By Alison E. Hatch

The AtMP community recognizes that the heterosexual model of marriage simply does not fit many people’s personal desires and needs. We all know that it is overly simplistic and misleading to say that marriage is the only acceptable and healthy relationship in which to raise children. Instead of condemning cohabitation and non-marital child rearing, we seek to develop ways our society can support all relationships and families.

IN CONTRAST, Dr. David Popenoe and his peers at the National Marriage Project (NMP) are consistent critics of non-marital cohabitation. Popenoe and the NMP have written numerous articles, reports and reviews on the “state of the contemporary American family” that decry the “weakening” marriage system. Their June, 2008 report Cohabitation, Marriage and Child Wellbeing – A Cross-National Perspective (available as a free PDF download at www.marriage.rutgers.edu ) follows the predictable trend in condemning non-marital cohabitation, especially when children are involved.

This latest report compares cohabitation statistics in the U.S. to cohabitation rates in other industrialized nations. For example, more than 90% of the population in Sweden and Denmark live together before marriage. The report attributes the greater prevalence of cohabitation in Europe to the more secular cultures and well-developed welfare systems. In some of the countries discussed, the governments provide different-sex (as well as same-sex) couples with the possibility of a “registered partnership” which “establishes a legal institution more or less analogous to marriage.”

POPENOE OFFERS THEORIES on why an increasing number of heterosexual couples cohabit in the U.S., and he operates under the assumption that cohabiting couples are more likely to break up. Seemingly, the most troublesome “finding” for Popenoe is that cohabitation leads to more “unwed births and lone-parent families.” By cherry-picking studies that support his thesis, and ignoring studies that don’t, Popenoe maintains that growing up in single parent homes negatively affects child well-being and that children are best served by families that include both of their biological parents. Therefore he argues that, “the institution of marriage, in some form, needs to be strongly encouraged, supported, and protected.”

Despite the fact that Popenoe recognizes cohabitation has become a “permanent part of the life course” he specifically believes societies should take “actions that discourage cohabitation and encourage marriage, at least when children are involved.”

HERE IS THE GREAT DANGER inherent in the marriage movement that Popenoe and the NMP represent. They ignore the reality of millions of children living in homes headed by single parents or unmarried couples, and offer no suggestions about how children can be supported and protected in these families. They certainly do not suggest we follow in the footsteps of the countries that provide non-married couples with legal rights and protections (e.g. Belgium, France and the Netherlands). However, it is clear to the AtMP community that offering cohabiting couples legal protections may actually increase the stability of their relationships. In fact, many of the problems associated with children in single parent homes are directly related to poor economic conditions. Providing more support for unmarried couples and single parents could go a long way in supporting our nation’s children.

Alison E. Hatch is a member of AtMP’s board of directors. She was featured in the Autumn 2007 issue of this newsletter.