NY Times article



The article doesn't mention another possible reason - men might be wary of marriage, knowing that the likelihood is that they will be harshly treated in the event of divorce.

Notably, the article does not claim that a majority of women are choosing to remain single and unattached - most are in a close relationship with a man, with whom they may or may not live, but they are not getting married.

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

Trends toward the kind of egocentrism in which many people prefer self-indulgent serial relationships to the kind of self-sacrifice required to provide a stable home life for their current or future offspring. A lot of people want the freedom to move from relationship to relationship without sufficient consideration of the long-term consequences to themselves and often their children.

In modern society, divorce and fornication are no longer as publicly shameful as they once were. If two people in a romantic relationship honestly don't intend to make the kind of real commitment it will take to stay together even after their feelings change, then the only reason to get married would be to avoid shame. In the absense of shame, marriage becomes just a meaningless lie to those who don't value their families more highly than their passions. Even among the shameless, those who honestly value stable families tend to get married and remain married, or otherwise, remain celebate.

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

Any couple who truly understands love is far more than emotion will get married and never divorce. Too many of us see love as a fleeting instead of a lifelong decision to be enjoyed when possible and endured when necessary. Passing laws to enforce such a philosophy would be ludicrous and would only engender enraged defiance. Government can do absolutely nothing constructive to reinforce such a philosophy other than allowing government officials the freedom to voice their spiritual opinions so long as they avoid giving religious doctrine the force of law; then getting out of society's way and letting us handle this without government meddling.

Government officials who care about family values should rely on the citizenry to eventually come to its senses. If American society really wants to degenerate into a moral cesspool, there's not much our Constitutionally-limited government can do to stop it. Other social institutions like churches, charities, children's advocacy groups, and social advocacy groups will simply have to step up their efforts to persuade America that traditional family values are still important, and that subverting the family will ultimately weaken the nation. The government doesn't have much of a role to play other than as a referee as families dissolve, and to rebuff any and all attempts to deny motivated pro-family groups their first amendment rights to free expression and free exercise.

America will either come to an epiphany and turn away from the catastophic damage we are doing by serving our own fleeting feelings, or we won't. If we don't, government can't stop us from fading away as the latest empire to rise and fall as the great American experiment would have thus proven itself a failure. Our founding fathers clearly wanted the citizenship to sort out such social issues on their own, with as little interference from government as possible. I, for one, think they were onto something. American society, given enough time, has eventually chosen moral strength over moral weakness when given a fair opportunity to decide.

That's classic. I haven't ever heard that, but believe that many Americans do live this way. Frankly, I think that marriage has endured some seriously bad press. Marriage is under attack from sexual liberty, an American lack of responsibility, less of a need to build a nuclear family, and of course womens' need to be professionally successful.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that many single women, in my experience, want to be married to one man. The issue arises in that I believe that socially, committment to anything often is a dying breed. I've seen it at work, at church, and even in the military. It seems that kids in their late teens and early 20's (and possibly even in their latter 20's) are less likely to have stick-to-itiveness that might've been instilled in their predecessors. Marriage is definitely an exercise in working through tough times. I find that the single men and women I know personally often have a "pipe dream" idea of marriage, and rarely see the need for personal and emotional growth together, coupled with the sacrifice that marriage requires.

Our kids are taught a McDonald's lifestyle, flush with expediency and a lack of understanding of consequences. Drive-Thru lives is how I see it.

Furthermore, religion in an organized manner doesn't permeate US society in the same fashion. For our parents, they didn't want to see us "shacking up" due to social and religious reasions. Frankly, as people become less involved in the church socially- we have a higher acceptance of living together... which gets many couples what they want without the ring.

A good fix? Change the attitudes that surround marriage. Allow the word "shame" to re-enter our vocabulary. Obviously, it doesn't take a marraige to have a baby, but it usually does to have a successful long term family. Allow christianity to permeate our lives again, teaching the value of a more wholesome life and the value of having one spouse. It's financially prudent for our nation, and emotionally necessary for our children.

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?
It´s like this; people want sex. Period. And when they do occasionally fall in love, (which don´t happen that often), experience tell us it don´t last. And why hook up with someone for good, when you´re more or less certain you´ll grow tired of that person eventually.
This may sound cynical, but it´s a mere fact of human nature, this far I´ll go with Freud.
After the hippie insurgents had their way with our society in 60-70ties, the fundamental values were turned upside down. Now you had to "realize" yourself, and get as many experiences out of life as possible. Before, you stayed at home and minded your job and your family, but this is in a sense over, at least as a society foundation. Now it´s every man/woman for him/herself, and make your own happiness. Before, a lot of things were given beforehand, now nothing is given. You have to create your own life from scratch! Which in this moment leaves a lot of people desperately lonely.
But just imagine for a moment, what a freedom!!! Compared just to my dad, not to mention my granddad, I have almost unlimited freedom to do what I want with my life.
And what a great responsibility that is as well!
But the children, as the weakest part, pays the price, as always. They are deprived of a childhood with the same mom n´dad, they face severe problems in their lives as a result from this.

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?
This question is typical American, I think, family values being a traditional virtue over there.
Here in Europe it seems as if the new way of life is just a natural development.
But what´s important, is educating people in how to bring up kids, and in what their needs are.

Typical American???? The question was posed by a Brit!

Think again D.

As for our 'new way of life', Europe is heading straight down the tubes because of this suicidal culture which puts so much burden on parenting that no one wants the responsibility. We have to import millions of Middle Easterners just to fill in the gaps of the work force! The other day I sat in my bank with my GF and daughter and was told to my face that I couldn't afford to have a child. That my current income was not adequate for the raising of a single child. Here I am, wading in wealth by the standards of human history and contemproray life on Earth and some woman behind a desk is going to tell me I can't afford a child because to have a child today costs so much that no one can afford it! My father has six siblings and his mother never worked a day in her life, but my GF and I are told that we can't raise a single child because our oh so wonderful European society has deemed that 'poor people' ought not to have children.

I don't know what its like for the Americans, but what I do know is that when my daughter was born, I had American friends whom I've never met except online, sending me gifts because to them, a child being born was something to celebrate. I know its a highly personal and not very relevant point, but its the basis for my opinion when I say that in my opinon Americans, for all their weird ways and unusual out look on life, still appreciate children in a way I can't say about the majority of Europeans.


No. Whats important is not punishing people for having children, because thats what happens to you in this country when you have a child and you don't make above the average working wage. Parents carry a heavier burden in Denmark and I have seen nothing to indicate it is any better any where else in Europe. Every where you look the rate of fertility amongst European women has dropped below the replacement level and yet the costs of child rearing are increasing per year.


What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

Socialism. Democracy. Female emancipation. Education. I think what we are seeing with the decline of marriage as well as the fertility rates in Europe is the natural outcome of all those things we've taken to believeing in in the pursuit of 'the better world'. That Europe, with its stronger socialist tendencies is further gone than the USA because religion here, that is to say European Chrstianity, is a dying institution because people have realised that not obeying the church doesn't matter. That if there is actually a God then it doesn't speak to us by means of an obnoxious & pampered cleric in Rome.

There has been an ongoing tradition in Europe where by people will go to extreme lengths to build a better world, and this includes the whole political spectrum from the nazi's to the communists and every one in between with generation after generation of young idealists going forth to do what ever it takes to build a 'better tomorrow'. Some few chose to sing about peace and love, but the majority chose to destroy the old order and replace it with a new one. Marching to war and singing as they go. Every European conflict for the past few centuries has revolved around this same tedious notion that a better world can be built by getting rid of a few obstacles first. The French killed their king and his nobility, the Germans tried to take over the world. Every where you look in the Twentieth Century you find the same pattern of behaviour, communists and socialists threatening revolution, scientists building bigger and more powerful machines, wars, death camps, extermination.

This internal struggle has left its scars. Its still ongoing of course, but most people today have nothing left to believe in but the fantasy of 'enjoying the experience of life'. As if this was impossible in the past, as if what we have today is some how better because we have this cherished notion of personal freedom with which to give our lives meaning.

Freedom to do what though? Swim with dolphins? Paint landscapes on the summits of mountains? Where is the meaning in all of this? What is the point of momentary pleasure that it can only be had by turning one's back on the old? Photographs in a dusty album? Tales with which to bore the staff in the old folks home where you sit alone because you had no children when you had the chance because you were too busy riding your mountain bike ...or just thinking about buying a mountain bike whilst you slouched in front of the TV dribbling coffee onto your T shirt as you watched some programme or other from another country about 'being some one'...?

Its all rubbish. Tosh. Bollocks. Life is not about 'having fun' or even 'being free', no ape is ever free of the group and we are apes whether we care to remember it or not. The cage of other people is coded forever into our genes. Life is about children and belonging and all the wars and politics and eager fools who rush off to fight for what they believe in are just stupid people who got a little education but who never figured that out.


What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

You can never go back. Marriage as it once was is lost for ever now. People aren't suddenly going to take up the God thing again. They're still stuck on themselves.

The thing is, there is nothing we can do to change the way things are. The answer to is to take care of yourself and have two or three of children. Thats where you'll find the happiness that grants meaning to your personal collection of Jpegs.

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

Hm. I didn’t realize I was part of a “trend”. I can’t speculate as to all women’s reasons for remaining single, but here are a few possibilities:

If women are waiting longer to get married, the men in their age group are generally either a) married already, not interested in marriage, c) gay, or d) only interested in women much younger. Oh, or e) have unrealistic expectations (size 2, double D breasts, etc.) maybe they're just saying to hell with it.

Maybe a woman’s heart has been broken so often she has given up. Maybe a woman has been dumped for a younger “trophy” wife and has been left gun shy by the experience.

Women don’t need a man to “take care of them” financially.

Women who have been in an abusive relationship are understandably wary of marriage.

Women in a relationship don’t see any advantage to getting “married”.

Women who are less than perfect “10’s” have just plain gotten tired of trying to be a perfect “10”.

Women who have been married for a long time just don’t see the need to do it again.

Maybe women are tired of having to be "on" all the time to keep their man's interest.

Maybe women have gotten tired of men acting like they want a woman who is sensual and in touch with her sexuality when in reality it scares the bejeezus out of them.

Maybe women just like the freedom being single and unencumbered brings.

Maybe women are just damned tired of trying so hard to be worthy of being loved.

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

Nothing. People will marry if they choose. Why does anyone have to “encourage” marriage? Marrieds already live longer, have sex more regularly (well…some marriages, anyway ), always have a dinner partner, don’t have to feel bad on Valentine’s Day, they make more money and get more tax breaks. They already have an advantage in buying a home, pensions, insurance, inheritance…

I’d like to see single people considered just as valuable members of society as married couples.

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?
What trend? The article's statistical analysis is naught but nasally overwhelming camel droppings.

According to the most recent available {Census} figures (from 2005), a clear majority (56%) of all women over the age of 20 are currently married.

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

1. Eliminate no-fault divorce.
2. Restrict welfare benefits to widows, orphans, and the infirm.
3. Reverse the "marriage penalty" into a "marriage bonus."

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

Liberty. During the "good ole' days" as my father likes to put it, men & women stayed together. What he does not seem to understand is that many of those wonderful relationships stayed together because the woman did not have the option to leave. Not only did women not have many practical options for becoming a sole breadwinner but they were also looked down upon much more than they are now and even receiving much censure from other women. I remind my father that those golden years produced the generation of the 60s for a reason. What happened to "father knows best"? Why were so many young adults disillusioned with married life? Hmm, I wonder

The correction needed to happen though. Women needed to experience the liberties (and travails) men had only enjoyed (and suffered through). That emancipation from patriarchy must have been enlivening! So much that many women simply don't have a taste for committing themselves to anything closely resembling the marriages of their parents or grandparents and for good reason.

The problem is that too many people use the aforementioned argument as grounds for scrapping the entire institution of marriage. I believe they have this wrong. The ideals of marriage should never have involved woman submitting to her husband's wishes but rather both partners agreeing to submit in certain things for the benefit of the new entity (i.e., the couple and then the family). Part of problem is that in order to achieve something close to this, the woman's submission is more profound than of the male's, in part, by virtue of the realities of pregnancy and everything that ensues from bearing children. It is at this point where the "field is ripe for corruption" as it were. Many women legitimately loathe how submission in this way to their husbands leaves them quite vulnerable. The man can and does abuse this "dependency" for his own selfish reasons and the rest becomes history. (i.e., divorce).

And soooooo, society no longer looks to the institution of marriage as a panacea for much of what ails the human race. The reality however is that there are still many couples who do realize the higher ideals of submitting oneself to another, remaining faithful, plugging along when the going gets tough, and forging a family unit together. I believe the power (heretofore still largely untapped) to change civilization for the better continues to reside with the institution of marriage and by extension, childbearing (all other institutions being a more distant approximation to this ideal).

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

Ahhh, a wonderful question. Unfortunately, one that would require considerable discussion involving the role that religion plays in society. As a very religious (not just spiritual) person I believe that organized religion and marriage ideally go hand-in-hand. Anyplace where a decline in the "marriage effort" is noted, so to will there be a decline in religious worship.

The institution may indeed become superfluous some day but there will never be an adequate substitute for it and civilization will suffer greatly as a result.

From Page 2:



Fifteen year olds can't get married in many states, and is frowned upon in my experience.

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

Several reasons, like cost of getting married as well as the cost to get divorced. For example the last wedding I attended costed over $45,000, and that is the norm in my family. (Although Hindu wedding run three days and you are somewhat obligated to provide plenty of food and drink for your guests.)

A culture of instant gratification. If something wrong we find the quick and easy way out. Troubled marriage, forget therapy and get a divorce. Erection problem, forget proper diet and exercise and get a pill. No cash, forget budgeting and use a credit card. We want to be happy now whatever the cost is in the long run.

This doesn't make sense. If the percentage of women over 20 being married is acceptable, then there's no need to encourage marriage.

No-fault divorce does not mean no-pain divorce. Establishing fault itself is a tough thing when it takes two to tango, and one might want to consider the greater roles that lawyers play in this situation. So faulted divorce simply lines the pockets of lawyers, and is that what we want?

Why pick on widows, orphans and the infirmed? What does any of that have to do with marriage? Penalize a woman because her husband is killed in Iraq? Penalize orphans because mom and dad died in Iraq? Penalize Gramps because he got old, or Johnny because he ain't got legs? Three non-sequitirs in a row, could be an record.

What marriage penalty? 2006 Tax Rates

Anyway, women don't need to be married as much as they once did. Whether that's good or bad is beyond me. It depends on the individual's situation, from what I can see. The question should really be why get married, as in what's beneficial about such an arrangement?

If women can't identify benefits, then why do it? Just because some in society feel better about it? That's probably the worst reason to do anything, but I imagine it's a common one.

I get a chuckle out of those who think that marriage is some sort of absolute path to maturity. Quite the opposite, actually. Raising kids, that's what makes people grow up in a hurry. Marriage without kids means about the same as shacking up without kids when it comes to maturity, and of course there are many other paths to the goal, if that's what maturity is.

But then there's an attitude that if I did something, everyone else should do it too because, as we all know, I'm so dang shmart. Or is it that misery loving company?

Why do I keep hearing tunes from The Music Man? Why should I give Iowa a try? Balzak.

Really?






What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

First and most importantly, as a society, we don't have mechanisms and pressures that urged people to get a life(i.e.-to grow up) I remember reading about people who attended college and who then moved back into their parents home. I'm reminded of this and other growing up stunted behavior upon reading the following line:



I hate to use personal examples, but I must do the old fogie trip here as I'm an elderly 31. The wife and I are friends with with someone who recently separated from the father of her child. He is my age and has been having parties as if he were in college. He's gone back to school and he has regressed ten years in regards to maturity and sense of responsibility. I agree entirely that we don't have enough social stressors that help people to grow up. When he was a teenager, Meriwether Lewis could fire a gun from a moving horse and once drove away Indian raiders from the family farm. Before you know it, we'll have a society of 30 year old losers living at home, complaining that their X-box doesn't work like it use to and demanding that their parents do something about it RIGHT NOW!.



Simple values of hard work, primarcy of existence being a provider and responsible citizen would help. Who is to communicate that? Teachers, politicians, neighbors, co-workers, and friends who applaud and criticize otherswho don't live up to the ideal.

I agree here, but society is trending away from placing reasonable expectations on people's lifestyles. When we criticize others who don't live up to the traditional ideal, we open ourselves up to all kinds of allegations of small-mindedness, biggotry, judgementalism, and lack of character ourselves. I agree that it's necessary, just don't expect it to be appreciated.

It's also important, as always, to try to get the facts before being overly critical of a particular individual exibiting a pattern of behavior you don't like. A college buddy of mine went into the workforce for a while, and then moved back to his hometown with his parents. He became the butt of a lot of jokes and eventually stopped being included. I stopped by to visit him once, and his parents told me that he had sacrificed quite a lot to help them out of a dire financial situation. He couldn't earn enough to cover the needs of both families while having another home to support. He eventually set everything straight, got married, had kids, and got wealthy enough to retire early. Many of us were wrong about him. Similarly, we probably all know certain single mothers who have plenty of legitimate reasons not to want to get married again, so the generalizations we make would have exceptions.

But, as soon as one voices opinions that family values are tied to issues of sexual fidelity, particularly that people build stronger families and experience deeper love when they have the moral character to be responsible enough to reserve sex for marriage-- oh, boy, the hatred against "traditional ideals" will start flying. Suggest that people can control and should control who they have sex with, and all of the sudden, some will accuse you of being as prejudiced as a racist. I disagree.

Our system of laws and mental health are based on the assumption that human beings should be expected to control their urges-- and if they can't, they need psychological treatment. Of course, our liberty is supposed to guarantee that the government can't (and shouldn't) stop us from making a wide variety of poor decisions without breaking the law. But liberty also gives members of society the freedom, and responsibility, to promote the behaviors we believe responsible and generally beneficial while discouraging those behaviors we believe irresponsible and generally destructive in a way that gives people a chance to have a change of heart. I believe most of the improvements our society needs cannot be (or should not be) enacted in law, but shared through a meeting of hearts and minds.

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

I don't think there is any such trend, based on the simple fact that the vast majority of people will be married at some time during their lives. What has changed is the percentage of their lives that they will be married. People are marrying a little later in life; this seems like a good thing to me, as marriage is an immense responsibility. As noted, widows are surviving their marriage partners for a longer time; surely we can't say that longevity is a bad thing. (If we could lessen the lifespan disparity between the sexes by helping men to live longer, that would be a good thing.) People are getting divorced and choosing to stay single; this isn't always bad, if the marriage is intolerable. Some people choose not to get married, and society no longer disapproves of that decision. That's a good thing, I think.

Marriage is in no danger.

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

The government certainly does a lot already. Married couple have a lot of legal rights that make their lives easier. (I know that we save a lot of money on Federal Income Taxes by filing as a couple.)

Do you really want to encourage marriage? Allow people of the same sex to get married, with all the legal rights.

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

Well first of all I would need to see numbers of people married over say the last hundred years of America in relation to population count to look for some pattern that could be called a trend at least. I would then need all kinds of studies to show that something in the pack mentality is causing a change in individual views of a cultural institution.

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

well if its simply for the protection of a cultural institution I would ask by what standard does such get the need to be protected, is it close to becoming extinct. Then if its simply an idea of what’s best for the society then I think maybe we should do some comparative studies to see what’s the best environment for people, which in itself I would believe rather complex as it would become individual. then I would simply ask if this is maybe just a product of freedom and is it so bad then.

Or why not legalize polygamy? Why not get free marriages and divorces by e-mail? Marry whoever you want for as long as you want? No need to sign anything, no need for anyone else to know. Better yet, why not just let marriage be a matter of saying "I marry you" three times, and let divorce be a matter of saying "I divorce you" three times. That way, you won't even need to boot up a computer.

Making marriage easy doesn't encourage marriage, it redefines marriage in such a way as to make it absolutely meaningless.

Every time the subject of same-sex marriage comes up, the completely unrelated subject of polygamy (and incest, and bestiality, and so on) always comes up. It is not relevant. For the record, I have no objection to group marriage among genuinely consenting adults. This is a moot point, because the chance of it being legally recognized in the United States at any time in the near future is exactly zero. Since same-sex does exist in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it has some degree of relevance to the state of marriage in this nation. Recognizing it legally is one way for the government to acknowledge the importance of marriage.



I am genuinely baffled why you think anything that I said suggests that I think that marriage should be "easy." I think people should, in most cases, not marry until they are fully mature adults. (This may be never for some people.) I think people should take the act of marriage very seriously indeed, and not enter into it lightly. This applies to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.

Since polygamous marriage did exist in State of Utah, it has exactly the same degree of relevance to the state of marriage in this nation as same-sex marriage. Recognizing it or any other such perversion of marriage is one way for the government to destroy the importance of real marriage.

Well, I could quibble that during the brief time when there were polygamous marriages among the Latter-Day Saints, it was never recognized as legally valid by the United States government, and was, in fact, officially banned.

Link



But that's not really an important point. The main point is that you and I simply cannot agree on the philosophical effect of same-sex marriage on opposite-sex marriage. To me, same-sex marriage is a wonderful affirmation of marriage; to you, it is a "perversion" of "real" marriage.

But we can agree on the practical effect of same-sex marriage on opposite-sex marriage; none whatsoever. The marriage of Mary and Sue has no legal effect on my marriage at all.

We're wandering off the main debate, which is mostly my fault. Let's get back to the issue at hand.

Marriage is a good thing for many people. It's not for everybody. Since marriage has benefits to society (a more stable environment for children, better health for married couples, and so on) it makes sense for the government to gently encourage stable marriages in positive ways. It already does this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I am a two time loser in marriage- so, even though I am obviously no expert on what makes a marriage work, I can sure as heck tell you what happens when they fail

What do you think is behind the trend away from marriage?

Pain and suffering, and lots of it. Look- they focus on men here, but it is really men that benefit the most when there is no "paper" between you, and the girl is amicable to shacking up- and you don't have babies- you do better. Divorce court is heavily, massively, anti-male to it's roots. No matter how evil the woman is, the judge will automatically be biased toward the woman. A man has to fight with all his might to get just what is fair, whereas a woman pretty much comes in with everything and has to work to lose.

Anyone that says divorce is "too easy" I want to kick right in the nads. Seriously. drop kick them right where it hurts the most- and the pain isn't even close to what you deal with in divorce. It isn't as if divorce is too easy- it is that marriage is too hard, with too much to lose. There is much less drama and pain in "shacking up" than there is in marriage.

What, if anything, should be done to encourage marriage again, or to readjust society and government policy towards the shift away from marriage?

Take it away from Religion, and make it a civil contract, with dividing of assets and children have a fair "defaut" setting, and allow couples, or groups of couples enter into secular contracts of thier choosing, dividing assets and children before the consumation of marriage.

That would take the danger out of marriage, unless you, as a couple or group of couples, decide you want it to be painful.

Marriage in the 50s benefited the man, now there is virtually no reason for a man to get married unless the woman forces him into it- really, what advantage does a man get for getting married? What, signing half of his stuff over to a worthless lazy person that has a over-developed sense of entitlement and an underdeveloped work ethic?

There's a trend away from marriage?

QUOTE

The Government probably shouldn't be too involved in marriage. Meaning, it shouldn't care, it shouldn't matter.

The marriage of assets is essentially a private affair the US Government should not benefit from this marriage. Everyone should be taxed on their own. Taxing two people making 50,000USD/yr as a person making 100,000USD/yr is complicated and unfair.

Marriage and Divorce need to be less complicated. It shouldn't be easier to do either, it should be less complicated. One should not get married or divorced willy-nilly, however, the complexities and costs involved are steep. I was married in 1996 and my wedding exceeded 40K (200+ people) to say nothing of the honeymoon. I can't fathom what it costs now.

This is obviously not a Government enterprise, I bring it into the discussion anecdotally.

Divorce is also exceedingly complicated and made worse by lawyers who at some point must have been helping. Ultimately uniform divorce rules should be set so that every knows going into marriage what getting out will be like. The current rules are probably biased toward women (especially here in NY) and that needs to be addressed.

I guess ultimately I'd like to see a simpler, more uniform set of rules regarding marriage & divorce - in the same vein as I'd like to see a flat tax. Made 30,000USD/yr pay 20% - made 200,000USD/yr pay 20% - donated 50% of your 200,000USD/yr - that's nice pay 20% of 200,000USD.

I'd like similar rules applied to marriage and divorce. Especially Divorce.

The best thing any Government can to in any situation (except defense and infrastructure) is less.

IF being the operative word. From a social perspective, is it acceptable or not?

Lawyer's pockets are already being lined, along with a lot of others under the current regime. I've discussed revamping divorce law elsewhere, but the upshot is, if you want out, you can get out. If the other party is at fault (adultery, abuse, addiction, abandonment), they bear the burden, otherwise you're "at fault" and bear the burden. And yes, if both parties want out, then "no fault" is the way it works.

Read what I wrote again, since you've got it backwards.

Read the following...Marriage Gap grows...

The original NYT's article is a classic example of "How To Lie With Statistics." In order to arrive at the figures in the article the authors, with a wink from their editor, gerrymandered the stats. They redefined "women" to include females to include all from the age 15 and up (that's 10,000,000+ age 15 thru 19), plus wives with husbands working out of town, incarcerated or in the military were classified as "married/spouse absent," moved from the ranks of the married, and then designating as "unmarried." Unmentioned was the stat that "Overall, nearly three-fourths of all women who have reached age 30 now occupy a traditional female role as either current wives or widows."

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page...rticle_ID=14097