a “good” divorce—if they both stayed involved with their children and minimized con- flict, the kids would be fine.

It was a soothing tonic, and it was swallowed eagerly by many angst-ridden parents. But it was also, it turns out, a myth. No matter how happy a face we put on it, the children of divorce are now saying, we’ve been kid- ding ourselves. An amicable divorce is better than a bitter one, but there is no such thing as a “good” divorce.

That’s a tough sell, I know. Today, praises of the good divorce abound. Countless newspaper articles, television reports and books quote therapists and academics argu- ing on its behalf. A holiday article last year in Newsweek, titled “Happy Divorce,” featured divorced families who put their conflicts aside to spend Christmas together. Researchers, it said, “have known for years that how par- ents divorce matters even more than the divorce itself.”

Many parents have bought it. In 2002, The Washing- ton Post Magazine featured a cover story about Eli and Debbie, a handsome, smiling, divorced couple with three preteen daughters. Although their marriage was, accord- ing to Debbie, “all in all, an incredibly functional” one, they divorced when she became troubled by their “lack of connection.” Three years later, Eli continues to come to Debbie’s house every morning to get the girls ready for school and reassure them “that even though Mommy and Daddy aren’t married, we’re still your parents, we’re still there for you, and we still love you.” He and Debbie are confident that their “good” divorce will keep their daughters from suffering unnecessarily.

But they’re most likely wrong.

Many people incorrectly assume that most mar- riages end only when parents are at each other’s throats. But the reasons can often be far less urgent, like bore- dom or the midlife blahs. Research shows that two-thirds of divorces now end low-conflict marriages, where there is no abuse, violence or serious fighting. After those mar- riages end, the children suddenly struggle with a range of symptoms—anxiety, depression, problems in school— that they did not previously have. The waxing and waning cycles of adult unhappiness that characterize many mar- riages are often not all that obvious to children. For the children of low-conflict marriages, divorce is a massive blow that comes out of nowhere.

Of course, sometimes divorce is necessary, and when it does happen it is certainly better for children not to lose significant relationships entirely, nor to be drawn into bitter, unending fights. But when you talk to the chil- dren themselves, you find that rampant “good divorce” talk mainly reflects the wishes of adults, while silencing the voices of children. The divorce debate has long been conducted by adults, for adults, on behalf of the adult

point of view, but now the grown children of divorce are telling their own, very different stories.

As a 35-year-old whose parents split up when I was 2, I know that we’ve barely scratched the surface when it comes to investigating how divorce shapes the inner lives and identities of children. So, along with University of Texas sociology professor Norval Glenn, I recently con- ducted the first nationally representative study of the grown children of divorce. We surveyed 1,500 young adults 18 to 35 years old, half from divorced families and half from intact families. I also interviewed another 71 young adults in person in four areas of the country.

We found that children of so-called “good” divorces often do worse even than children of unhappy low-con- flict marriages—they say more often, for example, that family life was stressful and that they had to grow up too soon; and they are themselves more likely to divorce and that they do much worse than children raised in happy marriages. In a finding that shatters the myth of the “good” divorce, they told us that divorce sowed lasting inner conflict in their lives even when their parents did not fight. No matter how “good” their parents were at it, the children of divorce were travelers between two very different worlds, negotiating often vastly different rules and roles.

Although only one-fifth told us that their parents had “a lot” of conflict after splitting up, the children of divorce said, over and over, that the breakup itself made their par- ents’ worlds seem locked in lasting conflict. Two-thirds said their parents seemed like polar opposites in the years following the divorce, compared to just one-third of young adults with married parents. Close to half said that after the divorce they felt like a different person with each of their parents—something only a quarter of chil- dren from intact families said. Half said their divorced par- ents’ versions of truth were different, compared to just a fifth of those with married parents. More than twice as many children of divorce as children of intact families said that after the divorce they were asked to keep important secrets—and many more felt the need to do so, even when their parents did not ask them to.

Children of divorce feel like divided selves, and at no time more so than when their parents get together ami- cably on special occasions—as they are often urged to do by experts advocating the “good” divorce. As one friend told me: “When I was a kid it would really stress me out when my divorced parents were in the same room together…because I didn’t know who to be.” When they come of age, children of divorce struggle with being their whole, true selves around anyone. Writing in a book of essays, Gen X poet Jen Robinson recalled having to be a different person around each of her parents—who’d had a “good” divorce—to the point that when she left for col-

76 F A M I L Y I N S O C I E T Y : E S S E N T I A L P R I M A R Y S O U R C E S

JUST WHOM IS THIS DIVORCE ’GOOD FOR?’

lege, she found that she made friends easily, “but always in distinct groups that seldom interacted. When they did, I felt internally pressured to please both groups and at the same time to negotiate the interaction between them.” Finally, she realized that “I needed to reintegrate myself, to let myself be the whole of who I was with everyone who knew me.”

Those of us who grew up in the first era of wide- spread divorce have a new sobriety about it. Yes, some- times divorce is necessary, but the uncomfortable truth our culture has been hiding for too long is that often it’s not, and there is definitely no such thing as a “good” divorce. If parents must divorce, it’s good to get along afterward. But people in high-conflict marriages aren’t usually successful at “good” divorce (divorce doesn’t typ- ically bring out great new communication and coopera- tion skills). Couples in low-conflict marriages may manage a so-called “good” divorce, but many of them could also manage to, well, stay married and spare them- selves and their children a lot of pain.

This sobriety is emerging in movies, in studies, on blogs. I’m convinced there’s more to come. Our genera- tion’s story needs to be told, because our society still strongly wants to deny just how devastating divorce really is. Too many people imagine that modern divorce is another variation on ordinary family life. Sure, there may be some discomfort, but doesn’t childhood stay basically the same?

The answer is no. The evidence is piling up and the message from our generation is clear: Divorce divides and shapes children’s identities well into young adult- hood. It frees adults at the expense of forcing their chil- dren to grow up too soon. It has lasting consequences even when divorced parents do not fight.

� SIGNIFICANCE

The proponents of the ‘good’ divorce concept as beneficial to the children of a failed marriage contrasts sharply with the viewpoint of commentators such as Elizabeth Marquardt. There is no question that the demographic group that is under consideration is size- able, as twenty-five percent of all young adults in the United States are the product of divorced parents.

A ‘good’ divorce scenario is one that is highly attractive to persons that are a part of an apparently failing marriage. The best approaches to secure such a divorce result are expounded in hundreds of web sites, self-help books and other resources; the notion of a ‘good’ divorce with its purportedly reduced stresses and positive outcomes for all concerned is cast as an ideal method for marriage termination.

This understanding of divorce is challenged in Marquardt’s article in two distinct angles. The first implicit presumption held by the divorcing parties who seek a ‘good’ divorce is that if they as parents feel relatively good about themselves after divorce, the children will feel good as well. The second and related presumption is that if the parents either maintain a fic- tion of civility, or where the parents genuinely feel no enmity to their divorced spouse, the children will be insulated from negative emotional impacts.

These parental attitudes may be the root of the emotional damage to children that the researchers found to be a common product in ‘good’ divorces, as the most significant goal of this divorce process is the enhancement of the parents emotional well-being; their respective abilities to move ahead with their lives is their objective.

It is the ‘sleeper effect’ of this approach that its critics have described as the most profound impact of these seemingly friendly, non confrontational divorces. The research of American psychologist and researcher Judith Wallerstein that has been published since 2001 suggests that approximately 25 percent of all children of divorce sustain serious emotional scars no matter how the divorce may handled by their par- ents. She concluded in a fashion consistent with the Marquardt view that the later ability of divorced chil- dren to trust their own marriage partner or to other- wise maintain a positive image of marriage is reduced, creating a greater likelihood of unhappiness in their own marriages.

Marquardt advances the related proposition that in some instances, the parties (and undoubtedly the children of the marriage) would be better off in attempting to correct the difficulties of their marriage, as opposed to embarking upon a divorce that will demand considerable energy to make it a ‘good’ one for the children. It is estimated that two thirds of divorce proceedings are used to end what are referred to as low-conflict marriages

It is important to understand the distinc- tion between the concept of a ‘good’ divorce and the principles of collaborative justice that are employed to resolve divorce issues. Collaborative justice is a process where the parties to a prospec- tive divorce agree to resolve all issues on a shared, non-confrontational basis, without resort to the tradi- tional adversarial processes of the courts. Collabora- tive justice is often hailed as being less emotionally demanding of the children involved. In contrast, a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ divorce are possible outcomes of whatever process may be employed to resolve the legal issues arising on marriage breakup.

F A M I L Y I N S O C I E T Y : E S S E N T I A L P R I M A R Y S O U R C E S 77

JUST WHOM IS THIS DIVORCE ’GOOD FOR?’

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books Ahron, Constance. The Good Divorce. New York: Harper

Paperback, 1998.

Blakeslee, Sandra, and Judith S. Wallerstein. What About the Kids? Raising Your Children before, during, and after Divorce. New York: Hyperion, 2003.

Wallerstein, Judith S. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. New York: Hyperion, 2001

Web sites University of Texas. “The Divorce Dilemma.” 2006 <http://

www.utexas.edu/features/2006/divorce/> (accessed June 26, 2006).

Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star.“Divorce is Good? Kids Don’t Agree.” 2003 <http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/ 2003/02203/02022003/863486/> (accessed June 26, 2006).

Familymoons … Are the New Honeymoons

Newspaper article

By: Sarah Turner

Date: February 5, 2006

Source: Turner, Sarah. Guardian Newspapers Limited. “Familymoons … Are the New Honeymoons.” (Feb- ruary 5, 2006).

About the Author: Sarah Turner, a journalist based in the United Kingdom, contributed this article to the Guardian, and also writes for the Observer on interna- tional news and travel.

INTRODUCTION

The twentieth century brought enormous changes to daily life. While some were technological, such as television, air-conditioning, and cellular phones, many of the more profound changes involved human relationships, in particular the form of the American family.

Marriage became less permanent, with divorce rates tripling between 1900 and 1981, then declining to about double the original rate. Divorced individu- als, in turn, often remarry, though second and third marriages have even higher failure rates. Since first marriages frequently produce children, couples who

remarry often have to decide how to integrate two dis- crete households into a blended family.

On television this process often seems relatively painless. The popular series The Brady Bunch por- trayed a fairy-tale version of this story in which eight individuals and their housekeeper became one enor- mous happy family. In reality the process is often dif- ficult; to help speed the integration process some couples have begun including their children in all wedding-related activities, including the honeymoon.

The “familymoon” is a market-driven phenome- non, as remarrying couples attempt to beat the odds and make a second or third marriage that includes a blended family succeed. Recognizing the importance of bonding among all family members, some thera- pists recommend a family trip rather than a couple- only honeymoon. One planning agency reported a twenty-five percent jump in such trips from 2001 to 2006.

� PRIMARY SOURCE

� SIGNIFICANCE

More than 2.5 million weddings take place in the United States each year. Average wedding costs hover near $20,000 and total annual spending on weddings is conservatively estimated at $50 billion. Honeymoons, taken by 99% of all couples, comprise about $8 billion

78 F A M I L Y I N S O C I E T Y : E S S E N T I A L P R I M A R Y S O U R C E S

FAMILYMOONS … ARE THE NEW HONEYMOONS