On May 8, 2013, over 12 million viewers watched as Modern Familys Cam tried to keep his jealousy under wraps

while his partners ex hit it off with his in-laws. To Cam, this new intruder seemed funnier, smarter, and more philanthropic than he could ever hope to be. Its a situation we can all certainly relate to except not quite. Because all three characters in the love triangle are male, not to mention the in-laws in question are an interracial couple. Both of these situations are scenarios that, just 50 years ago, would have been kept behind closed doors. Now theyre serving as entertainment for millions of Americans every Wednesday night at nine oclock. Evidently, as time passes, the standards of whats normal loosen. Kids at daycare are now being told to bring permission slips home to their guardian instead of their parents, and what used to be considered a broken family isnt quite so scorned anymore. Perhaps most prevalently, attitudes towards the value of marriage and its longevity have changed drastically in the past few decades. As a result of multiple social changes, participation in the institution of marriage has declined, divorce is regarded more casually, and cohabitation has become common. These three trends have fogged the window into the future of family life and raised concern about societys well being as a whole. How did we get here? The Distant History of Marriage Surprisingly, the idea of marrying for love became commonplace only in the 18th and 19th centuries, and only in some cultures (Masci). This was a direct result of the 17th- and 18thcentury Enlightenment, which brought to dominance the notion that people have the right to organize their lives as they see fit, says Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. The movement gave way to the belief that marriage should be based on love, and more people rejected their familys expectations by marrying the person of their choice. As the Industrial Revolution began, so did wage labor, which gave people social and geographic mobility. Now, not only did people have the

intellectual justification to marry for love, they also had the means to do so (Masci). Next came English settlement in America. These colonizers brought with them the marital customs of their group in the old country, but they experienced difficulty in upholding such traditions in the context of a much more flexible society (Shaffer). According to David Masci, author of Future of Marriage, In colonial Massachusetts and Connecticut, Puritan-influenced law even allowed for divorce if a spouse could prove that the other had neglected a fundamental duty of the marriage, such as providing food and shelter. It was then used as somewhat of a bribe during the great westward migration just before and after the civil war, when many of the new states carved out of the Western territories passed liberal divorce laws in an effort to attract more settlers, says Masci. At the same time, some Mormon settlers in the Western territory began practicing polygamy. The practice, which involved men marrying multiple women, began after the religion's leader, Brigham Young, declared it acceptable in 1852. In 1890, Utah had to concede their freedom to do this in order to join the Union, and polygamous marriage became a thing of the past. As we fast-forward to the end of World War II, we see a very different picture of family. At this time, the 35% of women married and unmarried who had been working outside the home quit their jobs to make room for the men returning from the war and redirected their focus to starting and raising families (Masci). At this time, marriages and divorces both reached all-time highs with 2,291,045 marriages and 610,000 divorces. These numbers reflected a 42 percent increase in marriages and a 26 percent increase in divorces over the previous year. A year later, in 1947, both figures declined, with marriages dropping by 14 percent and divorces dropping by 23 percent (McNickle). Not Married to the Idea of Marriage Recent Changes The 1950s, as the story goes, were home to early marriage, early childbearing, and relatively high birth rates (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). With the changing of the decade

came a change from the 1950s conformity. In the middle of the 20th century, we began to shift away from an institutional view of marriage that it is based on economic viability, child rearing and a sense that this is something that all adults should do, says William Doherty, director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. And we moved into what is called psychological marriage the notion that you marry by choice and that you do so primarily for romantic reasons. This wasnt the only movement of the decade, however. The 1960s were essentially an era of quicksand multiple demographic groups were undergoing a period of transition that, as a whole, pushed marriage into a new light. The combination of the civil rights and anti-war movements, the rise of youth culture, and the sexual revolution brought about degradation of female premarital celibacy and the idea that women were enrolled in college solely to find a husband (Masci). The 1970s followed as a decade of liberation and encouragement for women, which came to fruition in the 1980s with the majority of mothers finding work outside the home to help with the rising costs of housing, education, and health care. This was just one piece of the ever-changing picture of the model family. On the whole, people began to invest less in the idea of marriage: cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing became increasingly common during this decade (Are Americans still in love with marriage?), and experts saw a huge decline in support from 1988 to 1994 for the statements Married people are generally happier, and, People who want children ought to get married (Gubernskaya). Todays emphasis on individual choice has a strong presence in the figures that tell the story of marriage prevalence. In the last 50 years, the percentage of American households headed by married couples has fallen from nearly 80 percent to an all-time low of 50.7 percent, according to the Census Bureau. Additionally, 5.7 percent fewer Americans got married in 2002 than in 1980 (Masci). These patterns are not specific to the secular population, either. From 1972 to 2010 there was a nearly 60-percent decrease in the number of marriages celebrated in the

church, even as the Catholic population grew by 17 million (Baumann). Because of these changes, married couples with children now make up only 25 percent of all American households (Masci). This individualistic perspective has such a strong hold on our countrys citizens that 40% of the nations largest 500 companies have reevaluated the benefit policies that are advantageous to married couples. For example, Bank of America has extended its definition of family to include non-traditional household members such as domestic partners or adult children living at home (Masci). Arlene Saluter, a demographic statistician with the U.S. Census Bureau, sums up the current status of American marriage: Although most persons eventually marry (some more than once) singleness is playing a larger part in our adult lives than in the past. Young adults, in increasing proportions, are postponing marriage, in some cases possibly forever. Many people are getting divorced and rejoining the ranks of the singles. And they are staying single longerremarriage rates, while still high, have fallen substantially since 1970. The singles party, in short, has become a lot more crowded (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). Soaring Separation Its a widely-known fact that the size of this singles party is maintained by the half of American marriages that end in divorce. It was not always this way, however. The divorce rate was far lower in 1867, the year during which it began to increase significantly. The rate peaked immediately after World War II, and then declined to a low point in 1958. The figures increased markedly during the 1960s and '70s, surpassing the postwar peak in 1973. Experts cite changes in state laws in the early 1970s that made divorce much easier to obtain as a cause for this spike. The same laws could be to blame for the increase that followed from the 23 percent of marriages failing in the 1980s to 48 percent of marriages failing in the 2000s (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). Diane Sollee, founder and director of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and

Couples Education, explains, There are a lot of unnecessary divorces because when married people feel unhappy, they assume that they married the wrong person. So they find someone new, and when that person doesn't make them happy, they move on to the next one (Masci). Its this flighty attitude that could be fateful to marriage in the U.S. In fact, it is now estimated that, if current trends persist, 60 percent of recent first marriages ultimately will end in divorce or separation (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). This bleak reality is a primary reason behind another rebuff of the traditional family model: cohabitation. Choosing Cohabitation Instead The trend toward cohabitation, or the formation of an intimate relationship by moving in together, started in the late 1950s among the less educated and spread to college students and others in the '60s (Masci). Cohabitation, which could be defined as marriage without the commitment, once was looked upon as morally reprehensible, states the author of Are Americans still in love with marriage? Recently, however, there has been a dramatic rise in this living arrangement. In 1977, only 1 million Americans were cohabiting; today, it's 5 million (Masci). In 1987 alone, almost half of the population in their early 30s had lived with someone without benefit of marriage at some point in their lives. In the same year approximately one-sixth of never-married persons in their late 20s or early 30s, and more than one-fourth of separated or divorced persons under age 30, were cohabiting (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). Although these couples reject the institution of marriage itself, they do not reject all aspects of the normal family model. Nearly half of cohabiting couples in the 1990s were raising children, and of the 7.7 percent of Americans cohabiting today (Masci), nearly a third had children of one of the partners in their household, and 12 percent had children of their own living with them (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). The Reasons Behind the Trends

Societal trends do not occur spontaneously and the trend away from the traditional household model is most definitely not an exception. One of the most discussed reasons behind the change in attitudes towards marriage is womens improved economic status and access to education both changes that have occurred in the past half-century. According to Coontz, marriage prospered during more economically restricted times. For thousands of years, marriage has been humanity's most important economic and social institution, she says. It gave women economic security and helped men financially, through dowry payments and socially by connecting them to another family. However, the recent expansion of individual wealth and freedom especially among women makes the economic argument for marriage much less compelling. We no longer need a spouse for economic security (Masci). In addition to higher income and thus increased economic security, education exposes women to nontraditional ideas about family and gender roles, which has lasting effects on values. According to Zoya Gubernskaya, author of Changing Attitudes Towards Marriage and Children in Six Countries, In many countries, better-educated individuals delay marriage, have fewer children, and view family roles as less central to life (Gubernskaya). The effects of education reach further than exposure to new ideas. With their relatively new status as qualified individuals, women are encouraged to pursued education and a career. However, its understood that they are taking on this duty on top of the responsibilities of 1950s housewives they are also responsible for raising children, taking care of elderly relatives, and doing housework. The weight of obligation they experience is heavy, and consequentially, they are less enthusiastic about traditional marriage than men. As women have undergone this transformation, society as a whole has undergone one of its own the evolution to individualistic culture. Our pursuit of happiness has only grown in intensity in the past half-century, and its a large contributor to the deterioration of marriage. According to Kipnis, Our emotional and physical needs have expanded a lot, and people now

expect that the person they are with is going to meet those needs. That makes it much harder to find someone else they feel they can marry (Masci). Another factor: selfishness. Americans' tireless thirst for individual rights and autonomy has given way to a rejection of obligations and sacrifices traditionally involved in maintaining a marriage and raising a family (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). By setting unrealistically high expectations for themselves and their partners, Americans set themselves up for dissatisfaction with marriage. They set themselves up for failure. An additional and extremely prevalent source of the decline of the traditional household is the secularization of America. Studies show that those who attend religious services at least once a month hold significantly more traditional views about marriage and children (Gubernskaya). These people are becoming more and more rare as those with no religious affiliation become part of a fast-growing group. In the 1950s, about 2 percent of the population was unaffiliated. In the 1970s, it was about 7 percent. Today, it is close to 20 percent (America's fast track to secularization). The declining influence of religion, the growing influence of women in the workforce, and Americas hunt for total fulfillment have all had their hand in what is now considered marriages questionable future. Whats Next for Couples? The future of marriage Experts and non-experts alike wonder whats next for marriage. Is this just a phase? Is it something well overcome like a war or recession? Or is it going to become a part of the fabric of our society in the same way we adopted equality as the norm? Coontz doesnt see it doing much of anything at all, at least not yet. We're going to spend the next few decades sorting through the enormous changes we've seen in marriage. In particular, couples will have to work through the consequences of gender equality in marriage. Men can longer count on being the boss anymore. So, we're going to see more efforts to develop new habits, new emotional

expectations, new time schedules and new negotiating skills as we sort out the details of this new reality (Masci). Perhaps because of the countrys newfound individualistic attitude, people will begin to view their marriages more privately than they did in the past. You already see this happening, says Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values. For example, many couples opt to write their own vows instead of reciting the traditional ones. He worries that this trend will make marriages less stable, because the history of expectations that once accompanied marriage are no longer honored. Without a set of public expectations like permanence or total commitment to each other people are more on their own, and that's more risky (Masci). Sociologist Robert Belah specifically examined the ramifications of the increased needs of the individual. He found that many couples insist on greater intimacy, sharing of feelings, and willingness to work through problems than their parents found possible. This sensitive atmosphere, however, may make the marriage more fragile. He also warns against viewing marriage as a means of psychological gratification instead of the older social function of providing people with a stable relationship that ties them into society. That may mean not only a diminished public life for the society, but also a more unstable environment for children growing up (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). Finally, marriage optimists insist that theres hope for marriage because it fulfills basic human needs. There's still a great hunger for stable, loving, intimate relationships, Doherty says, and marriage is still the best way to have them (Masci).

A Private Choice with Public Consequences So, why do we care about whether people choose to get married or not? The answer is simple. Marriage, philosopher Bertrand Russel said, is an institution which, through the fact that it gives rise to children, forms part of the intimate texture of society, and has an importance

extending far beyond the personal feelings of the husband and wife. If individuals choose not to get married, or not to have children, or not to stay married, then society can say that's their own affair. But when children are involved, the future is at stake, and society's interest becomes apparent. However, it seems that many couples disagree. According to sociologist Larry Bumpass, the number of people saying a couple should stay together for the sake of the children dropped from 49 percent in 1962 to just 19 percent in 1982 (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). Adults oftentimes hold the opinion instead that its better for their children to grow up in a separated household than a hostile household. Because of this attitude and the resulting increase in non-marital childbearing and the high rate of divorce, an estimated 60 percent of the children born today will spend at least part of their childhood living with only one parent. This number is alarming to most experts for many reasons. First, children living in single-parent homes are much more likely to be living in poverty than children living with two parents. Nearly 45 percent of single-parent families headed by women were living below the official poverty line in 1988, compared with only about 7 percent of families with two parents present (Are Americans still in love with marriage?). In addition to economic security, growing up with both of their biological parents makes children likely to be more educated, and to have better job skills and a more secure sense of themselves (Furstenberg). These children are also more likely to graduate from high school and have fewer discipline problems if raised by a married biological mother and father (Masci). This matters to each and every American citizen because it directly affects crime rates, literacy rates, and the general well being of the country. Although parents think theyre doing their children a favor by ending a bad marriage, they could be doing the exact opposite, and the rest of the country may be taking the hit. Conclusion

The Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the Womens Rights Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the sexual revolution, and all the subtle social movements in between have acted as pushes and pulls on the importance, status, and treatment of marriage in America. As a result, the normal family model has transformed from a working father, homemaker mother, and their biological children, to any combination of any number of people. Love is now considered the only prerequisite to form a family shared genes and official documents have taken a backseat. Although some view this newfound unconventionality as a positive freedom, others view it as a complete overhaul of the stability our country needs. Deciding which viewpoint is valid is something that can only be done after the dust settles, with time.