Marriage under challenge
Chapter 2
- The Great Divorce Controversy: ES Williams
Divorce numbers have risen in a climate of growing hostility to marriage and
the traditional family. Marriage rates in Great Britain and America have
declined dramatically over the last twenty years, and in England marriage rates
are at their lowest point since records were first kept in 1838. Recent market
research, which questioned 1,500 people on their attitude to marriage, found
that half thought it was not as important as it used to be, with only four out
of ten regarding marriage as the ultimate commitment.1
Coinciding with the
decline in marriage is an increase in cohabitation as many couples are now
choosing to live together, some before marriage, and some with no intention of
ever marrying. A fundamental argument against marriage is that it is an
outdated institution which needs to be replaced by more suitable and sensible
arrangements. It is now commonly believed that cohabitation allows a greater
sense of freedom, offering sexual and emotional closeness without the
restrictions imposed by marriage.
Marriage trends in England
In
1836 an Act of Parliament introduced civil marriage into England for the first
time. Religious marriages were conducted in a church and civil marriages by a
registrar of marriages in a registry office. A consequence of the changes
introduced by this Act was that marriage statistics became available from 1838.
The earliest records show that during the 1840s almost 98 per cent of marriages
were solemnized by a religious ceremony, and 92 per cent of all marriages took
place in the Church of England. The proportion of civil marriages gradually
increased during the 19th century to reach 15 per cent by 1900, doubled over the
next 60 years to 30 per cent in 1962, before doubling again in the next three
decades, reaching almost 60 per cent by 1996. 2
In order
to describe trends in marriage rates we need to distinguish between first
marriages and remarriages. This distinction is important for much of the
theological debate revolves around the legitimacy, in the eyes of the Church, of
remarriage. Moreover, the marital status of people who are entering into
marriage has changed over the last three decades. In 1961, for example, 85 per
cent of marriages were first marriages (between a bachelor and a spinster), 10
per cent involved the remarriage of one partner and 5 per cent the remarriage of
both partners. Just three decades later, in 1996, only 58 per cent were first
marriages, 23 per cent involved the remarriage of one partner and 19 per cent
the remarriage of both partners.3
During
the 1960s the first marriage rate was fairly stable, before peaking in 1972 at
100 per thousand eligible population for spinsters and 86 for bachelors. The
next two decades were characterised by a steady decline in the rate. Among
bachelors, for example, the rate fell by 65 per cent in the twenty-five years
after 1971, and in 1997 the rate of 28 per thousand is the lowest since records
have been kept. Among women the first marriage rate declined by 63 per cent
over the same period, to a rate of 35 per thousand in 1997.4
A
remarriage involves the second or subsequent marriage of one or both partners
following the dissolution of a previous marriage through either death or
divorce. As we have already seen, the proportion of all marriages that are
remarriages has increased dramatically over the last few decades. When the
rates were at a peak following the Second World War, about 300 per thousand
divorced men and 150 per thousand divorced women were remarrying each year.
During the 1960s rates stabilised for a time, before peaking again in 1972.
Since then rates have declined steeply, the male rate falling from 284 per
thousand divorced men in 1972 to a rate of 48 in 1997 – a reduction of over 80
per cent in just 25 years. The rate among females, which was lower than that of
males in the 1950s and 60s, declined less steeply and is now almost similar to
the rate among men. The annual remarriage rate of widowed men and women has
followed a trend similar to that among divorced people.4
These
figures confirm a dramatic decline in marriage rates across the board, with the
greatest decline occurring among people remarrying. The effect of these trends
is that the number of divorced people in the population has grown, and in 1996
one in 13 men and one in 12 women were divorced.5
There is a strong association between the type of marriage ceremony and
remarriage, with 80 per cent of remarriages in 1996 involving a civil ceremony,
compared to 43 per cent of first marriages. In 1996, 11 per cent of Church of
England marriages, and 37 per cent of marriages in other Christian churches,
were remarriages.
Marriage trends in America
The
latter half of the 1960s saw major changes in the social landscape of the United
States. We have already seen that the divorce rate doubled in the ten years
after 1965. Coinciding with the growth of divorce were changing patterns of
marriage and alterations in family structure.
First
marriage rates reached an all time high immediately after the Second World War
as many eligible young men returned to civilian life. Following the post-war
peak there was a gradual decline in rates during the 1950s, while in the 1960s
rates remained fairly constant. By 1970 the rate was 93 per thousand single
women aged 15 and over. During the next two decades there was a steep decline
as the rate fell to 58 per thousand, a decrease of 38 per cent in just twenty
years. Among single men the marriage rate has declined by 42 per cent over the
same period. This sharp decrease in marriage has been somewhat offset by
increasing rates of cohabitation.6
During the 1970s and 80s the proportion of all marriages that were first
marriages decreased from 69 per cent to 54 per cent.7
Another
significant change has been the older age at which women marry for the first
time. In 1970, among women aged under 25, 88 per cent had married compared to
57 per cent in 1990. During the same period the median age of first marriages
increased from 20.4 years to 24 years. Although the average age of first
marriage has increased, around 95 per cent of women still eventually marry.
High
divorce rates have created a large pool of people eligible for remarriage. In
1970 the remarriage rate for divorced women was 123 per thousand; two decades
later in 1990 the rate had declined to 76, a fall of 38 per cent. The
remarriage rate of divorced men almost halved over the same period. During the
heyday of remarriage in the 1960s almost 90 per cent of divorced women would
remarry, 33 per cent within a year of their divorce, and around 60 per cent
within three years. Of the women who divorced in the early 1980s, only 16 per
cent had remarried within a year of their divorce, and 36 per cent within three
years.8
However,
despite the decline in remarriage rates, the proportions of all marriages that
were remarriages increased from 31 per cent in 1970 to 46 per cent in 1988. It
has been suggested that the recent levels of remarriage after divorce may be
more close to two-thirds than the three-quarters often cited.9
Nevertheless, remarriage will remain relatively widespread,
resulting in a continued increase in the number of reconstituted, blended, and
stepfamilies.10
According to a Bureau of Census Report the data show that
divorce has peaked and, although it will decline slightly, remains high enough
to merit attention as a major social and economic issue. ‘In addition, the data
show that, although remarriage rates have fallen, the growth of consequent
stepfamilies is significant, and that a large segment of the United States adult
population flows into and out of several marital categories during their life
course. The societal changes have led to American children today living in
increasingly varied and complex living arrangements.’11
The
ideological challenge to marriage
Behind the decline in numbers is a serious and ongoing ideological challenge to
the relevance and meaning of marriage. Over the last three decades the
institution of marriage has come under a sustained attack from the
intelligentsia and opinion formers in Britain and America. A growing body of
literature, both academic and popular, has challenged the relevance of marriage
in the modern world. The thinking behind the ideological challenge is important
for it has influenced the way society views both marriage and divorce. As long
as society held a high view of marriage, mass divorce could not take root.
However, when marriage became devalued in the eyes of society, the gateway to
mass divorce opened wide. If marriage is a flawed, irrelevant institution then
divorce becomes a sensible option for those who are in unhappy marriages. After
all, what sense is there in trying to save a marriage if the institution is
basically flawed and bad for women? To comprehend the move to mass divorce we
need to understand the thinking that has portrayed the institution of marriage
as no longer relevant to the modern world.
Many
commentators have claimed that marriage is a cause of women’s oppression, and an
institution that inhibits psychological growth. It has been portrayed as the
foundation of a patriarchal society. A further criticism is that marriage is
based on sexual inequality, and is therefore a form of bondage for both husband
and wife.12
Another point of view is that marriage turns a woman into a wife and expects the
wife’s place to be in the home. This limits a woman’s horizons and inevitably
relegates her to domestic duties.13 The terms ‘man and wife’ are a terminology that reflects the
innate inequality of the marriage situation, for the wife has lost her identity
as a woman. Marriage becomes a battlefield, with both sides engaged in a war
neither can win: for the partner who wins the power play inevitably loses the
respect and love of his or her mate.14
World
famous feminist author Germaine Greer ridiculed marriage in her best seller
The Female Eunuch (1970). She asserted, ‘if independence is a necessary
concomitant of freedom, women must refuse to marry’.15 She provided detailed reasons why ‘women ought not to enter
into socially sanctioned relationships, like marriage, and that once unhappily
in they ought not to scruple to run away’.16
She mocked the idea that a woman might find love and security in marriage, and
advised married women, if not entirely satisfied with their lot, to consider
abandoning the marriage.17 The Female Eunuch undoubtedly had a major impact on
the lives of many women. Its powerful rhetoric persuaded women to see marriage
in a different light—to see themselves as the victims trapped in oppressive
marriages. Undoubtedly many women were encouraged to view their marriages with
scepticism, and to accept divorce as a sensible means of escape from the
oppressive situation in which they found themselves.
Another
criticism of marriage is that it destroys individuality, independence,
self-confidence and self-respect.18 Because marriage is so patently a patriarchal institution
ordained by men it has become an anachronism and irrelevant to our society.19 Following this line of reasoning, Law Commissioner and
distinguished family lawyer, Brenda Hoggett, expressed the view, ‘Family law no
longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage or any other
union… Logically we have already reached a point at which, rather than
discussing which remedies should now be extended to the unmarried, we should be
considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any
useful purpose.’20
Modern
secular marriage
Clifford Longley provides a perceptive comment on the feminist attitude towards
marriage. ‘The feminist critique of traditional marriage describes it as a
focus for the oppression of women. Pressure from women, and many men, to undo
this sense of oppression has been the motivating force for marriage reform this
century. Now the campaigners have driven the reform so far that modern marriage
and traditional marriage are two different things. Modern marriage is totally
secular, an institution with no apparent roots in religion at all. The
guardians of traditional marriage, the churches, have coped with the feminists
by merely denying that oppression exists in marriage.’21
The distinction between traditional marriage and secular marriage is important,
because these two notions of marriage are based on entirely different premises.
Traditional marriage is founded on the biblical idea of a covenant relationship
between a man and his wife, in which they promise to live together, whatever the
circumstances, for life. Modern secular marriage, on the other hand, is
regarded as little more than a temporary contract that may be terminated when it
no longer suits either partner.
Despite
the continuing ideological challenge to marriage, most men and women still have
an innate desire to marry and the majority will eventually do so. A recent Mori
poll showed that 77 per cent of the British population disagreed with the
statement that marriage is dead, and for 71 per cent of women the preferred
lifestyle was one of being married and having children.22
But the way society at large views marriage has undergone a fundamental change
during the last century, and especially during the last three decades. In many
Western countries, according to the Encyclopedia Americana, the concept
of marriage as a permanent commitment has been abandoned and does not form part
of society’s cultural values. ‘Marriage is in the process of being defined as a
temporary relationship, to be maintained only as long as it helps both partners
get what they want out of life.’23 An illustration of the secularisation of marriage in England
has been the steady decline in the proportion of church marriages, the steepest
decline occurring during the last three decades. However the statistics do not
tell the whole story, for even some of those who marry in church have a secular
attitude towards their marriage.
The
notion that marriage has a religious or moral dimension is debunked by modern
secular thought. Modern marriage is a union of convenience for those who want
something more than is offered by cohabitation, which, despite all the gloss,
creates a great sense of insecurity. So a loving couple joins in marriage for
their mutual happiness and benefit. While both partners are happy with the
relationship, the marriage is valid; when one or both partners tire of the
relationship, or when the relationship does not meet their inner needs, then the
marriage has lost its meaning and should come to an end. Indeed, it is wrong
for a couple no longer in love to stay married; the idea that parents should
stay together for the sake of their children is a nonsense based on the
old-fashioned ideas of duty and responsibility. Modern secular marriage lasts
only while it fulfils its primary purpose of making the couple happy. In their
book, The Divorce Experience (1977), Morton and Bernice Hunt describe how
the changes wrought by technology, the women’s movement, the sexual revolution,
and the redefining of the roles of men and women have all made it impossible for
marriage to survive as it was, for it could not meet the needs of modern men and
women. ‘And therefore it has changed in its internal structure, its balance of
power, its allocation of roles, and above all in its expected duration –
formerly a lifetime, now only as long as it fulfils its proper contemporary
functions. Divorce has thus become not the antithesis of marriage but an
essential aspect of the marriage system. It is the only way an individual can
remain happily married – by changing partners – as his or her needs change in
the course of a lifetime.’24 According to this view, marriage is a temporary
arrangement, with the expectation that partner change will be essential to
remain happy.
Because
modern marriage is so uncertain, couples are being encouraged to draw up
prenuptial agreements to protect themselves in the eventuality of a future
divorce. According to the Law Society, requests for prenuptial agreements are
increasing, as some couples now feel it is wise to draw up such an agreement.
Another feature of modern marriage is that some women choose to retain their
maiden name because they do not want to give the impression that they are
dependent on their husband. For example, a recently-married woman was so
incensed at receiving Christmas cards addressed to ‘Mr and Mrs’ that she placed
an advertisement in the local paper stating that she wished be known by her
maiden name, not by her husband’s name. In the advertisement she made it clear
that although she was married she had not changed her name. Instead she would
continue to be known personally and professionally by her maiden name, making no
apology to the misguided fuddy-duddies who believe this to be strange or
unconventional. Her reason was that she believed a woman should be able to
retain her identity when she marries. Commenting on the issue, the author of
Modern Manners said that it was perfectly acceptable for women to keep the
name by which they were known before marriage.25
Another newly-married young woman tells in a feature article how she felt
obliged to explain to countless people in the workplace why she chose to change
her name after her marriage. She explained that most disapproval came from
middle aged women in senior positions.26
The
contemporary view is that modern secular marriage should not interfere with the
career aspirations of the wife, who goes out to work in order to maintain her
financial independence. The expectation is that housekeeping duties will be
shared between husband and wife, and should the wife have a baby, it is
important that she returns to work as soon as possible so as not to damage her
career prospects. Children are cared for in childcare as the modern wife and
mother is out competing in the workplace. Should the marriage fail, as many do,
divorce is the legal mechanism used to terminate a relationship that has already
ended. For this reason divorce needs to be cheap and easy to obtain. It is, of
course, nobody’s fault that a marriage breaks down because one cannot be blamed
for falling out of love—it is something that just happens. And should they love
again, they always have the option of remarrying.
The
Proposal: giving marriage back to the people
The
report on modernising marriage by the British Labour Party’s influential
think-tank Demos is an important document because it recognises the
secularisation of marriage that has taken place in society and proposes changes
to the legal framework to accommodate secular marriage. In an open and honest
way, The Proposal (1997) presents the logical implications that follow
from the move towards the secularisation of marriage. The ambition of The
Proposal is to revitalise marriage and give it a new lease of life by
putting it ‘in the hands of the people for whom it exists – the couples who wish
to make commitments to each other, and who wish to choose their own rituals –
but in the context of a legal framework’.27
The
marriage of the future should be based on three guiding principles. The first
is that church and state should be separated and all ceremonial privileges of
religious denominations removed. The effect will be to remove the distinction
between religious and civil marriage, allowing people to choose a ceremony that
reflects their own belief system. ‘The second principle is that society has an
interest in encouraging couples to make commitments to one another through the
life course. Couples who wish to marry – including same-sex couples – should be
free to do so and to make a legal commitment to one another. The third
principle is that the wishes of the couple who marry are all-important. This is
why we need a comprehensive deregulation of the rules and regulations concerning
the marriage ceremony allowing freedom of choice of celebrant, place and time
and vows.’28 According to Demos, these principles would underpin a
changed culture of marriage, based on choice, and making an ancient ritual
relevant, modern and meaningful. Encouraging people to write their own vows,
and to devise their own ceremonies would emphasise communications within
relationships, and encourage the development of life skills and interpersonal
skills that are invaluable in negotiating successful and durable marriages.
What sort of marriages would result from these changes? There would be
‘imaginative and creative uses of different places for marriage ceremonies;
everything from supermarkets to nightclubs, from planes to hilltops, from
ancient burial sites to churches, from restaurants to people’s own homes, from
street ceremonies even to cemeteries.’29
The
report goes on, ‘the most important culture shift that we are edging uncertainly
towards is the recognition that the institution of marriage cannot be rebuilt if
people continue to make commitments they cannot sustain. In turn, this may lead
to a recognition by some people that they cannot commit to lifelong marriage,
but do feel they can commit for a specific time period at the end of which they
can renew and renegotiate their marriage vows. Individuals and couples who do
not have children may wish to experiment with time-limited marriages, perhaps
typically for ten years. These would explicitly reject the idea of marriage as
indissoluble but would emphasize the importance of renewing, reaffirming and
even renegotiating marriage vows in recognition of the fact that over the course
of a lifetime, people are bound to change. However, serial marriage would be
encouraged.’30
The
importance of vows is recognised. Those who marry in a church ‘may find that
they have less flexibility than other people to rewrite their vows. The
implication is that the more traditional or inflexible religious denominations
who insist on the commitment to vows such as “till death us do part” may well
find themselves losing out to other religious ceremonies such as those
conducted by Unitarians or by humanist celebrants. This is the logic of the
democratisation of the system which this proposal opens up.’31
The
Proposal
is based on the idea that modern secular marriage is usually a temporary
arrangement. This is why the vow ‘till death us do part’ is seen as optional,
and only for those who abide by the inflexible rules of the church. It is not
difficult to appreciate that the concepts that underpin modern secular marriage
are very different from the biblical view of lifelong marriage, which is
discussed in chapter 15.
Opposition to marriage
In
tune with the ideology described above, it has become fashionable for articles
in women’s magazines, feature articles in newspapers and comments on radio and
television to adopt a position that is sceptical about marriage. An article in
the Guardian, under the headline ‘Till disillusion and failure do us
part’, claims that an examination of divorce figures show that ‘marriage in
Britain is already halfway to obsolescence. For many people it differs from
other long-term relationships only in that you must first wait and then be fined
in order to get out of it.’32
It is common for celebrities to openly express their opposition to marriage, and
many choose to live with their lover without being married. An article in
The Sunday Times comments on a number of celebrities who are living
together. A well-known actor who has been living with his girlfriend for seven
years is quoted, ‘Thank God I’m finally U. Obviously, we have both talked about
marriage, but we figured, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I once read an
article by Donald Sutherland who believed marriage changes relationships inside
and outside the union… If anyone out there has bought us a wedding present tell
them to give it to someone else.’33
In an article in Vanity Fair, Madonna, the world-famous film star who
recently gave birth to her first child without being married to the father,
admitted that she and the baby’s father are no longer together. She complains
that people are extremely judgemental of her and her choice to become a mother
while not married. She says, ‘I know lots of married people who have terrible
unhealthy relationships; marriage isn’t a guarantee of anything.’34
Speaking to Vanity Fair, unmarried Ms Michelle Pfeiffer, who has just
embarked on a new relationship after ending a three-year affair, is quoted, ‘I
thought, I don’t want some guy in my life forever who’s going to be driving me
nuts.’35
A young
woman expresses her view of marriage in a feature article in Vogue. She
writes, ‘Indeed, for those of us born in the sixties marriage is more often
thought of as the final aria of a Wagner opera, while our twenties,
traditionally the time of matrimony, are filled with serious, committed,
monogamous “trial marriages” typically lasting three to five years. The logic
behind these domestic arrangements is that being free of state-sanctified
covenants, we avoid tying ourselves down to relationships we may ultimately
outgrow.’36 A feature article in The Sunday Times asks why
romantic novels always end with marriage. ‘Because the people who write them
know that that’s the end of the really good stuff, all the juice has been
squeezed. And it’s high time that the rest of us admitted that marriage is the
boring and unworkable institution that it is. Let’s stop pretending that
marriages are made in heaven, that they signify perfect love and that they last
forever… Everybody who is married or has ever been married knows that marriage
breeds contempt, children and divorce. But if you say it out aloud it seems to
upset people terribly. The messenger is blamed… Let’s face it, married people
are unutterably dull. Their souls denuded of hope, their sex lives denuded of
interest and, worst of all, their fridges are stuffed with food not champagne.’37
The
eminent presenter of Women’s Hour, a mainline programme on BBC Radio 4, caused a
major stir by arguing that marriage is licensed prostitution. In a feature
article in Options magazine entitled ‘Why no woman should marry’ Jenni
Murray, a divorced mother living with a partner, says that marriage enhances a
man’s status but robs a woman of her self-respect and independence, officially
stamping her a legal prostitute. She relates how she felt a niggling sense of
self-betrayal as one man, her father, gave her into the custody of another man.
When she was refused unemployment benefit because she was a married woman, she
concludes, ‘So with the best intentions, I had become a kept woman—officially
stamped a legal prostitute. I believe that marriage is an insult and that women
shouldn’t touch it.’ She notes that things have changed since she walked down
the aisle. ‘Some women choose not to be “given away”. Many keep their own
names and almost all their jobs. In some ways it makes me feel proud: what a
lot my generation of feminists has achieved in only 20 years. But I can’t shake
off a deep sense of unease about the marriage trap.’ Murray asserts that the
pressure to conform still sends women up the aisle in droves, and that couples
who have lived together happily for years decide to marry because they want to
have children. ‘Why? Will a simple certificate of law provide so much extra
security? And does the nuclear family really provide the most stable
environment in which to bring up children? Rather, in many families, marriage
is a licence to exercise power behind closed doors.’ Murray believes there is a
strong argument for remaining an unmarried mother. ‘There’s no stigma attached
any more—you can, if you’re lucky, still raise your children in a loving
family. But should it all go disastrously wrong, you’re more likely to have
retained your job, your name and your independence.’38
The
British actress and star of the TV series Prime Suspect, Helen Mirren,
‘has spent years explaining to People, Hello! and OK and
other journals of record why she doesn’t believe in marriage, while
simultaneously flaunting the robustness of her own arrangements’.39
Cherie Lunghi, a well-known actress and the strong woman of the Kenco television
commercial, is a single mother who cannot believe that ‘people are still
bandying these happy-ever-after ideas around when we know from the statistics
that marriage as a convention is well and truly on the rocks. I’m doing what
everybody else does: living my life according to what suits me, not according to
the rules laid down by society, rules that have fallen apart.’40
The film
Four Weddings and a Funeral ends with the leading man (Hugh Grant) and
woman (Andie MacDowell), after a long love affair reaching the deal, ‘Will you
promise not to marry me?’ They want the audience to know that having
witnessed four marriages they have chosen to live together without marriage.
The film Sliding Doors tells the story of a tender love affair between a
cohabiting young woman (her partner is having an affair) and a charming hero who
does not bother to tell her that he is a married man. The young woman is
slightly disconcerted when she discovers her new lover has a wife, but instantly
reassured when he tells her he is separated and plans a divorce.
Writing
in The Times, Polly Toynbee expresses the view that ‘every girl has to be
taught that she may or may not marry, she may or may not stay married but the
odds are now weighted against her finding a man who will support her and her
children for ever. Her life has to be her own destiny. Any man who might
attach himself for part or all of the journey is not her destiny. There is no
point in moralising about it, or mourning the passing of family values; that is
how life is now.’41
An anti-marriage sentiment is common among British politicians, and many members
of the Parliament ‘have long-standing live-in relationships with men and women
whom they have no intention of marrying’.42
Mary Ann
Glendon, in her book Abortion and Divorce in Western Law (1987),
describes the way many Americans think about marriage and divorce. ‘The
American story about marriage, as told in the law and in much popular
literature, goes something like this: marriage is a relationship that exists
primarily for the fulfillment of the individual spouses. If it ceases to
perform this function, no one is to blame and either spouse may terminate it at
will. After divorce, each spouse is expected to be self-sufficient… Children
hardly appear in the story; at most they are rather shadowy characters in the
background… In the continuing cultural conversation about marriage and family
life, American law has weighed in heavily on the side of individual
self-fulfillment. It tells us that if a marriage no longer suits our needs or
if the continuation of a pregnancy would not fit in with our plans just now, we
can choose to sever the relationship.’43
The
rise in cohabitation and births outside marriage
A
consequence of the widespread scepticism towards marriage is that couples are
choosing to cohabit as the social stigma associated with living together has all
but disappeared over the last three decades. In an article in Population
Trends, demographer John Haskey demonstrates this change in social attitudes
by the type of questions used in surveys on cohabitation. In the 1970s couples
were asked whether they were ‘living as married’, while surveys in the early
1980s used the words living as ‘man and wife’ to ascertain rates of
cohabitation. In more recent surveys people were asked whether they are ‘living
together as a couple’. Haskey makes the point that the use of language in these
social surveys reflects the changing social attitude towards marriage. ‘That
is, first the pretence of, and then all reference to, marriage was finally
dropped; informal unions have become recognised as a social institution in their
own right.’44
During
the last three decades the proportion of cohabiting couples has increased
dramatically. Information from the General Household Survey, a continuous
survey of private households in Great Britain, showed that in the early 1960s
around 5 per cent of single women lived with their future husbands before
marriage. By the 1990s about 70 per cent were doing so, and in the case of
women marrying a second time around 90 per cent cohabit before their second
marriage. Divorced people are now less likely to remarry and many choose to
live with a partner; in 1993 over 40 per cent of divorced men and 27 per cent of
divorced women were living in a cohabiting relationship.45
The main argument put forward by those who favour premarital cohabitation is
that it is wise for a couple to live together before getting married so that
they can have a trial period to test their compatibility and commitment. Should
the trial fail then it is easy to end the relationship and move on to the next
one without experiencing the trauma of the divorce courts. While it is commonly
believed that a trial marriage will reduce the likelihood of a marriage breaking
down later, the opposite is true. Those who cohabit before marriage have double
the divorce rate of those who do not live together before marriage.
Some
celebrities choose to publicise their cohabitation as a statement of their
rejection of marriage, others see little point in getting married. Actress
Juliet Stevenson described her relationship with partner Hugh Brody, the father
of her four-year-old daughter, in a feature article in the Mail on Sunday.
‘What really annoys me about being described as a single mother is that it
diminishes my partner. What’s he suppose to think when he hears me or reads
that? It’s as if he doesn’t exist and yet he is at home more than I am.’ She
explained that she and her partner have a completely standard, ordinary
relationship. ‘I really don’t see any difference between having children with
somebody you live with and being married to them. I can’t understand what all
the fuss is about. I have loads of friends among the mothers at Rosalind’s
school and I wouldn’t have a clue whether they are married to their partners or
not. It’s just not important.’ She said that when she and her partner first
got together ‘we did talk about it (marriage) and we may still get married. I’m
not at all anti-marriage, it’s just that I’ve never quite seen the point of it
myself.’46
It is not
overstating the case to say that in today’s world the distinction between legal
marriage and informal cohabitation has become blurred as many people claim that
there is no essential difference. The way language is used supports the idea
that marriage and cohabitation are equivalent relationships. The word ‘partner’
is now used to refer to couples who are living together, whether or not they are
married. Accordingly, the words ‘husband and wife’ are falling into disuse;
they are no longer used in polite conversation for fear of causing offence to
couples who are not married. Official government publications use the word
‘partner’ in place of husband or wife. For example, pregnant women are
encouraged to invite their ‘partners’, not their husbands, to attend antenatal
sessions. It is now usual practice for invitations to be addressed to an
individual and their ‘partner’. Furthermore, most social surveys combine
married and cohabiting couples together into one category, as if they make up
the same marital group. In many social surveys mothers are categorized as
‘supported’ or ‘unsupported’, rather than as married, cohabiting or single
mothers. This classification assumes there is no distinction between married
mothers who are living with their husband, and single mothers living with a male
partner; the husband and cohabiting ‘partner’ are seen as equivalent––they are
assumed to provide an equivalent amount of emotional, economic and social
support. (The relationship between cohabitation and child abuse is discussed in
chapter 17). To keep pace with contemporary thinking the British Government is
considering setting up a register of cohabitation to protect the rights of cohabitees when they end their relationship. There is little doubt that the
spread of cohabitation, once termed ‘living in sin’, is changing the traditional
social and moral patterns of behaviour in society.
Births
outside marriage
Another significant trend linked to the decline in marriage and rise in
cohabitation is the increasing number of children born outside marriage. In
England, at the beginning of the 1960s, around 6 per cent of births were to
unmarried mothers. The proportion of babies born outside marriage increased
gradually during the 60s, doubled during the 70s, doubled again during the
1980s, and by the 1990s over one-third of all births were to unmarried mothers.
Thus, the proportion of births outside marriage had increased almost fivefold in
three decades. The annual number of children born outside marriage reached 200
thousand for the first time in 1990, and increased to 220 thousand in 1995.
Just over half of these babies were born to mothers who were probably in a
cohabiting arrangement.47
In the last decade
just less than two million children have been born to unmarried parents. The
proportion of families in Great Britain headed by a lone parent increased from
around 8 per cent in 1971 to 22 per cent in 1993. This increase in lone-parent
families is related to the numbers of divorces and births to single mothers that
have occurred during this period. There were about half a million stepfamilies
in Great Britain in 1991, corresponding to one million children living in
stepfamilies.48
In
America one-third of births are to unmarried mothers. Each year over one
million babies are born to unmarried mothers, and approximately one-third of
these are born to teenage mothers. A new study by the Census Bureau has found
that, in 1991, only 58 per cent of all children still lived in an intact family
with their own married biological parents. That means that 42 per cent of
children live in some alternative family arrangement; that is, with single
parents or stepparents, as we saw in chapter 1.49
In many American neighbourhoods the family has collapsed.
Among households with children in poor inner cities, fewer than one in ten has a
father in the home. Many argue that the plight of the inner cities reflects a
wider social malaise, one caused by the profound changes in the structure of the
family—the result of increased divorces and births outside marriage.50
Redefining the family
The
last two decades have witnessed an unprecedented debate on the meaning of the
family. Mass divorce has had a dramatic effect on the way society thinks about
the family. Following a divorce, father, mother and children no longer live in
the same home and the family is thought of as broken. Accordingly the term
‘broken family’ was coined to describe the family structure that resulted from
divorce. However, many people argue that the term ‘broken family’ is
inappropriate as divorce does not break a family, but simply changes its form.
In their book, Divorced Families (1987), Constance Ahrons and Roy Rodgers
explain that the common term ‘broken family’ has become a synonym for divorced
families. ‘In practice this usually means that children lose their fathers, and
without a father and a mother in one household a child is labelled as coming
from a broken home. What is really conveyed, however, is that divorce severs
parenting. Not only do we have to rid ourselves of the myth of the predominance
of the traditional nuclear family, but we also have to rid ourselves of the myth
that it is exclusively the best way to rear children.’51
The family is not broken by divorce, according to this line of reasoning, but
transformed into a different type of family. Divorce provides the opportunity
of replacing the original family with a stepfamily. Children benefit by being
removed from a high conflict natural family and re-established in a happy
stepfamily. But as remarriage has fallen out of favour and increasing numbers
of children are living only with their mother, the concept of the single-parent
family has come into being. So divorce does not break a family but creates a single-parent family. The next step in the evolution of the family was for
the single mother to live with a boyfriend, commonly referred to as her
‘partner’, to form a cohabiting family. Experience has proved these
relationships to be short-lived and some divorced women and their children are
involved in a sequence of such relationships.
The
problem facing society today has been to describe these new living arrangements,
which were once considered immoral and socially unacceptable, in terms of the
family. In order to do so, it has been necessary to claim that all lifestyles
are equally valid and to deny any moral imperative. Those who point to the
moral dimension are seen as judgemental, forcing their unwelcome moral views on
others. Rather, couples should be allowed to choose the family arrangement that
suits them, free from restrictive moral laws. Increasingly the concept of the
family has become separated from marriage, while the idea that there are many
different, equally valid, types of family has gained acceptance. Much of the
debate on the family is an attempt to justify mass divorcing by denying that
divorce breaks families. This justification has been achieved by redefining the
family and claiming that divorce creates different types of family.
Legitimising the single-parent family
The
growing army of unmarried mothers added another dimension to the debate. For
centuries it was believed in Western society that procreation should take place
only in marriage. It was widely recognised that the care and attention of both
parents was best for children. Illegitimacy, therefore, was frowned upon as
immoral and universally condemned. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
‘not to condemn illegitimacy would be to attach no special significance to
marriage. Recognising the great importance of marriage for social
responsibility and stability, and the corresponding dangers of nonmarriage, the
state makes marriage easy, the requirements being few and simple.’52
Examining the issue of illegitimacy, the Royal Commission on Marriage and
Divorce (1956) made the following comment: ‘Legitimacy is the status held by a
lawful child of a marriage. Any departure from that conception can only be made
by ignoring the essential moral principle that a man cannot, during the
subsistence of his marriage beget children by another woman. It is unthinkable
that the state should lend its sanction to such a step, for it could not fail to
result in a blurring of moral values in the public mind. A powerful deterrent
to illicit relationships would be removed, with disastrous results for the
status of marriage as at present understood. The issue is fundamental but
perfectly plain. If children born in adultery may subsequently acquire the
status of legitimate children, an essential distinction between lawful marriage
and illicit unions disappears.’53
However,
during the decades of the permissive society, as the number of illegitimate
children grew exponentially, the old-fashioned idea of defining children born to
unmarried women as illegitimate became socially inconvenient. Accordingly, in
the early 1980s the British Government dispensed with the concept of
illegitimate births, and removed the tag illegitimate from children born
outside marriage. By this action the government gave official recognition to
the single-parent family, thereby accepting that a father was not an essential
part of the family. The crucial link between marriage, children and the family
had been fractured. The government had struck a terrible blow against
marriage. It was no longer essential for a family to be composed of both mother
and father, joined together by lawful marriage. Instead, a new modern type of
‘family’, made up of a single mother and her children, had gained the official
recognition of the state. The British Government saw the father’s role in the
family as a non-essential, optional extra. Moreover, it demonstrated its
commitment to single-parent families by providing financial support to them,
thereby taking over the responsibility that had traditionally belonged to the
father.
Criticism of the traditional family
A
large literature has accumulated as sociologists, psychologists, politicians,
theologians and family therapists, among others, express their views on the
future of the family. Much of the debate is extremely critical of the
traditional two-parent family, arguing that it is only one of a number of
equally relevant family types. Over the last three decades many intellectuals,
academics and media personalities have been extremely contemptuous of the
traditional family, condemning it as a patriarchal institution that represses
women and children. Jon Davies, a lecturer at the University of Newcastle upon
Tyne, writes of a ‘culture which is quite profoundly sceptical about and hostile
to the very notion of the stable nuclear family. Our culture seems to be
casually experimenting with a wide range of procreational, familial, and
nurturing practices.’54
A classic example of the hostility of the British establishment is demonstrated
by the surprising attack of the Mothers’ Union, a traditional supporter of the
Christian view of marriage. A former vice-president of the Union, Christine
McMullen, wrote in its journal that the nuclear family ‘is seen by many as too
stifling, secretive and imprisoning’. She added, ‘There is a multiplicity of
family styles around today, and all need to be considered as valid.’55
The
report of the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community is
another example of the confusion that abounds in Britain around the family.
This high-powered committee was given the task of defining the core spiritual
and moral values shared by society that should be taught to schoolchildren.
While the final report contained several references to the importance of the
family, marriage was not specifically promoted. Marriage was neither mentioned
in the main statement, nor in the ten principles for action, that made only one
mention of families, suggesting that society should support families in raising
children and caring for dependants.56 Following criticism, the forum agreed to compromise by
inserting a point supporting marriage, but with a subsequent paragraph that
recognised that the love and commitment required for a secure and happy
childhood could be found in families of different kinds.57
This example illustrates the antipathy towards marriage displayed by a national
forum supposedly representing the people. In the popular mind no link now
exists between marriage and family.
A leading
article in The Sunday Times made an interesting observation: ‘The family
has not been fashionable for at least a generation. The British intelligentsia
has long derided it as at best a hindrance to progressive lifestyles, at worst a
form of bourgeois repression. The insidious climate and politics which
undermined the nuclear family has produced a popular culture which went out of
its way to disparage it (when did you last see a British television series
lauding traditional family values?). Now the nation has to deal with the
consequences in the form of soaring crime, increasing squalor, widespread
welfare dependency, the spread of the yob culture and crumbling communities.
And, suddenly, the family is back in fashion. It is becoming increasingly clear
to all but the most blinkered of social scientists that the disintegration of
the nuclear family is the principal source of so much social unrest and misery.’58
The
Family Research Council, an American conservative think-tank, commented, ‘As we
enter the final decade of the 20th century, we find ourselves embroiled in a
second civil war. A civil war of values that will likely determine the future
of the family in our society… from Congress to the Supreme Court, two value
systems are clashing in a great struggle over family, faith and freedom, with
our children as the ultimate prize.’59
A view
that is gathering pace is that the traditional family of father, mother and
children living together in one household is a thing of the past. The large
number of homes broken by divorce and the one-third of births that take place
outside marriage, with many fathers showing no further interest in their
offspring, are seen as evidence to support this view. A report of the Church of
England, Something to Celebrate (1995), claims that ‘the two-parent
family with children, a breadwinning husband and a wife who stays at home with
the children now make up only a small minority of all households in the UK at
any one time… the family portrayed on the front of a cereal packet in the 1950s
now barely exists.’60 A book in a series of Pastoral Care handbooks, Happy
Families? (1995), believes the concept of the traditional family was built
on romantic idealism that is out of place in a modern world.61 ‘Some Christians might make the effort to recreate the
images and social structures of yesteryear, but in striving to do so most only
succeed in adding to the burden of guilt that already oppresses the lives of so
many within the Church.’62 Moreover, the notion of what constitutes a family is in a
state of so much flux and redefinition, that ‘it is little wonder that there is
so much disagreement as to what the family really is’.63
A former director of the Family Policies Studies Centre believes that the
traditional family is in terminal decline. ‘There are fewer marriages, more
cohabitation, more children born out of wedlock, high divorce rates and more
one-parent families. These are powerful forces and, faced with them, the
governments are relatively powerless. The trends of the last 12 years were not
for turning.’64
The traditional family, we are encouraged to accept, has had its day as the new
family arrangements become increasingly popular.
Moreover,
many influential sociologists have reached the conclusion that the demise of the
traditional family is no bad thing, for it has been a major cause of social
problems. Understanding the Family, published by the Open University in
1995, is but one example of this way of reasoning. Based on an extensive
academic review of sociological literature, the authors write, ‘the family has
been described as a place of male dominance, oppression of women and denial of
children’s freedom and individuality. It has also been viewed as an active
agency in reproducing social inequalities, isolating individuals from each other
and eroding a broader sense of community.’65 Having reviewed the evidence, the authors conclude that the
reality of the nuclear family is ‘quite a disturbing picture if we consider the
exploitation of women, abuses of children, not to mention the isolation of
families that are likely to occur’.66 This negative view of the traditional family is the orthodox
sociological view taught to students by colleges and universities.
There is
no longer a consensus around the definition of what constitutes a family.
Something to Celebrate makes it clear that ‘we cannot assume that a
particular shape of family, to the exclusion of all others, is God-given. To
suggest that belonging to a nuclear family is the only real way in which human
beings can find fulfilment, and then to compare every other kind of family with
that, seems to us to be unhelpful.’67 The notion of family is elastic, and because diversity is
the key, we must put aside our desire for certainty. In other words the authors
of Something to Celebrate are unable to define the family. They are sure
of one thing, however, and that is that ‘families exist where marriage may not
(or cannot) and we should not treat them as if they were one and the same
thing’.68 With this statement, as we shall see later, they reject
biblical teaching that marriage is the basis of the family. Something to
Celebrate concludes that there is no one form of family, but rather a
diverse choice of arrangements.
Following
a similar line of thinking, the authors of Happy Families? believe that
‘today’s families are striving to redefine what it means to be a family’.69
They identify at least seven quite distinct types of family in Western culture,
including husband and wife families, single-parent families, changing families,
blended families, cohabiting families and an emerging family model based on gay
relationships, both between homosexual men and lesbian women.70 They conclude their analysis, ‘The family is clearly in the
midst of enormous upheaval and change… It might well be that new versions of the
extended family of the past could provide a new way forward for the future, this
time not based on kinship in the strict sense, but on networks of unrelated
friends and associates as well as those bound together by genetic links.
Whatever the future may hold, the redesigned family will certainly feature in
it.’71
The final
step in the redefinition of the family is to dispense with the idea that
parenting is necessarily associated with marriage. Clearly people become
parents without being married, and clearly children do not need to be brought up
by their biological parents. Indeed, many children are brought up in childcare
or by foster parents. Ahrons and Rodgers explain that with ‘a slight shift in
our thinking – and one much more in touch with the reality rather than the
mythology of nuclear families – would permit us to expand our definitions of
parenting. First, we need to separate marriage from parenting. Biological
parenting can and does occur irrespective of marriage. Second, we need to
expand our definition of parenting. Sociological parenting does occur whenever
an adult assumes responsibility for childrearing. This expanded definition of
parenting would allow us to hold a view of families in which children may be
reared successfully in one- or two-parent households, in families which span
more than one household, and in families which may include more than two
parents. Children then may have one, two, three, or more parents, sociological
and biological parents, and parents of one or both genders.’72
It is
interesting to note that all political parties are keen to be seen supporting
the family, for they sense that the ideal of the family still has a lot of
popular support. Responding to public concern, the new Labour Government has
set up a Committee on Family Policy to oversee the welfare of the family.
However, it has been widely noted that the terms of reference of this committee
do not mention marriage. A feature article in the Daily Telegraph
comments, ‘The status to be given to marriage in government policy is turning
into one of the great hidden debates of our time… Among ministers and civil
servants, the use of the m-word has become contentious.’73 Taking a lead from the Church of England report, most
political parties are nervous of coming out in unequivocal support of the
traditional family. Ideological considerations have made many politicians fear
‘that if they accept that marriage is a good thing, they will be locked into
that most forbidden of modern heresies, intolerance of alternative lifestyles’.74 Few are prepared to make the link between the family and
marriage, for they no longer consider it to be politically safe to do so.
Furthermore, most official government publications avoid the words husband and
wife for fear of causing offence—the word ‘partner’ is used instead.
A
climate hostile to traditional marriage
The
move to mass divorce has occurred in a climate of open hostility to traditional
marriage and the family. It has become politically correct to challenge
marriage, which is portrayed as an institution that is hardly relevant in a
modern democratic society. Attacks on marriage in films, TV chat shows,
magazines and the popular press are commonplace. Few politicians are prepared
to openly support marriage for fear of being labelled as those who discriminate
against single mothers. The continuous campaign of ridicule has made marriage
socially undesirable, and those who decide to marry feel obliged to make their
excuses for going against the trend. Another strand in the attack on
traditional lifelong marriage is the promotion of modern secular marriage. For
those who choose to marry the ideas of modern secular marriage are presented as
the ideal. This means that the moral and religious component of marriage is
rapidly disappearing, many couples seeing marriage as a temporary arrangement
that lasts only so long as both partners are satisfied with the relationship.
The
sociological attempt to redefine the family is essential to the success of those
who promote divorce as the remedy for unhappy marriages. For many people the
thought that divorce breaks the family causes them to have second thoughts.
This is because the family is fundamental to the human condition and all people,
parents and especially children, have an innate need to be part of a family. In
order to justify divorce as the remedy for unhappy marriages it is necessary to
convince people that by divorcing they do not break their family, but rather
create a new reconstituted family. This has been achieved by redefining the
family and removing its link to marriage. Showing that there are many different
types of family has made marriage incidental to family life. So the family of
father, mother and children based on marriage is portrayed as only one of a
number of equally valid options. Divorce simply creates a different type of
family and usually one that is less stifling than the traditional family.
Nevertheless, the views presented in this chapter remain highly controversial
for they are diametrically opposed to the views of marriage and the family that
have for centuries formed the cornerstone of Western society. As traditional
views have become devalued, so many people have been prepared to accept the
concepts of secular marriage and mass divorce, thereby rejecting the values upon
which our civilization has been built. But how have these ideas, which were
once anathema to the Western mind, gained such wide acceptance? The story of
mass divorce in England and America should help answer this question.
Return to top of page
Endnotes
Chapter 2. Marriage under
challenge
1.
Jason Burt. ‘Why marriage is losing its appeal’, Daily Mail, 10 May 1997.
2.
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Marriage and divorce statistics,
1837-1983: England & Wales. (OPCS series FM2 no.16) (Historical series),
London, HMSO, 1990.
3.
These statistics appear in the publications of the Office of Population Censuses
and Surveys. Marriage and divorce statistics: England & Wales for 1990
to 1996. (OPCS series FM2 nos. 18,19,29,21,22), London, HMSO, 1992-1996.
4.
Population Trends 94, Winter 1998. London, Office of National Statistics, 1999,
Table 22, p67.
5.
John Haskey. Divorce and remarriage in England and Wales. (Population
Trends 95, Spring 1999), London, Office of National Statistics, 1999.
6.
Patricia H. Shiono and Linda Sandham Quinn. ‘Epidemiology of divorce’, The
Future of Children, Children and Divorce, 4:1, Spring 1994, p17.
7.
S.C. Clarke. Advance report of final marriage statistics, 1989 and 1990.
(Monthly vital statistics report, 43:12 suppl), Hyattsville, Maryland, National
Centre for Statistics, 1995.
8.
United States. National Center for Health Statistics of the United States.
Annual reports, 1981 to 1995.
9.
Arthur J. Norton and Louisa F. Miller. Marriage, divorce and remarriage in
the 1990’s. US Bureau of the Census. (Current Population Reports, Special
studies, Series P-23, no. 180), Washington DC, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1992, p5.
10.
Ibid. p6.
11.
Ibid. p12.
12.
Nena O’Neill and George O’Neill. Open marriage: a new lifestyle for couples.
London, Peter Owen, 1972, p54.
13.
Ibid. p194.
14.
Ibid. p188.
15.
Germaine Greer. The female eunuch. London, Grafton Books, 1986, p320.
16.
Ibid. p18.
17.
Ibid. p322-23.
18. Liz
Hodgkinson. Unholy matrimony. London, Columbus Books, 1988.
19.
Ibid. p117.
20.
Brenda Hoggett. ‘Ends and means: The utility of marriage as a legal institution’
in J.M. Ekalaar and S.N. Katz (eds.), Marriage and cohabitation in
contemporary society. Butterworth, 1980, pp94-103.
21.
Clifford Longley. ‘Two models of marriage’, The Times, 16 March 1991.
22.
‘How Brown got it wrong over tax and the family’, Mail on Sunday, 14
March 1999.
23.
Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 9, 1993, p214.
24.
Morton Hunt and Bernice Hunt. The divorce experience. New York,
McGraw-Hill, 1977, p268.
25.
‘I’m Ms not Mrs, officer’s wife tells the world’, Daily Telegraph, 8
January 1999.
26.
Judith Woods. ‘When new love dares not speak its name’, Daily Telegraph,
28 July 1998.
27.
Helen Wilkinson. The proposal: giving marriage back to the people.
London, Demos, 1997, p42.
28.
Ibid. p43.
29.
Ibid. p44.
30.
Ibid. p45.
31.
Ibid. p51.
32.
Catherine Bennett. ‘Till disillusion and failure do us part’, Guardian,
12 February 1997.
33.
‘Take your sleeping partners’, Sunday Times, 18 November 1990.
34.
Lydia Slater. ‘Mother Madonna’, Daily Telegraph, 3 February 1998.
35.
Nick Gordon. ‘No man about the house: Michelle Pfeiffer’, Sunday Times,
15 August 1993.
36.
Lucinda Rosenfeld. ‘Mock marriage’, Vogue, 28 February 1998, p51.
37.
Sally Ann Lasson. ‘Wedded bliss-ters; Marriages’, Sunday Times, 26
July 1992.
38.
Jenni Murray. ‘Why no woman should marry’, Options, July 1992, pp8-9.
39.
‘Profile: Helen Mirren’, Sunday Telegraph, 4 January 1998.
40.
Elizabeth Grice. ‘Actress Cherie Lunghi took a gamble for the sake of her
daughter – but will it pay off’, Daily Telegraph, 7 July 1998.
41.
Polly Toynbee. ‘A women’s work is never done’, The Times, 14
September 1991.
42.
Sarah Sands. ‘Cook’s mistress is barred from State Banquets’, Daily Telegraph,
14 January 1998.
43.
Mary Anne Glendon. Abortion and divorce in Western law. Cambridge, Mass.,
Harvard University Press, 1987, p108.
44.
John Haskey. Trends in marriage and cohabitation: the decline in marriage and
the changing pattern of living together in partnerships. (Population Trends
80, Summer 1995), London, HMSO, 1995, pp5-15.
45.
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. General Household Survey. 1993.
(OPCS Series GHS no. 24), London, HMSO, 1995.
46.
Lester Middlehurst. ‘The real Rosie in my life’, The Mail on Sunday, 27
December 1998.
47.
Office for National Statistics. Birth statistics 1995. (ONS series FM1 no
24), London, HMSO, 1997.
48.
Central Statistical Office. Social Trends 26. Jenny Church (ed.), London,
HMSO, 1996, p54.
49.
Shiono and Quinn. ‘Epidemiology of divorce’, p21.
50. The
family: Home sweet home. The Economist, 336, 9 September 1995.
51.
Constance R. Ahrons and Roy H. Rodgers. Divorced families. New York,
Norton, 1987, p213.
52.
Meyer F. Nimkoff. ‘Illegitimacy’, in Encyclopaedia Britannica. London,
William Benton, 1963, vol. 12, p83.
53.
Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. London, HMSO, 1956,
p305.
54. Jon
Davies. ‘The Family: R.I.P? Religion, marriage, the market and the state in
Western Societies, in The Family: Is it just another lifestyle choice?
London, IEA Health and Welfare Unit, 1993, p2.
55.
‘Stemming tide of family breakdown’, The Times, 28 August 1993.
56.
‘Code for schools omits marriage from core values’, The Times, 29 October
1996.
57.
The Times, 7 January 1977.
58.
‘Return of the family’, (Leading article) Sunday Times, 28
February 1993.
59. Dan
Quayle and Kate Muir. ‘Daddy doesn’t live here; Parents’, The Times, 30
June 1992.
60.
Something to Celebrate: The report of a Working Party of the Board for Social
Responsibility. London, Church House Publishing, 1995, p6.
61.
John Drane and Olive Drane. Happy families? Building healthy families:
Handbook of pastoral care. London, Marshall Pickering, 1995, p3.
62.
Ibid. p4.
63.
Ibid. p6.
64.
Malcolm Wicks. Daily Telegraph, 11 October 1991.
65.
John Muncie and Roger Sapsford. ‘Issues in the study of “The Family”’, in John
Muncie, et al. (eds.), Understanding the Family. Milton Keynes, Open
University, SAGE Publications, 1995, chapter 1, p31.
66.
Rudi Dallos and Roger Sapsford. ‘Patterns of diversity and lived realities’, in
John Muncie, et al. (eds.), Understanding the Family. Milton Keynes,
Open University, SAGE Publications, 1995, chapter 4, p165.
67.
Something to Celebrate, p6.
68.
Ibid. p9.
69.
Drane and Drane. Happy Families, p20.
70.
Ibid. pp20-31.
71.
Ibid. p35.
72.
Ahrons and Rodgers. Divorced Families, pp213-14.
73.
Clifford Longley. ‘What exactly do we mean by a family?’, Daily
Telegraph, 30 January 1998.
74. Janet Daley. ‘Why are they afraid of using the
M-word?’, Daily Telegraph, 20 January 1998.
|