Why bother with marriage

  • Article by: ANDREW J. CHERLIN , New York Times
  • Updated: April 29, 2013 - 8:44 PM

People are still getting married but not for the reasons that drove people to altars in the past.

  • 24
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pumiceApr. 29, 13 7:00 PM

From the article: "[Marriage] remains an important part of American life — not in its older role as the first step into adulthood, but in its newer role as the last step one takes after becoming an adult in almost all other respects." Interesting article, Mr. Cherlin. The main reason for getting married is no longer to legitimize childbearing but for companionship--for growing old with the person one loves, for recognizing the importance of commitment and caregiving.

ciamanApr. 29, 13 7:34 PM

Because of such odd thinking like this, the Babel of America is already falling and will topoel quite soon. Hello Mr. Beelzebub. And watch him dance!!!!!!

goferfanzApr. 29, 13 7:39 PM

Of course, our illegitimacy rate ensures our society is in freefall for almost any measure.....but dont worry, I am sure it will all work out swell!

davehougApr. 29, 13 8:38 PM

Having children without a husband is the fastest way to struggle in life.

jdlellis1Apr. 30, 1312:12 AM

Right or wrong, it can be generally assumed that current marriage laws were framed under the woman/man and children/family scenario. Conversely, arguments for "same-sex marriage encompasses perhaps three elements; 1) Open to relationships between two adults, 2 - Marriage is not about children, 3 - Keep the government out of my bedroom. Given these parameters, many people today are involved in relationships (e.g., living together), perhaps having children without being married, all without any government approval. Given this reality, the question that appears to be missing in the same-sex marriage discussion is "What role (e.g. value) is the government providing specific to the institution of marriage? If one takes the time to ponder this, the reality is, there is none. If two people, regardless of sexual preference, choose to engage in a relationship and establish some form of contractual framework in which to operate, they can secure the services of an attorney to create a legally binding contract. If the issue is employer benefits, then allow businesses, many of which currently do, provide those benefits. Specific to marriage, Minnesota legislators should simply define marriage as a ceremony authorized and to be administered solely by registered religious institutions

wa0tdaApr. 30, 13 6:49 AM

@jdlellis1: "Minnesota legislators should simply define marriage as a ceremony authorized and to be administered solely by registered religious institutions" - Please keep your religion out of our laws altogether. How about that for a concept?

windigolakeApr. 30, 13 7:20 AM

"Minnesota legislators should simply define marriage as a ceremony authorized and to be administered solely by registered religious institutions." So if you want to get married but don't care for organized religion, you're out of luck?? And if the state doesn't recognize civil marriages, millions would lose the myriad of rights, benefits and obligations conferred by the State and Federal governments. Sound like a religious solution that ruled as unconstitutional.

bluebird227Apr. 30, 13 7:24 AM

This is why when the anti same-sex marriage folks say they're fighting against a "redefinition of marriage," it shows how out of touch they are. The divorce rate and the choice to have children without a marriage license has already redefined marriage. For some reason though, these people think that allowing same-sex marriage will ruin our civilization. For financial and social stability, shouldn't we be encouraging all couples to make the commitment to marriage rather than denying them the choice?

odinmanApr. 30, 13 7:30 AM

Couples who choose not to formally marry, but in all other respects are in the same boat are really just "playing house". Being and remaining married is hard work and is not trivial. Young people today shy away from hard work and committment and prefer the easy way. Trouble is, once you share a home, cars, children and other financial obligations outside of marriage, breaking up can be even more complicated than divorce. At least with marriage, couples typically (or should) work harder to remian together for precisely those reasons. Marriage is not "dating".

rlundl02Apr. 30, 13 9:00 AM

By not co-habitating, you are honoring those parents, maybe your own, who struggled and sacrificed to make marriages work.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters