Okay, here is a small piece of an awesome forum given at BYU from Robert P George, professor at Princeton. It is about abortion and same-sex marraige. In the part I have attatched, he talkes a little about Children in a same sex marraige. I like this forum, SO MUCH, because it is a Catholic perspective on Goverment and why marraige should stay heterosexual. If anyone is interested in reading it, you can find it at http://www.byub.org/talks/Talk.aspx?id=2345
But one may ask, what about
procreation? On the traditional view of
marriage, is not the sexual union of
spouses instrumentalized to the goal of
having children? It is true that St.
Augustine in certain writings seems to be
a proponent of this view. The conception
of marriage as an instrumental good was
rejected, however, by the mainstream of
philosophical and theological reflection
from the late Middle Ages forward, and
the understanding of sex and marriage
that came to be embodied in both canon
law and civil law does not treat marriage
as merely instrumental to having
children. Western matrimonial law has
traditionally and universally understood
marriage as consummated by acts
fulfilling the behavioral conditions of
procreation, whether or not the
nonbehavioral conditions of procreation
happen to obtain.
By contrast, the sterility of
spouses—so long as they are capable of
consummating their marriage by fulfilling
the behavioral conditions of procreation
(and, thus, of achieving true bodily,
organic unity)—has never been treated as
an impediment to marriage, even where
sterility is certain and even certain to be
permanent. Children who may be
conceived in marital acts are understood
not as ends extrinsic to marriage but
rather as gifts—fulfilling for the couple as
a marital unit and not merely as
individuals—that supervene on acts
whose central defining and justifying
point is precisely the marital unity of
spouses. I and others have elsewhere
developed more fully the moral case for
the conjugal conception of marriage as
the union of one man and one woman
pledged to permanence and fidelity and
committed to caring for children who
come as the fruit of their matrimonial
union. I have argued that acceptance of
the idea that two persons of the same sex
could actually be married to each other
would make nonsense of key features of
marriage and would necessarily require
abandoning any ground of principle for
supposing that marriage is the union of
only two persons, as opposed to three or
more. Only a thin veneer of sentiment, if
it happens to exist (and only for as long as
it exists), can prevent acceptance of
polyamory as a legitimate marital option
once we have given up the principle of
marriage as a male‐female union.
To those arguments, I will here
add an additional reason to reject the idea
9
of same‐sex marriage: The acceptance of
the idea would result in a massive
undermining of religious liberty and
family autonomy as supporters of samesex
marriage would, in the name of
equality, demand the use of governmental
power to whip others into line. The
experience of Massachusetts as well as
foreign jurisdictions is that once marriage
is compromised or formally redefined,
principles of nondiscrimination are
quickly used as cudgels against religious
communities and families who wish to
uphold true marriage by precept and
example.
Posted by Nick Peterson
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Three tips on how to deal with marriage stress at the holidays
You're married - and not so happily - and you've got a house full of relatives coming over to celebrate a holiday that's about being thankful. So how do you celebrate the holidays when you're not sure your relationship is going to make it and the last thing on your mind is sitting down to a dinner with 20 of your closest friends and relatives?
Psychotherapist Tina Tessina, Ph.D., author of the book, "Money, Sex and Kids: Stop Fighting about the Three Things that Can Ruin your Marriage," said stress is high during the holiday season. "Expectations of family bliss are high, encouraged by all the TV images of family having a lovely time, and that, plus the stress of being together for an extended period, plus the drinking, add up to a volatile mix," Tessina said.
Phyllis Goldberg, Ph.D., co-founder of hermentercenter.com, an organization dedicated to helping women in transitions, agreed: "There are expectations that the family will be grateful and that's not always the case..." she said.
And this year, the stress is likely to be worse - between mortgage problems, financial pitfalls and an increasingly high unemployment rate from layoffs from the economic crisis. "This year, with the financial crisis, it's putting more pressure on families," she said. "Today women are holding down full-time jobs and don't have the time and energy to take care of Thanksgiving in the traditional way."
"Thanksgiving can be the best of times and the worst of times. If it goes well, it can be a source of bonding and strength," Tessina said.
If you're dealing with marital stress caused by finances or other issues, Tessina warns: "Don't be surprised when the guys want to go off to the den and watch the game - put that into the plans, and get the help you want from the guys beforehand."
If you're divorced, consider this a chance to "re-create your holiday experiences and expectations so they conform better to your new situation," she said.
STRESSED MARRIAGE? TIPS FOR THANKSGIVING
1. Lighten up your expectations.
"To de-stress the day, get intentional about it," Tessina said. Understand what you, your ex and your children and extended family are thinking. "This is your real life, not a picture-book experience," Tessina said. "Family or friends may squabble, food may not turn out perfect, and they day may not go as well as people hope. A sense of humor will help lighten up the whole thing. Think of yourself as a trouble- shooter, rather than a designer of perfect scenarios. Find out what's really important to yourself and your family, and pare your celebration down to the important things. Focus less on making the perfect feast decorating, and more on spending time together, doing things you love."
2. Share the responsibility.
Make sure that your partner has some responsibility for making the day work and follows through, Goldberg said. Don't try for perfection during the holidays. "Allow guests to bring their signature dish, take up their offer to help with the dishes," she said. "Others may even be thankful to be able to lend a hand."
Tessina suggests allowing family and friends to help with food preparations. "A pot-luck Thanksgiving is easier than a made-from-scratch one, and may be more enjoyable. You'll find that a lot of camaraderie comes out of working together, and a lot of the fun will happen behind the scenes as you work with others to get ready. Your family and friends will feel more a part of the celebration if they actually create part of it.
3. Find the meaning in the day.
Once you've made your day easier and less stressful, you have room to add more meaning,Tessina suggested. "Encourage family members to talk about what's meaningful to them, or their favorite holiday memories. This is a great time to invite people who are spending these times without family, and to develop a new kind of celebration that includes everyone," she said.
Visit divorce360.com for help before, during and after divorce.
Posted By - Scott Johansen
Psychotherapist Tina Tessina, Ph.D., author of the book, "Money, Sex and Kids: Stop Fighting about the Three Things that Can Ruin your Marriage," said stress is high during the holiday season. "Expectations of family bliss are high, encouraged by all the TV images of family having a lovely time, and that, plus the stress of being together for an extended period, plus the drinking, add up to a volatile mix," Tessina said.
Phyllis Goldberg, Ph.D., co-founder of hermentercenter.com, an organization dedicated to helping women in transitions, agreed: "There are expectations that the family will be grateful and that's not always the case..." she said.
And this year, the stress is likely to be worse - between mortgage problems, financial pitfalls and an increasingly high unemployment rate from layoffs from the economic crisis. "This year, with the financial crisis, it's putting more pressure on families," she said. "Today women are holding down full-time jobs and don't have the time and energy to take care of Thanksgiving in the traditional way."
"Thanksgiving can be the best of times and the worst of times. If it goes well, it can be a source of bonding and strength," Tessina said.
If you're dealing with marital stress caused by finances or other issues, Tessina warns: "Don't be surprised when the guys want to go off to the den and watch the game - put that into the plans, and get the help you want from the guys beforehand."
If you're divorced, consider this a chance to "re-create your holiday experiences and expectations so they conform better to your new situation," she said.
STRESSED MARRIAGE? TIPS FOR THANKSGIVING
1. Lighten up your expectations.
"To de-stress the day, get intentional about it," Tessina said. Understand what you, your ex and your children and extended family are thinking. "This is your real life, not a picture-book experience," Tessina said. "Family or friends may squabble, food may not turn out perfect, and they day may not go as well as people hope. A sense of humor will help lighten up the whole thing. Think of yourself as a trouble- shooter, rather than a designer of perfect scenarios. Find out what's really important to yourself and your family, and pare your celebration down to the important things. Focus less on making the perfect feast decorating, and more on spending time together, doing things you love."
2. Share the responsibility.
Make sure that your partner has some responsibility for making the day work and follows through, Goldberg said. Don't try for perfection during the holidays. "Allow guests to bring their signature dish, take up their offer to help with the dishes," she said. "Others may even be thankful to be able to lend a hand."
Tessina suggests allowing family and friends to help with food preparations. "A pot-luck Thanksgiving is easier than a made-from-scratch one, and may be more enjoyable. You'll find that a lot of camaraderie comes out of working together, and a lot of the fun will happen behind the scenes as you work with others to get ready. Your family and friends will feel more a part of the celebration if they actually create part of it.
3. Find the meaning in the day.
Once you've made your day easier and less stressful, you have room to add more meaning,Tessina suggested. "Encourage family members to talk about what's meaningful to them, or their favorite holiday memories. This is a great time to invite people who are spending these times without family, and to develop a new kind of celebration that includes everyone," she said.
Visit divorce360.com for help before, during and after divorce.
Posted By - Scott Johansen
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Catholic bishops say gay marriage hurts society - From Ksl.com
BALTIMORE (AP) - The nation's Roman Catholic bishops have affirmed that the church defines marriage between one man and one woman, and sex is meant for procreation.
The pastoral letter was issued Tuesday in Baltimore by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The bishops say they are disturbed that a growing number of people view marriage as a private or individual matter, instead of an issue critical to building a healthy society.
They say in the pastoral letter that redefining marriage to allow same-sex unions would damage the common good and would ignore the proper role of husbands and wives.
---Posted by Scott Johansen
The pastoral letter was issued Tuesday in Baltimore by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The bishops say they are disturbed that a growing number of people view marriage as a private or individual matter, instead of an issue critical to building a healthy society.
They say in the pastoral letter that redefining marriage to allow same-sex unions would damage the common good and would ignore the proper role of husbands and wives.
---Posted by Scott Johansen
Monday, November 30, 2009
Homework
Dont forget to bring your 3 questions from each chapter we've covered to class tonight. Also write down if you want to take the final in class on dec 14th or take it home on dec 7th and have a week to bring it back.
Nick Peterson: Article: Navigating...
Navigating Conflict when Opposites Attract
Desseret News, Nov 23 2009
Also on BYU Front Page Website
http://byunews.byu.edu/archive09-Nov-conflictstyles.aspx
Here is the link if you want the whole article. I cut a bunch out because of space.
When it comes to conflict, some people follow the phrase you should "never go to bed angry” while others would rather get their beauty sleep.
Couples with mismatched conflict styles don’t necessarily suffer a hit in relationship quality according to a new study. Professors Dean Busby and Thomas Holman of Brigham Young University's School of Family Life gathered and analyzed data from nearly 2,000 couples and report their findings in the Nov. 25 issue of the academic journal Family Process.
“The concern with mismatched couples is that they will have problems that are just never quite resolvable,” Holman said. “But it’s really about getting to a point where a problem becomes less important to them than the relationship itself.”
The study participants completed a comprehensive relationship inventory called RELATE. The survey covers more than 300 areas known to be predictive of marital quality. Upon completion of the relationship inventory, the couple gets an 11 page report with charts and graphs illustrating the strengths and weaknesses of their relationship.
Just as many couples had mismatched conflict styles as had matching approaches (not counting couples considered to have an openly “hostile” dynamic). Depending on the type of mismatch, the data show that certain pairings present bigger red flags for relationship quality than others.
“There are several couples that work through it,” Busby said. “But we know that how couples manage conflict is one of those crucial factors that can lead to divorce.”
So what are the conflict styles and which one fits your personality? And how can you work through a mismatched pairing?
The “Avoidant” The “Validating” The “Volatile” The “Hostile”
Worst (Functional) Conflict Pairing
The worst functional mismatched conflict style is the avoidant-volatile pair. The good news is that it was the least common pairing in the study, representing a little more than 1 in 10 couples.
Many couples in this situation fall into the trap of attributing their partner’s motives incorrectly. Sincere attempts to resolve a conflict and restore harmony can be construed as nagging.
Something that can help in this situation is to wait until the emotional flood subsides before trying to resolve the issue.
“One couple I taught this to were marathon runners and they would watch their wrist watches and saw that as soon as they started arguing their pulse rates jumped way up,” Holman said. “Once they had their pulse rates back down they would start the conversation again. They said it helped them to monitor their actual physiological reaction in a conflict.”
Best Conflict Pair
Several combinations promote relationship health, and the key is that at least one of the partners is the validating type. The researchers note that it’s a skill that can be learned.
“Validating types make sure that their partner feels understood and that both perspectives are attended to,” Busby said. “They are more likely to create a positive connection around that conflict.”
The researcher who pioneered these conflict styles, John Gottman, found that in a healthy conflict style there are five positive exchanges for every one negative exchange. In dysfunctional styles the negative exchanges outnumber the positive.
“The idea that we should never argue, is clearly not what we are talking about in this article,” Busby said. “It’s that you have to find a way to work together so that you can resolve problems with a style that fits for both of you.”
Posted by Nick Peterson
I liked this for two reasons, first, we talked about going to bed angry a few weeks ago. Second, we talked about communication and different types of ways people can control. This article mentions many of the same things our book does.
Desseret News, Nov 23 2009
Also on BYU Front Page Website
http://byunews.byu.edu/archive09-Nov-conflictstyles.aspx
Here is the link if you want the whole article. I cut a bunch out because of space.
When it comes to conflict, some people follow the phrase you should "never go to bed angry” while others would rather get their beauty sleep.
Couples with mismatched conflict styles don’t necessarily suffer a hit in relationship quality according to a new study. Professors Dean Busby and Thomas Holman of Brigham Young University's School of Family Life gathered and analyzed data from nearly 2,000 couples and report their findings in the Nov. 25 issue of the academic journal Family Process.
“The concern with mismatched couples is that they will have problems that are just never quite resolvable,” Holman said. “But it’s really about getting to a point where a problem becomes less important to them than the relationship itself.”
The study participants completed a comprehensive relationship inventory called RELATE. The survey covers more than 300 areas known to be predictive of marital quality. Upon completion of the relationship inventory, the couple gets an 11 page report with charts and graphs illustrating the strengths and weaknesses of their relationship.
Just as many couples had mismatched conflict styles as had matching approaches (not counting couples considered to have an openly “hostile” dynamic). Depending on the type of mismatch, the data show that certain pairings present bigger red flags for relationship quality than others.
“There are several couples that work through it,” Busby said. “But we know that how couples manage conflict is one of those crucial factors that can lead to divorce.”
So what are the conflict styles and which one fits your personality? And how can you work through a mismatched pairing?
The “Avoidant” The “Validating” The “Volatile” The “Hostile”
Worst (Functional) Conflict Pairing
The worst functional mismatched conflict style is the avoidant-volatile pair. The good news is that it was the least common pairing in the study, representing a little more than 1 in 10 couples.
Many couples in this situation fall into the trap of attributing their partner’s motives incorrectly. Sincere attempts to resolve a conflict and restore harmony can be construed as nagging.
Something that can help in this situation is to wait until the emotional flood subsides before trying to resolve the issue.
“One couple I taught this to were marathon runners and they would watch their wrist watches and saw that as soon as they started arguing their pulse rates jumped way up,” Holman said. “Once they had their pulse rates back down they would start the conversation again. They said it helped them to monitor their actual physiological reaction in a conflict.”
Best Conflict Pair
Several combinations promote relationship health, and the key is that at least one of the partners is the validating type. The researchers note that it’s a skill that can be learned.
“Validating types make sure that their partner feels understood and that both perspectives are attended to,” Busby said. “They are more likely to create a positive connection around that conflict.”
The researcher who pioneered these conflict styles, John Gottman, found that in a healthy conflict style there are five positive exchanges for every one negative exchange. In dysfunctional styles the negative exchanges outnumber the positive.
“The idea that we should never argue, is clearly not what we are talking about in this article,” Busby said. “It’s that you have to find a way to work together so that you can resolve problems with a style that fits for both of you.”
Posted by Nick Peterson
I liked this for two reasons, first, we talked about going to bed angry a few weeks ago. Second, we talked about communication and different types of ways people can control. This article mentions many of the same things our book does.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
I hope I'm doing this right...
PROVO -- The average couple attending a premarital education program tends to experience about a 30 percent increase in measures of marital strength, according to a review of 23 studies on the effectiveness of such programs.
Study co-authors Jason S. Carroll of Brigham Young University and William J. Doherty of the University of Minnesota announce their findings in the feature article of the April issue of the journal Family Relations.
"After participating in these programs, couples reported or were observed to be better at resolving problems using effective communication styles, and on average they reported higher levels of relationship quality," said Carroll, a BYU assistant professor of marriage, family and human development.
"They feel a higher sense of partnership and report a higher level of adjustment to married life than couples who did not receive premarital education."
Carroll and Doherty's meta-analysis used statistical measurements to combine the effects noted by 23 studies spanning the past 30 years. Most studies compared engaged or dating couples who participated in various types of premarital education with control groups of similar couples who did not.
"The evidence indicates that premarital education is a good investment for couples who are serious about preparing for a lifelong marriage and not just a one-day wedding," said Doherty, professor and director of the marriage and family therapy program at the U of M.
"It also supports state legislation such as Minnesota's statute that gives a waiver of marriage license fees for couples who participate in a high-quality premarital education program."
The impact of premarital education programs is similar to the effect of other types of marital intervention like counseling for couples already married. The similarity is surprising to Carroll, though, since most of the studies he analyzed measured outcomes only six months to a year after marriage and studied couples who felt their relationships were already strong.
"Couples didn't come into these programs believing they needed a major overhaul -- their motivation for change is even a bit muted, yet they are still experiencing a measurable level of improvement," Carroll said. "Despite being oriented toward long-term preparation, these programs had an immediate, positive effect on relationships."
Carroll discounted the possibility that couples who sought premarital education achieved an improvement because they were more motivated. One of the studies included in the analysis found that couples who participate in premarital education are similar to couples who do not.
Noting that 93 percent of Americans rate a happy marriage as one of their most important objectives in life, Carroll believes there is a need for an increased emphasis on premarital education among couples, government and society.
"The evidence is compelling enough that we should move forward with what we know, and that could happen at a number of levels," Carroll said, recommending any or all of the following to couples considering marriage:
* Participate in a formal premarital education program or class.
* Together, seek premarital advice from a counselor or religious leader.
* Complete a couple assessment questionnaire to evaluate relationship strengths and challenges.
* Read a book together about how to build a successful marriage.
"Communities can provide premarital education, whether through church groups, universities, high schools, employers or health care providers," Carroll said.
Citing numerous other studies that establish marriage's emotional, economic and health benefits, Carroll believes the union is important enough to the nation to warrant increased government funding of premarital education programs and further research to improve them.
"Marriage is a bedrock institution in our society that we rely upon to train children, socialize citizens and care for the needs of our communities," he said. "While we still have work to do to more fully refine and improve marriage education programs, we now have strong evidence that it is worthwhile for couples to get involved with educational programs aimed at helping their marriage get off to a good start."
Posted by Daniel Carrick
Study co-authors Jason S. Carroll of Brigham Young University and William J. Doherty of the University of Minnesota announce their findings in the feature article of the April issue of the journal Family Relations.
"After participating in these programs, couples reported or were observed to be better at resolving problems using effective communication styles, and on average they reported higher levels of relationship quality," said Carroll, a BYU assistant professor of marriage, family and human development.
"They feel a higher sense of partnership and report a higher level of adjustment to married life than couples who did not receive premarital education."
Carroll and Doherty's meta-analysis used statistical measurements to combine the effects noted by 23 studies spanning the past 30 years. Most studies compared engaged or dating couples who participated in various types of premarital education with control groups of similar couples who did not.
"The evidence indicates that premarital education is a good investment for couples who are serious about preparing for a lifelong marriage and not just a one-day wedding," said Doherty, professor and director of the marriage and family therapy program at the U of M.
"It also supports state legislation such as Minnesota's statute that gives a waiver of marriage license fees for couples who participate in a high-quality premarital education program."
The impact of premarital education programs is similar to the effect of other types of marital intervention like counseling for couples already married. The similarity is surprising to Carroll, though, since most of the studies he analyzed measured outcomes only six months to a year after marriage and studied couples who felt their relationships were already strong.
"Couples didn't come into these programs believing they needed a major overhaul -- their motivation for change is even a bit muted, yet they are still experiencing a measurable level of improvement," Carroll said. "Despite being oriented toward long-term preparation, these programs had an immediate, positive effect on relationships."
Carroll discounted the possibility that couples who sought premarital education achieved an improvement because they were more motivated. One of the studies included in the analysis found that couples who participate in premarital education are similar to couples who do not.
Noting that 93 percent of Americans rate a happy marriage as one of their most important objectives in life, Carroll believes there is a need for an increased emphasis on premarital education among couples, government and society.
"The evidence is compelling enough that we should move forward with what we know, and that could happen at a number of levels," Carroll said, recommending any or all of the following to couples considering marriage:
* Participate in a formal premarital education program or class.
* Together, seek premarital advice from a counselor or religious leader.
* Complete a couple assessment questionnaire to evaluate relationship strengths and challenges.
* Read a book together about how to build a successful marriage.
"Communities can provide premarital education, whether through church groups, universities, high schools, employers or health care providers," Carroll said.
Citing numerous other studies that establish marriage's emotional, economic and health benefits, Carroll believes the union is important enough to the nation to warrant increased government funding of premarital education programs and further research to improve them.
"Marriage is a bedrock institution in our society that we rely upon to train children, socialize citizens and care for the needs of our communities," he said. "While we still have work to do to more fully refine and improve marriage education programs, we now have strong evidence that it is worthwhile for couples to get involved with educational programs aimed at helping their marriage get off to a good start."
Posted by Daniel Carrick
WASHINGTON -- Couples in the Northeast are hearing wedding bells later than men and women elsewhere in the country -- especially Utah, where younger newlyweds are the norm.
A Census Bureau study being released Thursday found many regional differences in the marrying habits of Americans, with those near the East and West coasts generally waiting longer to get married than those in Middle America. The study also found that Southerners are the least likely to live together without getting married.
"Later marriage is very strongly associated with higher levels of education," said David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "That's why people in the Northeast have such a late age of marriage."
The age when couples get married can also be influenced by religion and whether they are willing to live together without getting married, Popenoe said.
"It delays marriage," Popenoe said of living together before marriage. "Men marry too late from the point of view of women, especially educated men. It leaves more women single, or marrying beyond the age of childbirth."
The median age for first marriages in the United States is 26.7 years for men and 25.1 for women. That is roughly a year older than a decade ago for both, said Martin O'Connell, chief of the Census Bureau's fertility and family statistics branch.
Men wait longer than women to marry in every state, and no one gets married younger than couples in Utah, where the median age is 21.9 for women and 23.9 for men. At the other end of the spectrum, men and women in Washington, D.C., both wait until they are about 30.
"Big cities tend to have high ages for marriage," said Zhenchao Qian, associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University.
The Census Bureau analyzed data from the American Community Survey from 2000 to 2003, developing state-by-state averages on marriage and fertility for the first time.
Among the study's findings: 29 percent of all new mothers were unmarried. Among the unmarried mothers, half were poor, compared with 12 percent of married mothers who lived in poverty.
"Single parenthood and poverty are about as closely related as you can get," Popenoe said.
The states with the most unwed new mothers also tended to be the ones with the highest percentage of new mothers living in poverty.
Washington, D.C., had the highest percentage of new mothers who were unmarried, at 53.4 percent. The city also had the highest percentage of new mothers living in poverty, at 36.3 percent. West Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana also had high percentages of unwed mothers living below the poverty line.
Among the study's other findings:
Maine had the highest percentage of households with unmarried couples, at 7.3 percent, while Alabama had the lowest, at 3 percent.
One-fifth of all new mothers in California either did not speak English well or did not speak it at all.
Fifteen percent of all new mothers in the U.S. were not citizens.
Hispanics had the highest birth rates, while non-Hispanic whites had the lowest.
Posted by Daniel Carrick
A Census Bureau study being released Thursday found many regional differences in the marrying habits of Americans, with those near the East and West coasts generally waiting longer to get married than those in Middle America. The study also found that Southerners are the least likely to live together without getting married.
"Later marriage is very strongly associated with higher levels of education," said David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "That's why people in the Northeast have such a late age of marriage."
The age when couples get married can also be influenced by religion and whether they are willing to live together without getting married, Popenoe said.
"It delays marriage," Popenoe said of living together before marriage. "Men marry too late from the point of view of women, especially educated men. It leaves more women single, or marrying beyond the age of childbirth."
The median age for first marriages in the United States is 26.7 years for men and 25.1 for women. That is roughly a year older than a decade ago for both, said Martin O'Connell, chief of the Census Bureau's fertility and family statistics branch.
Men wait longer than women to marry in every state, and no one gets married younger than couples in Utah, where the median age is 21.9 for women and 23.9 for men. At the other end of the spectrum, men and women in Washington, D.C., both wait until they are about 30.
"Big cities tend to have high ages for marriage," said Zhenchao Qian, associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University.
The Census Bureau analyzed data from the American Community Survey from 2000 to 2003, developing state-by-state averages on marriage and fertility for the first time.
Among the study's findings: 29 percent of all new mothers were unmarried. Among the unmarried mothers, half were poor, compared with 12 percent of married mothers who lived in poverty.
"Single parenthood and poverty are about as closely related as you can get," Popenoe said.
The states with the most unwed new mothers also tended to be the ones with the highest percentage of new mothers living in poverty.
Washington, D.C., had the highest percentage of new mothers who were unmarried, at 53.4 percent. The city also had the highest percentage of new mothers living in poverty, at 36.3 percent. West Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana also had high percentages of unwed mothers living below the poverty line.
Among the study's other findings:
Maine had the highest percentage of households with unmarried couples, at 7.3 percent, while Alabama had the lowest, at 3 percent.
One-fifth of all new mothers in California either did not speak English well or did not speak it at all.
Fifteen percent of all new mothers in the U.S. were not citizens.
Hispanics had the highest birth rates, while non-Hispanic whites had the lowest.
Posted by Daniel Carrick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)