In 1996, the US congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was a federal regulation that explained marriage within the precincts of law. It stated that marriage is a consensual union between one man and one woman. The law was supported by the assembly and was consequently consented by the president. Under the same establishment, no authority could come up with another law recognizing same sex relationships as marriage.
The law extended its rules to other organs of society, including the insurance sector, health sector and the employment sector (Ignatieff 90). However, the court has so far termed the law unconstitutional. The Massachusetts court ruled twice that the law is inapplicable in society.
Equally, the California court has also claimed that the law cannot be applied to resolve emerging issues in society. Defendants of the law have moved to court to challenge the recent rulings by the two courts. In 2011, the Obama regime came to the realization that the law was against the wishes and desires of the majority in society.
Thus, the administration stated that it would implement it but could not support it in court. Due to this declaration, the House of Representatives vowed to support the law, claiming that it was representing the federal government.
This article will examine some of the issues that affect the DOMA law, specifically the court rulings. The court has always opposed the law because it does not represent the interests of the majority in society. To understand the intricacies of the law, the paper will give its background briefly and proceed to give examples of how the court has always frustrated the political elites supporting the DOMA regulations.
Background
Marriage as a social basic unit was uncontested until the early 1980s when some gay groups raised concerns over their mistreatment in society. The groups wanted to be granted the right to marry their fellow men as sexual partners. In early years, a gay activist had tried to persuade the court to allow him marry a male partner.
In Barker v. Nelson, the court ruled that restricting marriage to members of opposite sex was in accordance to the provisions of the US constitution. In 1989, the State Bar Association of California requested the government to allow marriages between people of same-sex.
Consequently, the high court ruled that same sex marriage could only happen under special circumstances (Lauren 32). This could only happen due to expenses incurred by individuals in the city and the deteriorating standards of living. In 1993, the Hawaiian Supreme Court observed in Baehr v. Mike case that the state should give detailed reasons as to why homosexuality should not be allowed in society.
In 1996, republicans were much concerned about the rising cases of homosexuality. This encouraged them to draft a bill that would contain the vice. Republican representative, Bob Barr, introduced the bill to the House of Representatives chamber while Senator Don Nickles took it to the senate.
Both houses approved the bill but the democrats interpreted it in terms of politics. Clinton approved the bill since there was little time left for campaigns. In 2002, the Republican Party reiterated that it supported the DOMA principles and went a notch higher to claim that the judiciary was against the law (Ishay 51).
In 2004, the Bush administration sanctioned DOMA principles and cautioned that the judges were interpreting the law in a way that could easily cause confusion in society. Accordingly, the Bush administration was keen to support the law in court, including the case in Washington termed as In re Kandu, the Florida case termed as Wilson v. Ake where two women wanted to legalize their marriage, and the Bishop v. Oklahoma case.
In 2008 political manifesto, Obama promised Americans to support the repealing of DOMA principles. However, since the issue was still under contention, the Justice Department supported the DOMA rules in Smelt v. United States case. In 2009, human rights groups pushed the president to sponsor a bill that could repeal DOMA principles from the constitution.
Consequently, the government decided not to defend the law in court since it believed that it was unconstitutional and went against the wishes of the majority. The government did not send representatives to the Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States cases.
Challenges from the Court
Same sex groups tried to change the sections of the DOMA law but the political class thwarted their efforts. For instance, the defendants of the DOMA principles defeated a joint bankruptcy petition of same-sex couples in Washington. In 2009, the US Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that DOMA was illegal and could not be applied in resolving cases related employment.
The federal authorities declined to offer spousal benefits to one of the complainants because of the DOMA law. In 2008, Golinski filed a case demanding for health benefits from her spouse. The chief Judge declared that she was indeed entitled to marriage benefits, even though the Office of Personnel Management had rejected her claims due to DOMA rules.
The office of personnel management refused to pay her since the complainant had violated the DOMA rules. Golinski filed a court case against OPM in another court to enforce the ruling of the previous judge. Even though White, the judge in charge, dismissed her claims, she was given a confirmation to adjust her case, which would challenge the illegality of DOMA.
In 2011, Paul Clement, the former US Solicitor General acting on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group challenged the legality of DOMA law in court. Clement argued that the definition of marriage was discriminative, something that the Justice Department avoided for years.
With this realization, the Department of Justice moved to court to challenge the provisions of DOMA, arguing that the law violated the rights of gays and lesbians. The DOJ argued in the same way as Golinki, claiming that homosexuals have never enjoyed their rights, which are contained in the constitution. The Department of Justice further observed that gays and lesbians receive unfair treatment from societal members.
On the other hand, religious groups, which are usually stakeholders in governmental policymaking, argued that the Department of Justice had decided to attack DOMA principles (Okihiro 17). The church claimed that the activities of the jury could cause conflicts between the church and the state.
According to the church, the state had allowed immoral conducts to go on in society. On 22 February 2012, the judge in charge (White) ruled in favor of Golinski, claiming that section 3 of DOMA violates the rights and freedoms of Golinski, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment. The judge further claimed that no authority had the powers to deny another individual his or her rights provided in the constitution (Adam 7). Therefore, the homosexuals had the right to exercise as they wish.
In Smelt v. County of Orange case, the DOMA principles were also faulted. The couple wanted to be identified as legal marriage partners but the court refused to recognize their union. The couple filed another court order on 9 March 2009. The couple challenged the legality of DOMA, as well as Proposition 8. Even though the jury dismissed the case, the couple was allowed to marry and could access all federal benefits such as employment, healthcare and many more.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that DOMA principles were unpopular to the majority of Americans right from the beginning. The law deprives people of their democratic rights and freedoms. In the US, the Fifth Amendment allows individuals to exercise whatever they feel is right for them, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other individuals. The issue of morality has been debatable since 1980s when AIDS was first tested.
Those against homosexuality claimed that gay-sex was not safe as regards to disease transmission. On their part, homosexuals have gone through difficult times trying to lobby the government to accept their wishes. The government has always given them a cold treatment because the majority of policy makers in government believe that homosexuality is immoral.
However, the courts have stepped in to help homosexuals redefine the Fifth Amendment, which grants each citizen the right to freedom of expression. The Obama administration realized that many people were against the provisions of the DOMA law. The government has consequently decided to distance itself from the DOMA law.
Works Cited
Adam, Barry. The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement. New York: G. K. Hall & Co, 1987. Print.
Ignatieff, Michael. American Exceptionalism and Human Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Print.
Ishay, Micheline. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization. 2nd ed. California: University of California Press, 2008. Print.
Lauren, Gordon (2003). The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. 2nd ed. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. Print.
Okihiro, Gary. Margins and Mainstreams: Asians in American History and Culture. Washington, Dc: University of Washington Press, 1994. Print.
The US federal law Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 asserts that same-sex marriage ought not to be treated as valid even if it is so in other states. Under this act, marriage is legitimate if it involves one man and one woman. This law does not recognize married couples of the same gender. In other words, as those whose marriage concurs with it enjoy federal benefits, the other category suffers discrimination because of their illegibility for the benefits. This law denies the rights of the states to a large extend and therefore, I agree with the editorial writers viewpoint that the law is unjustified as it is unconstitutional as elaborated next.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is against the constitution. For instance, under this law marriage comes in as a factor that determines whether one is entitled to benefits or not. The federal government has it that &marital status is a factor in eligibility for benefits (Geidner 7). In addition, following the ordaining of the law, many countries have permitted not only civil unions but also gay marriages. It, therefore, collides with the constitution that holds that all people are eligible for benefits, with regard to their citizenship and regardless of their marital status. Any person with a marriage not recognized under the federal laws is liable of paying more tax compared to the one whose marriage abides by the laws. This on the other hand is unfair, hence declaring the act indefensible like the editorial writer.
As the editorial holds, the power of the law is lower than that of the congress and therefore its application on the subject of marriage is like depriving the congress of its powers of regulating the marriages. This claim concurs with the promise and the performance of the American democracy. The editorial writer also addresses the issue of discrimination. The writer observes that the law significantly discriminates the gay people. A focusing on a group&subjected to unfair discrimination&is supposed to get a hard test (Bernie Para. 7). This is in accordance with the core democratic value Interest group as it appears in the promises of American democracy. This value recognizes such groups as gay people, who also need to enjoy their rights not based on their marital status but based on citizenship.
The US constitution seems relevant to this piece. The editorial upholds the rights of same-sex married couples claiming that they too deserve social security and the right to tax returns as well as survivor payments. The US constitution on the other hand bears the Full Faith and Credit Clause that supports same-sex marriages, granting the couples their relevant rights. In addition, The tenth amendment to the US Constitution reserves to the state any power not delegated by the federal government (Dickens 4). The editorial, in favor of this clause, opens by declaring DOMA indefensible because it does not uphold it.
The issue of federalism comes in handy in this piece. For instance, while President Obama upholds the act, the editorial reveals that some of his government lawyers fight it, clearly signifying federalism. In addition, while some view the law as strictly against same-sex marriages, others have sought to reveal how it &prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages (Dickens 6), which too depicts the issue of federalism. Moreover, civil liberty and civil rights stand out well in the piece. The editorial upholds the subject of freedom as it is addressed in the US constitution that grants people the freedom of choice, not sparing the freedom of marriage. Addressing the issue of civil rights, the editorial opposes the act because it denies the discriminated group their share of the right by the reason of their citizenship hence making the act indefensible.
In 1996, the US congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was a federal regulation that explained marriage within the precincts of law. It stated that marriage is a consensual union between one man and one woman. The law was supported by the assembly and was consequently consented by the president. Under the same establishment, no authority could come up with another law recognizing same sex relationships as marriage.
The law extended its rules to other organs of society, including the insurance sector, health sector and the employment sector (Ignatieff 90). However, the court has so far termed the law unconstitutional. The Massachusetts court ruled twice that the law is inapplicable in society.
Equally, the California court has also claimed that the law cannot be applied to resolve emerging issues in society. Defendants of the law have moved to court to challenge the recent rulings by the two courts. In 2011, the Obama regime came to the realization that the law was against the wishes and desires of the majority in society.
Thus, the administration stated that it would implement it but could not support it in court. Due to this declaration, the House of Representatives vowed to support the law, claiming that it was representing the federal government.
This article will examine some of the issues that affect the DOMA law, specifically the court rulings. The court has always opposed the law because it does not represent the interests of the majority in society. To understand the intricacies of the law, the paper will give its background briefly and proceed to give examples of how the court has always frustrated the political elites supporting the DOMA regulations.
Background
Marriage as a social basic unit was uncontested until the early 1980s when some gay groups raised concerns over their mistreatment in society. The groups wanted to be granted the right to marry their fellow men as sexual partners. In early years, a gay activist had tried to persuade the court to allow him marry a male partner.
In Barker v. Nelson, the court ruled that restricting marriage to members of opposite sex was in accordance to the provisions of the US constitution. In 1989, the State Bar Association of California requested the government to allow marriages between people of same-sex.
Consequently, the high court ruled that same sex marriage could only happen under special circumstances (Lauren 32). This could only happen due to expenses incurred by individuals in the city and the deteriorating standards of living. In 1993, the Hawaiian Supreme Court observed in Baehr v. Mike case that the state should give detailed reasons as to why homosexuality should not be allowed in society.
In 1996, republicans were much concerned about the rising cases of homosexuality. This encouraged them to draft a bill that would contain the vice. Republican representative, Bob Barr, introduced the bill to the House of Representatives chamber while Senator Don Nickles took it to the senate.
Both houses approved the bill but the democrats interpreted it in terms of politics. Clinton approved the bill since there was little time left for campaigns. In 2002, the Republican Party reiterated that it supported the DOMA principles and went a notch higher to claim that the judiciary was against the law (Ishay 51).
In 2004, the Bush administration sanctioned DOMA principles and cautioned that the judges were interpreting the law in a way that could easily cause confusion in society. Accordingly, the Bush administration was keen to support the law in court, including the case in Washington termed as In re Kandu, the Florida case termed as Wilson v. Ake where two women wanted to legalize their marriage, and the Bishop v. Oklahoma case.
In 2008 political manifesto, Obama promised Americans to support the repealing of DOMA principles. However, since the issue was still under contention, the Justice Department supported the DOMA rules in Smelt v. United States case. In 2009, human rights groups pushed the president to sponsor a bill that could repeal DOMA principles from the constitution.
Consequently, the government decided not to defend the law in court since it believed that it was unconstitutional and went against the wishes of the majority. The government did not send representatives to the Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States cases.
Challenges from the Court
Same sex groups tried to change the sections of the DOMA law but the political class thwarted their efforts. For instance, the defendants of the DOMA principles defeated a joint bankruptcy petition of same-sex couples in Washington. In 2009, the US Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that DOMA was illegal and could not be applied in resolving cases related employment.
The federal authorities declined to offer spousal benefits to one of the complainants because of the DOMA law. In 2008, Golinski filed a case demanding for health benefits from her spouse. The chief Judge declared that she was indeed entitled to marriage benefits, even though the Office of Personnel Management had rejected her claims due to DOMA rules.
The office of personnel management refused to pay her since the complainant had violated the DOMA rules. Golinski filed a court case against OPM in another court to enforce the ruling of the previous judge. Even though White, the judge in charge, dismissed her claims, she was given a confirmation to adjust her case, which would challenge the illegality of DOMA.
In 2011, Paul Clement, the former US Solicitor General acting on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group challenged the legality of DOMA law in court. Clement argued that the definition of marriage was discriminative, something that the Justice Department avoided for years.
With this realization, the Department of Justice moved to court to challenge the provisions of DOMA, arguing that the law violated the rights of gays and lesbians. The DOJ argued in the same way as Golinki, claiming that homosexuals have never enjoyed their rights, which are contained in the constitution. The Department of Justice further observed that gays and lesbians receive unfair treatment from societal members.
On the other hand, religious groups, which are usually stakeholders in governmental policymaking, argued that the Department of Justice had decided to attack DOMA principles (Okihiro 17). The church claimed that the activities of the jury could cause conflicts between the church and the state.
According to the church, the state had allowed immoral conducts to go on in society. On 22 February 2012, the judge in charge (White) ruled in favor of Golinski, claiming that section 3 of DOMA violates the rights and freedoms of Golinski, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment. The judge further claimed that no authority had the powers to deny another individual his or her rights provided in the constitution (Adam 7). Therefore, the homosexuals had the right to exercise as they wish.
In Smelt v. County of Orange case, the DOMA principles were also faulted. The couple wanted to be identified as legal marriage partners but the court refused to recognize their union. The couple filed another court order on 9 March 2009. The couple challenged the legality of DOMA, as well as Proposition 8. Even though the jury dismissed the case, the couple was allowed to marry and could access all federal benefits such as employment, healthcare and many more.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that DOMA principles were unpopular to the majority of Americans right from the beginning. The law deprives people of their democratic rights and freedoms. In the US, the Fifth Amendment allows individuals to exercise whatever they feel is right for them, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other individuals. The issue of morality has been debatable since 1980s when AIDS was first tested.
Those against homosexuality claimed that gay-sex was not safe as regards to disease transmission. On their part, homosexuals have gone through difficult times trying to lobby the government to accept their wishes. The government has always given them a cold treatment because the majority of policy makers in government believe that homosexuality is immoral.
However, the courts have stepped in to help homosexuals redefine the Fifth Amendment, which grants each citizen the right to freedom of expression. The Obama administration realized that many people were against the provisions of the DOMA law. The government has consequently decided to distance itself from the DOMA law.
Works Cited
Adam, Barry. The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement. New York: G. K. Hall & Co, 1987. Print.
Ignatieff, Michael. American Exceptionalism and Human Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Print.
Ishay, Micheline. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization. 2nd ed. California: University of California Press, 2008. Print.
Lauren, Gordon (2003). The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. 2nd ed. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. Print.
Okihiro, Gary. Margins and Mainstreams: Asians in American History and Culture. Washington, Dc: University of Washington Press, 1994. Print.
Modern societies strive to achieve gender equality. They ensure that men and women receive equal opportunities to thrive. Many traditional cultural practices are oppressive towards women. Cultural practices do not provide women with the necessary opportunities to thrive away from their family lives. Certain societies still practice activities that are oppressive to women. Such practices include female genital mutilation and early arranged marriages. However, these practices are slowly declining due to the efforts of various groups. Early arranged marriages prevent girls from achieving their full potential. It forces girls to drop out of school to look after their husbands and children. This practice has been a part of the traditional Indonesian marriage culture for a long time. However, the government should ensure that it takes steps that lead to the end of this practice, as early-arranged marriage does not portray Indonesia as a country that supports womens rights and gender equality.
Historical background
The appropriate age for marriage is a contentious issue in various countries. In most traditional Indonesian cultures, marriage was the prerogative of the parents. Parents rarely consulted the children on matters of marriage. In such societies, parents married off their children at a tender age. Parents arranged most of these marriages, and the children, especially girls, did not exert their will on the choice of spouse. Parents usually took into consideration the readiness of the children for sexual intercourse. In most instances, girls were married off soon after their first period. The parents and families of the children were directly responsible for the marriage. The children had little control over their marriage partners (Blackburn & Bessell 107).
In the contemporary world, the decision on marriage is more individualistic. Parents or older members of the family have rarely involved in making the decision on marriage. Instead, the decision on married involves mainly the two people who intend to get married. In such a situation, the age of marriage becomes very important. The two people must be sufficiently mature to make well-informed decisions while bearing in mind the responsibilities of marriage and adult life (Blackburn & Bessell 108).
In the contemporary world, there is a demarcation between childhood and adulthood. Parents should ensure that marriage does not affect the sanctity of childhood. However, parents and older members of the family are not the only parties that should ensure there is the protection of the sanctity of childhood. The state is also concerned with the protection of the sanctity of childhood. There are various laws that help in the protection of the sanctity of childhood. States have laws regarding the age of consensual sexual intercourse, employment, or marriage. People who violate the laws, and hence affect the sanctity of childhood, face stiff penalties. However, these laws have been the source of widespread public controversy in various societies. This is because the laws may contravene the social setting of the society (Blackburn & Bessell 108). Indonesia is one of the countries where the issue of marriageable age faces widespread public controversy.
There has been a gradual increase in the age of marriage in Indonesia. The increase in the age of marriage started in the second half of the twentieth century. An increase in the average age of marriage resulted in an increase in educational attainment and economic growth. The trend in Indonesia was also prevalent in other East Asian countries. In 1971, 37% of women between the ages of 15 and19 were married. However, in 2003, less than 10% of women in this age bracket were married (Nilan 66).
Different provinces in Indonesia have different rates of early marriage. Historically, the province of Java had the highest rates of teenage marriage in Indonesia. However, over the years, there has been a steady decline in early marriage in the province. West Java used to have the highest rates of teenage marriage. Other provinces have slowly surpassed teenage marriage rates in the province. Cosmopolitization of West Java is the major reason that has led to the reduction in teenage marriage rates in the province. Change in population patterns and urbanization of various parts of the province, especially the areas around Jakarta, is one of the major factors that has led to the reduction in teenage marriage (Jones and Gibhaju 4).
During the late 1990s, the Indonesian government created new provinces by splitting existing provinces. The previous provinces had groups with different cultural backgrounds. However, the splitting of the provinces created smaller provinces that have a lower number of communities with different cultural backgrounds. During this period, the government created the province of Gorontalo. Most of the people who inhabit Gorontalo are Muslims. Gorontalo has one of the lowest average ages of marriage. The province of Gorontalo was an offshoot of the province of North Sulawesi. The province of North Sulawesi remained a predominantly Christian region. Prior to the split, the province of North Sulawesi had a relatively low rate of teenage marriage. However, after the split, the province of North Sulawesi remained as a region with a relatively low rate of teenage marriage. This is despite the fact that the province of Gorontalo has a very high rate of teenage marriage (Jones and Gibhaju 5). This shows that religion plays a significant role in early marriage.
Causes of early arranged marriages in Indonesia
Poverty
Poverty is one of the major causes of early-arranged marriages in Indonesia. Lack of a stable source of income makes parents view raising their children as a burden. In addition, parents view girls as a potential source of income. The income is mainly in the form of the bridal price that the potential husband of the girl would pay the parents. Parents prefer marrying off their children to rich men who would be able to take good care of the children. Thus, when parents marry off their young children, they think that they are helping the children have a better life. Most parents who marry off their children while young think that the marriage would help improve the well-being of the remaining children. This is because it would enable the parents to take good care of the remaining children due to the reduction of the burden of rearing the children (Nour 53).
In addition, parents view early marriage as a method of improving the social status of the family. Marrying a girl into a rich family creates close social ties with the rich family. This may ultimately have an economic benefit to the family. In some instances, the girls themselves prefer to get married to rich families. This is because such a marriage would improve their social status and economic situation. The girls rich husband would be able to feed her well and dress her lavishly.
However, early marriage traps the society in the vicious cycle of poverty. Early marriage makes women have a long period of sexual activity. Since these women do not usually have access to contraceptives, they have a high probability of giving birth to many children. Having many children has profound economic consequences on the family and the society. It traps the society in the vicious cycle of poverty. Failure to finish school also traps the young girls in the vicious cycle of poverty. The young girls cannot obtain good jobs. Therefore, they may end up working as migrant workers, which has little protection (Osman para 11)
Failure to enforce laws
Various countries have laws that strive to protect the sanctity of childhood. One of the laws that protect the sanctity of childhood is the laws that set a minimum age for marriage. The Marriage Law of 1975 set the minimum age for Indonesian women and men to marry as 16 and 19 years, respectively. Anybody who marries or facilitates the marriage of an individual who is below the minimum age faces the risk of severe punishment from the government (Nilan 69).
However, underage marriage continues to take place even after the enactment of the law. Failure to enforce the laws makes some parents not know that they are breaking the law by marrying their daughters at a low age. In addition, the girls themselves may not know their rights and legal protection that is available to them.
Religious and traditional practices
Indonesia is a predominantly Islamic country. Therefore, Islam plays a significant role in Indonesian culture. According to the Islamic religion, marriage is the only social setting through which two people can have sex. Islam considers it an abomination for two people to have sex outside marriage. It is vital for a girl in an Islamic family to be a virgin when she gets married to her husband (Nilan 69). A girl who marries when she is not a virgin discredits the honor of the family. Therefore, families strive to maintain the honor of the family by ensuring that the girl is still a virgin prior to getting married.
One of the common means families use to protect the chastity of the girl, and therefore, the honor of the family is marrying off the girl while still young. In such a situation, the girls are not even ready for sex. The girls are also not ready for childbearing, which becomes one of her responsibilities upon marriage. The effect of the Islamic religion on early marriages is clearly visible in the provinces that are predominantly Islamic. Indonesian provinces that are predominantly Islamic have a high rate of teenage marriage. Gorontalo and North Sulawesi highlight this fact. The government split the province of Gorontalo from North Sulawesi. Gorontalo is a predominantly Islamic region, whereas what was left of North Sulawesi is predominantly a Christian. After the split, Gorontalo recorded high rates of teenage marriage, whereas North Sulawesi has low rates of teenage marriage (Jones and Gibhaju 5).
In the Islamic religion, it is common for a man to marry an underage girl. In fact, Prophet Muhammad, one of the most significant prophets in Islam, married a seven-year-old girl. Therefore, Indonesian Muslim leaders openly support teenage marriage. In fact, several Islamic leaders in Indonesia have married teenage girls. Some of the girls are as young as nine years old. Other Muslim leaders support this practice instead of criticizing the leaders who marry teenage girls. The government is usually reluctant to prosecute Islamic leaders who marry underage children due to the prominence of the Islamic leaders in society. Prosecuting the Islamic leaders would make the government raise a huge political and religious debate. The problem of child marriages among Islamic leaders is not just common in Indonesia. It is also a major problem in other countries. In the UK, a Shiite mosque leader agreed to marry a 12-year-old girl as long as the parents of the child did not tell anyone (Kisiel para 2).
The Indonesian culture also plays a significant role in promoting early-arranged marriages. In Indonesian culture, marriage is usually a family affair. Underage girls do not usually have control over their choice of partner. In some instances, the parents of the girl do not even inform the girl of the marriage. The parents would accept the bridal price on the girl, and the husbands family would come and fetch the girl. However, boys usually have a say in their choice of bride.
Conflicts and Disasters
Conflicts and disasters increase the economic pressure that families face in bringing up their children. Famine, droughts, and natural disasters may make families that would have otherwise not considered early marriage turn to it. Early marriage makes families accept a bridal price for the underage girls in the hope that this would reduce their suffering and that of the underage child. Drought has forced Indonesian parents to accept a bridal price for their daughters several times (Myers and Harvey 9).
Consequences of early marriage
Early motherhood
One of the main consequences of early marriages is early pregnancy and motherhood. Underage girls usually fall pregnant and become mothers within two years of the marriage. However, brides who are too young to live with their husbands until later after marriage does not fall under this category. Early pregnancy and childbirth have serious consequences both on the underage girl and on the baby. Childbirth before attainment of the age of 20 increases the risk of infant and maternal mortality and morbidity (Choe, Thapa, and Achmad 8).
According to the Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey of 1997, infants of mothers who are under the age of 20 years are 33% more likely to die in their first year of life than infants of 20-29 years old mothers (Choe, Thapa and Achmad 9). Therefore, early motherhood leads to a significant increase in infant mortality. One of the reasons for increased infant mortality of children born to underage mothers is that the underage children do not have the necessary skills that would help them in taking good care of the child. In addition, lack of education makes the girls be unable to take good care of their children. Therefore, young married girls are less likely to take their infants for immunization. In addition, young married girls are less likely to seek prompt treatment for their infants than their educated counterparts (Otoo-Oyortey and Pobi 45). In addition, the underage girl is not yet psychologically mature to enable her to take good care of the infant.
Sexual and reproductive health
Girls who marry at an early age do not have enough sexual information. In addition, since the girls have little or no schooling, they do not know their rights. This makes them be unable to negotiate for safer sex. An Indonesian study revealed that 13 percent of married women did not know about condoms (Otoo-Oyortey and Pobi 45). This increases the risk of young married girls contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. In addition, young married girls are more likely to contract sexually transmitted due to sexual contact with their spouses, who, by virtue of their age, have a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
Underage girls do not usually have enough sexual information. Therefore, when the girls get married to older men, they experience their first sexual encounter when they are not well prepared. This may force the girls to have a memory of sexual trauma due to their first sexual encounter. Unfortunately, the girls may carry this image throughout their lives as most cultures treat sex with secrecy (Otoo-Oyortey and Pobi 45).
The physiology of the married girls also makes them more prone to sexually transmitted diseases than other women. The lining of the vaginas of the young girls does not have enough protective cells that may prevent them from infection from sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, sexual intercourse can easily erode the cervix of young girls. This increases their vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases (Otoo-Oyortey and Pobi 48).
Early marriage and gender-based abuse
Early marriage makes girls experience disempowerment. This is due to the significant age difference between the underage girl and her husband. In most instances, underage girls get married to men who are far much older than they are. The significant age difference results in unequal power dynamics between the young married girl and her husband. It results in unequal partnership between the spouses, in which the wife has very little power in decision making within the union. This makes underage married women become isolated from society. The girls become quieter and lose the close friendships they had prior to the marriage. Isolation and loss of friendships break the social networks that the girl may turn to during hardships. Lack of support systems makes young married girls have low self-esteem. In addition, a large age difference between an underage girl and her husband makes her become a widow at a very early age (Otoo-Oyortey and Pobi 45).
Abuse is a common occurrence among young married girls. The husband may abuse the girls either physically or psychologically. Failure to know their rights and the significant age difference makes it difficult for young married girls to defend themselves from abuse. Some of the husbands of the young married girls may be of the same age as the girls fathers. This makes the young married girls think that their husbands are justified in beating them up (Otoo-Oyortey and Pobi 45).
Early arranged marriage and education
Girls usually terminate their education once they get married. Families usually consider girls to have crossed the threshold of education after they get married. Therefore, the education of the young married girl is not a priority to either the parents or the new husband of the young girl. The girls have to assume the responsibility of bringing up their children and looking after their homes. Lack of strict enforcement of laws that prohibit the marriage of underage girls makes the girls attain a low level of education, as parents are willing to marry off their daughter immediately after they reach puberty (Myers and Harvey 14). Therefore, enforcement of laws that prohibit the marriage of underage children would increase the attainment of education of the children. This would increase adult literacy in the country. Increased adult literacy would increase the countrys economic development, as educated women can engage in various economic activities.
In most countries, the marriage of underage children is illegal. However, this does not prevent this practice from taking place. Parents force their daughters to drop out of school to get married. The school management may be unaware of the early marriage of underage children. In cases where the school management is aware of the marriage of the underage girls, they may be reluctant to report the practice as they may view it as a private or family matter that does not warrant their interference (Myers and Harvey 14).
In some instances, there may be educational opportunities available to the underage girls, but the girls would still drop out of school to get married. The quality, cost, and content of education determine whether girls drop out of school to get married. Parents may be unable to pay for the schooling of the girls forcing them to drop out of school. In addition, teachers may not give special emphasis to the education of the girl as they think that the girl would not stay in school for long. This reduces the girls interest in education and forces them to drop out of school (Myers and Harvey 14).
Keeping girls in school is one of the most efficient methods of reducing underage marriage. In addition, keeping girls in school increases the age of first sexual experience and reduces the rates of infection of HIV and AIDS of the girls (Blackburn and Bessell 128). Keeping children in school for long periods helps in prolonging the period of childhood. This reduces the adulthood activities that the society may demand the children to engage in (Blackburn and Bessell 136). This was the main factor that fueled the enactment of the Marriage Law of 1974. The 1974 Marriage Law increased the legal age for marriage. This ultimately increased the number of years that girls spend in school. This ultimately helps in economic development as the women can seek gainful employment by providing their professional skills in economic development. In addition, keeping girls in school increases the empowerment of women, as they are able to understand their rights. Since women form a sizeable percentage of a countrys population, empowering women leads to economic development. A country that does not empower its women loses a sizeable percentage of its pool of knowledge, which would be beneficial in the economic development of the country.
Early marriage and Gender equality
The Indonesian culture is generally egalitarian. Most Indonesian traditional cultures give women significant bases of power and independence. Most Indonesian traditional cultures allow economic participation of women and give women the right to own property. Traditional Indonesian cultures consider women as clever and equal economic partners in marriage (Malhotra 435).
In the Indonesian culture, parents are the main parties that initiate marriage. Sons may choose the girls they would like to marry. However, in most instances, the parents choose the choice of partner for the girl for her first marriage. Parents would arrange for the wedding of their daughter just after the daughter attains puberty. In so doing, parents ensure that the daughter gets married while still a virgin. However, women can choose their husbands in their subsequent marriages (Malhotra 435). Failure to give women the chance to choose their first husbands portrays a high level of inequality.
The Indonesian marriage system keeps the option of divorce open to both couples after marriage. Either spouse may initiate divorce if the marriage is not fulfilling. In most instances, the woman initiates divorce if she is unhappy with the marriage. Divorce gives women the right to their children and inheritance (Malhotra 435).
However, most of the young married girls do not know their rights. Hence, they would not be able to exercise their rights and seek divorce if they are unhappy with the marriage arrangement. The young married girls do not know the avenues that they may use to obtain help if they are unhappy with the marriage arrangement. The girls end up staying in unfulfilling marriages and living very unhappy lives.
Tackling early arranged marriage
To tackle the problem of early-arranged marriage, the government must tackle the social and economic dimensions of poverty. The government should ensure that women acquire social and economic skills that would improve their livelihoods. The government should improve girls education, empower women and ensure that there is gender equality. In addition, the government should be able to cater to the diverse needs of women in both rural and urban societies (Otoo-Oyortey and Pobi 48).
The government should create an environment in which young girls can claim their rights without fear of victimization by society. The government should also create an enabling environment in which young girls can develop skills that would help them increase their ability to make a livelihood. The government should create innovative training programs that would help both married and unmarried girls obtain gainful employment. The training should enable women to obtain gainful employment that is non-domestic. Active participation by members of the community is critical in various government initiatives that strive to reduce underage marriage. The government should ensure that there is active community participation in creating safe places for organizing various groups that are vulnerable to arranged marriage (Otoo-Oyortey and Pobi 49). The ultimate success of various initiatives depends on the level of participation and coordination between the government, the civil society, and the girls themselves.
Conclusion
Early marriages make it hard for women to realize their true potential. It forces women to drop out of school and relegates them to doing domestic chores. This leads to the loss of a sizeable workforce, which may help in economic development. In addition interferes with the social, psychological, and physical development of the child. Early marriages break the social ties that are critical when to the woman when she is facing various problems. In addition, girls who marry have an increased risk of suffering from gender-based abuse from their spouses. Despite the presence of various laws that help in protecting the sanctity of childhood, early marriages still continue unabated in various parts of Indonesia. Therefore, it is critical for the government and other relevant parties to collaborate in eliminating this practice from society. Failure to eliminate the practice would lead to wastage of the precious lives of a significant proportion of girls and women. has
Choe, Minja Kim, Thapa, Shyam and Achmad, Sulistinah. Early marriage and childbearing in Indonesia and Nepal. East-West center Working Papers. 108.15 (2001): 1-22. Web.
Jones, Gavin W. and Gibhaju, Bina. Trends in age at marriage in the provinces of Indonesia. ARI working paper.105(2008): 1-29. Web.
For many years, Americans have believed that marriages are good since they empower people, make it easier for them to pursue their common goals, and promote the integrity of the community or society. Unfortunately, there are specific developments that have been recorded with the past six decades in this country. Firstly, marriage is no longer a priority for many people who are aged 25 years and below. Secondly, intermarriages have become common in this society than ever before. Thirdly, many people from the same sex or gender are entering into the institution of marriage without the desire or need to have children. Fourthly, people are filing for divorce and starting new relationships that end up in second or third marriages.
This means that the permanence and stability of marriages is no longer a major concern for many citizens. The outstanding fact is that marriage norms in contemporary America have changed significantly since 1960. The purpose of this paper is to present accurate and timely data to describe such four marriage trends recorded in this country.
Marriage Changes and Norms in America
The first notable change in the institution of marriage is that many young people are no longer treating the issue seriously. Instead, they are currently focusing on their passions in life and educational aims. For instance, a study by the Pew Research Center indicated that marriage rates among Americans in their 20s had decreased since the year 1990 (Parker & Stepler, 2017). This trend was observed in individuals with college degrees and certificates. However, the decline was high in persons who did not have advanced university education. In 2008, it was reported that the percentage of 30-year olds in marriage had declined to 62 from 69 in 1990 (Parker & Stepler, 2017).
Similarly, those who do have college degrees are presently delaying their marriages to the age of 28 or more (Parker & Stepler, 2017). The major explanations behind this shift include the declining economic gains and fortunes of young people. Individuals who lack quality education will be reluctant to marry in this country (see Figure 1). The chart reveals that those attain higher education have increased chances of getting additional sources of income, thereby being able to get married.
Figure 1. Percentage of adults above 25 years who are in marriage, by education (Parker & Stepler, 2017).
The second norm that has become prevalent in this country is that of intermarriages. For many years, many Americans have appreciated the lessons gained from slavery and racial discrimination. These malpractices continued to inform marriage patterns whereby people were keen to select partners from their respective racial groups for many decades. However, this trend has changed significantly since many citizens today are marrying from other races. For instance, a report by Pew Research Center in 2010 revealed that 15 percent of marriages were of spouses with diverse backgrounds ( The rise of intermarriage, 2012).
This rate had increased from 6.7 percent in 1980 (see Figure 2). Additionally, 26 % and 28 percent of Hispanics and Asians respectively are married to other racial grounds ( The rise of intermarriage, 2012). According to the presented chart, this trend is expected to continue since people are interacting more than ever before. This development is supported by most of the social cohesion and diversity promotion strategies that have become common in this country ( The rise of intermarriage, 2012). In terms of earnings, males from specific races tend to have higher income rates in comparison with those from minority groups. This difference has remained a critical determinant of marriages whereby women from poor backgrounds marry white men or those with stable income sources.
Figure 2. Intermarriage trend in the US: 1980-2010 ( Intermarriage, 2013).
The American definitions of marriage and family have changed significantly within the past five decades. For instance, 86 percent of Americans believe that a person who has a child can constitute or from a family without having a partner ( The decline of marriage, 2010). Around 80 percent argue that two people who are cohabiting without even being married constitute a family ( The decline of marriage, 2010).
Similarly, the practice of same-same marriage has become common than ever before. Within the past two decades, the support for same-sex marriage has increased significantly. In a study completed in 2019, around 61 percent of Americans were in favour of it ( Attitudes on same-sex, 2019). Those who opposed the practice were around 31 percent ( Attitudes on same-sex, 2019). This trend is expected to continue redefining the nature of marriage in contemporary America.
Figure 3. Demographics and same-sex marriages (Balk, 2018).
The number of male-male couples has increased significantly to over 110,000 in the United States (see Figure 3). This is also the same case for lesbians living as couples at over 139,000 (see Figure 3). Although these numbers represent a small percentage or fraction of the entire population, the outstanding observation is that the contemporary or traditional different-sex marriages are no longer the predominant trend or practice in this country. Experts in the fields of human psychology and sociology still believe that the number of gay and lesbian marriages will continue to increase in the coming years (Cherlin, 2018). This will become a trend that government policymakers should never ignore.
The fourth trend that has been recorded in different parts across the United States revolves around the integrity and sustainability of marriage. For many years, this institution attracted attention of the greatest number community members and citizens. Marriage was seen as something righteous and a gift from God that required care and support from relatives and religious leaders. However, new changes have emerged whereby divorces have become common in the United States. Many married people reasons separate if they are unable to realize their potential (Cherlin, 2018). Majority of these divorcees eventually start new families or relationships that resonate with their expectations. Those who are unable to get good partners decide to live independently or even as single parents.
Figure 4. Remarriage in the United States (Livingston, 2014).
In a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, it was reported that the gap between the percentage of women and men who remarried after divorce was narrowing (see Figure 4). For instance, only 48 percent of women remarried after divorce in the 1960s (see figure 4). This rate had increased to 52 percent in the year 2013 (see Figure 4). This means that more people are remarrying in this country.
This trend supports the fact that many couples will have specific objectives and goals that must be met by their partners. Similarly, the triggers of this new norm have changed significantly within the past few decades. For example, Livingston (2014) identifies income and life expectations as one of the factors associated with divorce in this country. Others include insecurity, abuse, and pressure from peers or family members. Nonetheless, it is expected that more divorcees will not shy away from establishing new relationships and eventually getting married.
Conclusion
The above charts and discussions have revealed that marriage in contemporary America has changed significantly from the 1960s. The sociological perspective is a powerful model that can explain why these developments have taken place. Peoples social backgrounds have continued to influence their views, life chances, and behaviors. For instance, the conflict perspective has dictated peoples decisions and thoughts regarding the issue of marriage. This means that many citizens have been keen to intermarry as one of the best procedures for decreasing the current level of discrimination recorded in this country.
The functionalist aspect of this model goes further to explain why and how people consider different ideas and practices that resonate with their demands. This argument explains why more young adults are delaying their marriage decisions in the United States. The same concept applies when focusing on the increasing number of same-sex marriages in this country and across the world. With these normative changes in place, the American society has been impacted negatively. This is the case since the institution of marriage is no longer respectable. The end result is that more people are leading troubled and disoriented lives while at the same time focusing on the infamous American dream.
The number of children who are unable to get maximum attention from both parents is on the rise. The absence of appropriate role models leaves them disoriented and incapable of pursuing their aims in life diligently (Gravningen et al., 2017). Another impact is that more people prefer divorcing instead of implementing evidence-based measures to save their marriages. These issues and developments will, therefore, continue to affect the integrity of this institution and even make it impossible for more citizens to succeed in their lives.
Gravningen, K., Mitchell, K. R., Wellings, K., Johnson, A. M., Geary, R., Jones, K. G., & Mercer, C. H. (2017). Reported reasons for breakdown of marriage and cohabitation in Britain: Findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0174129. Web.
The institution of marriage has evolved through many definitions over the years.
The first definition was built around survival. Marriages of survival were aimed at extending the human species in relatively safer surroundings as compared to lone women vulnerable to harm from man or beast.
The second definition involved marriages built around children. It involved creating a protective cocoon for a man, his wife, and their children to protect against interference by others.
The third definition involved arranged marriages. Marriages of convenience were arranged in all levels of society. To a poor individual, it permitted not only a merger of frugal possessions but also the ability to forge a link with whoever was geographically nearest. To highly bred individuals, it provided an opportunity to merge wealth and/or real estate.
The fourth definition, which began around the mid-1800s, involved love marriages. The concept of love began to be insinuated more and more into the mind of society.
The fifth definition involved marriages killed by divorce. This trend commenced after the end of World War II that propelled the U.S into a superpower. Marriages began to increasingly end in divorce. Since its advent in 1945, divorce has developed into an ever-increasing malady. In our contemporary times, divorce can be adjudged a pandemic. Current statistics reveal that 6 out of 10 marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.
The concept of divorce gave rise not to different definitions of marriages but different deviations from marriages. One of them is cohabitation. The Sexual Revolution that took place in the 1960s caused sex to brazenly slip out of the boundaries of marriage. Premarital and extramarital sex became more and more widely accepted in the U.S. This attitude spawned cohabitation, a situation where a man and woman live openly together with or without the consent of society. Cohabitation without marriage recorded a huge rise of 1200% between 1960 and 2004. Cohabiting couples hope that such a test run to marriage will help them evade the pitfalls of bad marriages and possible divorce, will make them understand each other better, and thus pave the way for eventual marriage. Unfortunately, this rarely happens. It is estimated that 50% of cohabiting couples break up their relationship within 5 years of living together.
The wide acceptance of cohabitation emboldened many cohabiting couples to have children. The break up of their relationship gave rise to the second deviation from marriage single parenthood. At present, it is estimated that 35% of children in the U.S are conceived through out-of-marriage relationships. Of these, 63% remain with their mothers who have become single parents.
The third deviation is marriage for nationality. This trend developed in the U.S. during the latter half of the 20th century in the wake of huge waves of immigrants drawn to its sophisticated development, high standard of living, a guarantee of personal rights and liberty, and lenient immigration regulations. The lure of the green card that legitimizes the stay of a foreigner in the U.S. spawned an unscrupulous network that arranged fake marriages between U.S. citizens and foreigners so that the latter automatically gain nationality. In spite of heavy persecution, this deviation still persists.
The fourth deviation from marriage is a relatively new development: same-sex marriage, which seeks to legitimize relationships between two homosexual men or a lesbian couple. This development came to fruition after many years of struggle against religious groups and societal norms. Currently, it is an accepted form of marriage in a few countries (South Africa, Canada, Belgium, and Spain). In the U.S., same-sex marriage is legal only in the states of Iowa and Massachusetts.
While these deviations from marriage are largely contributing to the demise of civilization, particularly in the U.S., which has the unenviable record of the lowest percentage of children being raised by their married parents, the sixth definition of marriage still very much exists in the marriage of spirit. Married couples that have successfully parried the intrusive destruction of divorce from their partners have recognized that they have reached a stage where marriage has shifted from the physical domain to the domain of a spiritual relationship sustained by commitment. The romance continues to remain a vital ingredient in their partnership in that it represents the spiritual part of marriage and gives rise to intense spiritual delight. Spiritual delight, in turn, increases their belief and faith in God, thereby causing their personal actions to be morally good.
In the interest of morality, and with the aim of sustaining civilization, it is hoped that more and more people engaged in the four deviations from marriage give up their wandering ways and return to the safest, most secure, and moral legitimate relationship that a man and woman could ever have marriage.
References
Roth. The Meaning of Marriage. Inner World Perceptions. (N.d). 2007.
The family is considered the basic unit of the society. It is where a person acquires his/her basic characteristics and habits. They say that the personality of an individual is very much affected by the family background. Once classical definition is that a family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction; it includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, owned or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults (Murdock, 1949). One important thing to note is that family starts with marriage the marriage of two couples who are ideally in-love with each other and promises a lifetime of commitment.
Marriages that last many years provide a context in which researchers can explore how the experience of relationships changes across time and how social norms surrounding relationships influence relationships. Research indicates that the success of long-term relationships is related both to intrinsic aspects of the relationship, such as liking ones partner as a person (Bachand & Caron, 2001), and to factors that are extrinsic to the relationship, such as norms and values related to the sanctity of marriage (Laner, Lauer, & Kerr, 1990). There is also evidence that not all long-lasting marriages are happy or successful. For instance, Dickson (1995) found that some couples in long-lasting marriages experienced high levels of independence in their daily lives and reported high levels of dissatisfaction with their marriage. These couples remained married because they believed that social norms dictated that they should do so. Research that has compared younger and older couples in order to examine how life-stage influences relationships has revealed that older couples tend to be more formal in their interactions and more restrained in their expression of affection than younger couples (Sillars & Wilmot, 1989). Additionally, the conversations of older couples are typically marked by communal themes and by a more congenial interaction style (Sillars, Burggraf, Yost, & Zietlow, 1992).
One way that we might better understand the experience of long-term marriages is by considering descriptions of past relationships. Harvey, Agostinelli, and Weber (1989) argue that accounts of past relationships help us see how individuals make sense of relationships; they found that explanations for why relationships failed were related to expectations individuals had for what was important in future relationships. Similarly, Surra and colleagues (Surra, Arizzi, & Amussen, 1988) argue that accounts of past relationships can provide insight into the knowledge structures that influence how people understand general classes of relationships (e.g., friendship versus dating), how partners understand a particular relationship, or how they see their role in a relationship. Thus, it seems clear that reflections about past relationships could provide insight into peoples experience of relationships and could reveal how relationship stories reflect social/historical expectations regarding relationships. Research by Weber, Harvey and Stanley (1987) examining the experience of widows and widowers following the loss of a spouse suggests that individuals reflections about their relationships may be an important source of insight for researchers wishing to learn not only about grieving but also about the nature of relationships.
Kaslow and Hammerschmidt (1992) examined the factors that contribute to what they call good long-term marriages. They defined good marriages as those in which couples reported high levels of satisfaction with their marriage. They found that couples in these marriages reported high levels of commitment to the partner and to marriage as an ideal ; high levels of trust; open, honest, good communication; shared values and easy give and take between partners; and a deep, abiding love for one another that was enriched by friends and family. Similarly, Fennel (1993) found congruence between spouses in the factors they identified as contributing to their long-term marriage. Overall, the most frequently noted factors were commitment to marriage, loyalty to spouse, friendship with spouse, strong moral values, and commitment to sexual fidelity. Laner, Lauer, and Kerr (1990) asked spouses to indicate what factors they felt had contributed to the success and stability of their marriage. Respondents indicated that their success rested on being involved in a union with someone they liked, being committed to the marriage and the partner as an individual, and maintaining a sense of humor.
Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1995) examined successful marriages of ten or more years to reveal what leads to a good marriage. They identified a set of couple types based on driving forces or unique aspects of the relationship that were central to the couple. They found that successful couples shared a sense of their relationship as unique and that they tended to tell the story of their relationship in a way that highlighted how the relationship provided romance, tradition, protection, or a combination of these elements.
Meanwhile, Dickson et al. (2002) studied perceptions of conflict in later-life, long-term marriages. Based on interviews with 25 couples, they concluded that partners in these marriages tended to minimize the relevance of conflict to their current relational situation. In other words, they said that conflict did not occur often, and they preferred to label their conflicts as disagreements. Additionally, these couples pointed out that their experience of conflict was much different later than earlier in their marriage. Most of these couples believed conflict had been prevalent and active in earlier stages of the marriage, but had declined later in the marriage. This research suggests that couples patterns of conflict change over time. Dickson et al. note that this may be the result of changes in the relationship and of cultural expectations regarding the conduct of marriage.
Research comparing actual interactions of younger and older couples showed that the conversations of older couples are typically marked by more communal themes and by more congenial interaction (Sillars, Burggraf, Yost, & Zietlow, 1992), but the communication style of a small group of older couples was marked by almost constant bickering. Thus, while long-term marriages can often produce smoother, more cooperative interaction, not all couples experience such benefits.
It is particularly interesting to consider how partners views of their relationships align with cultural ways of making sense of relationships. Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1995) found that successful, long-term marriages tended to capitalize on cultural views of marriage, for instance by emphasizing romance. But they also found that partners tended to be able to sustain a sense of the uniqueness of the relationship between individuals. By contrast, unhappy long-term marriages seem to be held together by social constraints, with partners in these relationships reporting that they stayed in the marriage because it was the right thing to do or because divorce was not an option (Dickson, 1995). Sillars and Wilmot (1989) proposed that the nature of the relationship reflects factors intrinsic to the relationship, cohort effects related to the historical context in which the relationship develops, and aspects of life-stage development. Thus, when examining long-term marriages, which typically coincide with later life stages, we see not only how individuals have negotiated their own relationship but also how cultural views of relationships have defined the relationship. One example of this from Sillars and Wilmots (1989) research is that older couples disclose less and demonstrate more restrained expression of affection than younger couples.
It is also worth noting that societies have some type of stratification system where members are classed or ranked such that some have more kudos and power than others. The family (where the married couple is of utmost importance) serves as an agent of stratification because it conveys at least initially its status to the individual. Upon birth, the child acquires his family name and a place in the society. The standing of his family determines his position in the hierarchy. Socialization also helps maintain class placement. Still, the family and kin group would still play the biggest part in helping members maintain or improve their status.
The family (bounded by marriage) desires to protect its members interest and welfare. It provides for the necessary protection measures of its members. The family also provides not only physical but also psychological protection and support. Kin solidarity and close relationships last over time and distance. This is evidenced by the fact that responsibility and obligation is continued despite separation of family members.
The family also serves a purpose for the other institutions. It has economic functions important in production, distribution and consumption. It is also a catalyst for political stability. When family members agree on something, the support of its family members is assured. It is also important in religion and education.
Nowadays, married couples and their families have different needs. Though the necessities remain, added requirements are to be considered. There are more people to interact with, and more diverse personalities. Media is already an important factor that affects the minds of children and more so on developing individuals. As individuals grow, they have to adapt to their environment and current situations. The current demands of the society are focused on technological advancement and people are more career-oriented. Individuals now live in a more dynamic and larger ecosystem. They have to maintain their mutual dependencies on a larger scope. People at the present time are fast-paced and quick thinkers. More than ever, time is gold. The values the family inculcates in its members now are more diverse, and scholarly. Education is valued more to be a successful individual. The changes in the field of sciences are also factors for the shifting in the practice of family ecology.
In totality, family members, especially the married couple, should learn to go with the flow and not be restricted on the conventional ways of facing current and future concerns. This would help in maintaining the continuity of human existence.
Indeed, there are no boundaries when talking about the ways on how to maintain or achieve successful marriage. But one this is for sure, the old adage it takes two to tango still remains true. No marriage will be successful if not both of the partners (the male and the female) are working for it. if the couples believe do not believe to the sanctity of their marriage and do not do their share to make the marriage works, then it will never be lasting.
References
Bachand, L. L., & Caron, S. L. (2001). Ties that bind: A qualitative study of happy long-term marriages. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23, 105-121.
Dickson, F. C. (1995). The best is yet to be: Research on long-lasting marriages. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 22-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dickson, F. C., Hughes, P. C., Manning, L. D., Walker, K. L., Bollis-Pecci, T., & Granston, S. (2002). Conflict in later-life, long-term marriages. Southern Communication Journal, 67, 110-121.
Fennel, D. L. (1993). Characteristics of long-term marriages. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 15, 446-460.
Harvey, J. H., Agostinelli, G., & Weber, A. L. (1989). Account-making and the formation of expectations about close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 39-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kaslow, F. W., & Hammerschmidt, H. (1992). Long term good marriages: The seemingly essential ingredients. Journal of Couples Therapy, 3, 15-38.
Laner, R. H., Lauer, J. C., & Kerr, S. T. (1990). The long-term marriage: Perceptions of stability and satisfaction. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 3, pp. 189-195.
Sharlin, S. A. (1996). Long-term successful marriages in Israel. Contemporary Family Therapy, 18, pp. 225-242.
Sillars, A. L., Burggraf, C. S., Yost, S., & Zietlow, P. H. (1992). Conversational themes and marital relationship definitions: Quantitative and qualitative investigations. Human Communication Research, 19, pp. 124-154.
Sillars, A. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1989). Marital communication across the life span. In J. F. Nussbaum (Ed.), Life-span communication: Normative processes (pp. 225-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Surra, C. A., Arizzi, P., & Asmussen, L. A. (1988). The association between reasons for commitment and the development and outcome of marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, pp. 47-63.
Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1995). The good marriage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Weber, A. L., Harvey, J. H., & Stanley, M. A. (1987). The nature and motivations of accounts for failed relationships. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & D. Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for relationships (pp. 114-133). New York: Methuen.
What elements of a life course perspective are discussed in the article?
We can only surmise how marriage is related to health, but those who have been through a lot of problems and hassles as a result of bad marriages, literally know what marriage can bring to their health. More astounding facts and results of a study conducted by Hawkins and Booth (2005) came to the fore that could bring recommendations of further studies and bring to everybodys attention the effects of marriage on peoples health.
There are good and bad effects. According to the newspaper article by Lerner (2002), a good marriage can bring these benefits:
Married people are generally less likely to have surgery and to die from all causes, including pneumonia and accidents.
Marriage is a cure for loneliness.
A good marriage can give a person a reason to stay alive.
Now, what about a bad marriage or a strained relationship, what does it bring? Lerner says unhappy relationships can bring:
Ill health and sickness; women are more vulnerable, and suffer the most; theres a stronger association between marital discord and death among women.
Depression
Ulcers in the stomach and intestine
More gum disease and cavities
Severe sickness
The worst happens to people who dont marry:
High blood pressure and heart rate
Changes in the endocrine and immune system, and
Early death
Emotions affect our health. That is Freudian. Although the studies and the facts enumerated in the article seem to be something new, the phenomenon is not new at all. Sigmund Freuds psychoanalysis theory points to the facts provided in the article: that our health is always affected by the way we think and feel, and interact with the people around us. The tensions and arguments of marriage can often lead to depression.
Those who are susceptible to high blood pressure surely will have their blood soaring up once they are in a strained and unhappy marriage.
The old adage says, Take good care of your heart.
That seems to be self-explanatory. Though it mostly refers to the kind of diet and the lifestyles that we have, this also points to who or with whom we deal with, or in company with. If your partner can give you headaches all day long and throughout your married life, then what is good in marriage? But a supportive partner can help a person stick to restrictive diets and exercise regimens.
Dr. Linda Waite says, Marriage is sort of like a preserver or a seat belt. This is an astounding statement, as Dr. Waite adds that marriage is like eating a good diet, getting exercise and not smoking.
The article further says, &Marriage acts as a balm against loneliness and despair. A married couple can share happiness by looking at each others health and well-being and giving company. Each partner does not feel lonely because they are always together; but loneliness comes when the relationship becomes strained due to misunderstandings, jealousy, infidelity, and other reasons common to couples.
Sickness can be the result of an individuals lifestyle, on what you eat or intake into your body. Somebodys lifestyle can be modified or altered with marriage. Married couples go for a disciplined lifestyle. That might be during the beginning of a happy marriage, or when things have worked well.
The elements of a life course perspective pointed to the events and exposures in marriage, on what couples do and result to whenever the relationship tends to become. While a bad relationship or an unhappy marriage can affect the health of people, it is said that this is better than not marrying at all. Relationships affect the course of a persons life, and the latter life, as in the old adage, sickness may become worse.
On the other hand, the academic text of Hawkins and Booth (2005) is the result of a longitudinal study tracking unhappy marriages over a 12-year period, and then assess marital happiness along many dimensions . There are differences in the article and the academic text, which will be pointed in the conclusion of this essay analysis.
The book begins with a literature review of previous empirical studies of experts and then goes on to conduct a detailed longitudinal study of couples.
This is a good note for couples to stay happy by keeping track of their relationships. The study says: Marital status has a strong effect on overall happiness as the continuously married variable is as strong a predictor as overall happiness measured in a previous wave (Hawkins & Booth 451).
The result for continuously married and divorced/remarried individuals can be quite expected: they are significantly happier than unhappily married people (451).
Continuously married and divorced/unmarried individuals also have significantly higher degrees of life satisfaction than unhappily married individuals, while divorced/remarried people do not show a significant difference (454).
Self-esteem goes with marriage because the result says that continuously married and divorced/unmarried individuals show significantly higher self-esteem than unhappily married people (457).
The comparison of the unhappily married group, those who divorce, and the unmarried group say that the unmarried group shows greater self-esteem than unhappily married individuals, but the remarried group does not (457). This statement can be connected to the newspaper article stated above, which says that a bad marriage is better than not marrying at all. Hawkins and Booths study makes a contradiction. It says the members of the unmarried group have greater self-esteem, hence they can have good health.
What should be given more weight is that remaining unhappily married is associated with a further reduction in peoples happiness and life satisfaction& and individuals from all marital status categories have better overall health than unhappily married people (459).
Good marriage greatly affects peoples health and well-being, and being in a strained relationship and being unhappily married can bring bad effects on peoples health. The study says that bad marriage brings lower happiness, life satisfaction, and self-esteem and is associated with poorer health (458).
On the question of divorce, the study reveals that divorced people sometimes experience greater well-being than unhappily married people . But the question is whether they remarry, and if so how successful is the new marriage, i.e. is it a happy marriage, or might be a strained one again.
The study says: divorced individuals who remarry have greater happiness than unhappily married people and divorced people who remain unmarried report more satisfaction with life, greater self-esteem, and better overall health. Remaining unhappily married rather than divorcing is never beneficial on average to the psychological well-being or overall health of the individuals (459).
Waite and Gallagher (2000, cited in Hawkins & Booth 2005) suggest that there should be little alarm about the harmful effects of bad marriages on psychological and physical health since most people categorize their marriages as very happy (459).
In conclusion, people should avoid low-quality marriage because this increases psychological distress and reduce overall health (461).
The study concluded those people who are in unhappy marriages are in poor health situations. They suffer from low levels of overall happiness, life satisfaction and self-esteem, and symptoms of psychological distress which lead to health problems.
The academic study, however, is not sure or clear of the results on those divorced individuals who have remained unmarried, and those who remarried. It could be that it would really depend on the next situations that they would be. Some more studies have to be conducted on this field, as also recommended by the academic paper.
Some questions have to be asked further:
Do you think it would be better to remain unmarried and freed of the problems in marriage?
Should marrying be another problem? Or Should you remain in your present state of life? Marriage just complicates matters, is this not so? What are the lessons youve learned from your marriage that will increase your satisfaction in life, and improve your health? Is happiness always linked to a happy marriage?
Would you be satisfied in life by just remaining the way you are?
References
Hawkins, Daniel N., and Alan Booth. 2005. Unhappily Ever After: Effects of Long-Term, Low-Quality Marriages on Well-Being. Social Forces 84: 445-465.
Lerner, Sharon. 2002. Good and Bad Marriage, Boon and Bane to Health. The New York Times .
Marriage refers to a union between a man and a woman that is socially sanctioned. However, recently the society has accepted the new homosexual marriages although such marriages do not lead to a child birth. This essay will only deal with heterosexual marriages because the available statistics from the two states in question were obtained at a time when heterosexual marriage was the order of the day in United States of America. At the same time monogamous marriage will be solely considered because US law does not recognize or value polygamous marriages.
In United States, arranged marriages are not common meaning that the men and women are free to look for a marriage partners. Since marriage marks a phase of transition from childhood to adulthood it is a serious issue and this is why the US government is interested in keeping an eye on the marriage trends in respective states. In order to monitor these trend the government uses marriage rates which basically looks at the marriage taking place per 1000 adults. This essay dwells much in the states of Illinois and Oklahoma and the differences and the reasons for this differences will make up the body of this discussion.
Discussion
Marriage rate differs a lot in the state of Oklahoma and the Illinois. However, by looking at statistics from the individual state first we can easily locate the difference and explain it later on. Illinois state shows as continuous decline of marriage rate in the state from 1990s to 2005 as the table below shows. In 2005, 6.1 marriage rate was the lowest one to be recorded in the state.
Table 1. Marriages, Divorces and Annulments Occurring in Illinois 1991 to 2005 (Rates per 1,000 estimated population)
Year
Marriages
Divorces and Annulments
Number
Rate
Total
Rate
Divorces
Annulments
2005
77,419
6.1
33,380
2.6
33,292
88
2004
81,157
6.4
33,575
2.6
33,463
112
2003
82,889
6.6
35,037
2.8
34,900
137
2002
84,288
6.7
37,670
3
37,521
149
2001
89,469
7.2
37,294
3
37,180
114
2000
85,799
6.9
39,524
3.2
39,429
95
1999
86,961
7.2
41,112
3.4
41,020
92
1998
85,515
7.1
41,063
3.4
40,904
159
1997
94,574
8
39,981
3.4
39,807
174
1996
91,187
7.7
40,729
3.4
40,585
144
1995
93,357
7.9
41,856
3.5
41,711
145
1994
93,430
8
43,352
3.7
43,202
150
1993
91,578
7.8
43,216
3.7
43,061
155
1992
94,500
8.1
43,757
3.8
43,580
177
1991
94,771
8.2
45,813
4
45,659
154
This drastic decline in marriage rate could be attributed to various factors. Schoen et al (1988) asserts that composition effects in the state have produced shortages of black males, particularly those with characteristics seen as desirable in husbands. Therefore year in year out fewer black mens get married and this affects the marriage rate by a considerable margin. We have to keep in mind that the black population in this state is substantial. Therefore arguing a long the same line I feel that more women are interested in marrying white men who are few in numbers.
Education has also played its part in the marriage rates in this state. This is due to the fact that education determines one earning in the state and thus affects marriage indirectly. For instance, there has been a notable change in structure of marriage for native born men in the state between 1980 and 2005. ( The Labour market , p.3) notes that the male who had dropped out of school at high school level recorded a 23% decline in the rate of marriage between 1980 and 2005. This decline was as a result of a continuing decline in the economic fortunes and opportunities of many males who do not have advanced education levels. This case also applies in Oklahoma and in the entire United States population.
Low economic status for these men reduces their attractiveness as marriage partners since the society expect the man to be the head of the family. As a head the husband is expected to provide for his family and lack of education curtails ones chances of getting a good salary in any form of employment. Slim economic opportunities are also known to be a major cause of instability in marriages. Women in this state also find themselves in the same position. Arguing a long the same line ( The Labour market , p.3) asserts that adult women who failed to graduate from high school have been characterized by very steep declines in their marriage rates in the same period.
Turning on to Oklahoma State we realize that this is the state that has been recording the lowest marriage rates in the recent past. Arguing a long the same line Jean (2007) points out that Oklahomas marriage rate is below the national average. In order to bring out the true picture Jean notes that in 1990 the marriage rate in Oklahoma stood at 10.6, 4.6 in 2000 and 6.5 in 2004. These entire rates do not match the national marriage rates at the respective years when census was taken. For example, the national marriage rates at stood at 7.4 in 2004.
A discussion on marriage cannot be complete without looking at divorce which calls for separation between husband and wife. Divorce can also give us some of the reasons which make people to shun marriage. For instance, divorce rates affects marriage rates in any given region. This is true because high divorce rate means that there is a problem in the social structure which makes many people get frightened and thus they do not get married. Oklahoma divorce rate is ranked second in the nation. Ross (2002) points out that for every 100 marriage licenses issued in 2001, the state granted 76 divorce petitions.
Such high rates have long term effects on the decisions made by the natives in the region. Potts (1999), notes that divorce has personal, sociological and moral consequences. Since a divorce take place in stages many young people who observe married people getting divorced are carried away by the sufferings that people undergo and this makes them to fear getting married. Divorce rates are very few in Illinois as indicated in the table given above and they are declining over the years.
Conclusion
In conclusion marriage forges a union between a man and a woman and they are both responsible for bringing in new members in the society. The two states have different marriage rates and although the marriage rates are declining over the years the Oklahoma case is worrying. Divorce rates are high in Oklahoma and this has contributed to unstable marriage rates in the region. Education levels contributes a lot in marriage rates because people with low education levels do not have stable incomes meaning that they are less likely to support a marriage with all its responsibility. Therefore majority of the illiterate people do not get married.
Schoen, R. and Kluegel, J. R. The Widening Gap in Black and White Marriage Rates: The Impact of Population Composition and Differential Marriage Propensities. America Sociological Association Journal, 1988
The Labour market consequences of dropping out of school in Illinois.
For many years, social scientists have debated the advantages of marriage due to the characteristics of people who marry and stay married. Do marriage itself and the status of being a married person create certain advantages? The answer is both. Economically and educationally advantage people, who are religiously observant, and who grew with married parents are more likely to marry and stay married than others. Marriage itself can transform peoples lives, changing their lifestyles, habits, associations, and in ways that are personally and socially beneficial (Fischer, pp. 59-61). Thus, it is logical to choose an institution that is so influential in the parameter of society and daily life.
Marriage embeds people within larger social networks; married parents have a better chance to recruit help, friendship, and emotional support in the community. Through marriage, men become more involved with others. It makes one more social and civilized, as a married couple needs to be in the parameters of the society, and there are specific norms that are to be followed. These norms are generally good practices, and on a personal note, it can be mentioned that it has been a great experience being a part of society and a member of this institution of marriage.
The family, which is the nurturing ground and basic component part of society, somehow turns into a hotbed of crisis and anxiety for children when their parents are involved in bitter acrimony and fail to live up to the sanctimony of the relationship. As such, the crumbling family unit makes the child feel insecure, and the trauma thereby endured may manifest itself in unsocial behavior, incompetence at school, and alienation from the peer group. Somehow, the age of the child during the separation of the parents is directly proportional to the amount of psychological pressure endured and consistently poor academic performances. This is the most negative aspect of marriage, and on a personal note, it can be stated that as a child, this experience, though for a short span, was not healthy.
Marriage is far from perfect, and getting married does not turn people into saints. Nevertheless, in spite of its acknowledged problems and flaws, marriage remains a vital source of social good, individual benefits, caregiving, emotional attachments and long-term commitments. People, who are married, though far from perfect, try to behave in ways that benefit themselves, their children and society as a whole. They control their language and behavior and this is a prime example of symbolic interactionism that is instrumental in the institution of marriage (Fischer, p. 227).
The aspect of functionalism of marriage is multifold. As the primary social institution leading familial and kinship relationships, marriage is a source of social capital. Married fathers serve as important role model for their own children and other peoples children also. They can be a valuable social resource in communities to children who lack responsible fathers or positive male role models. Married mothers are more relaxed and caring and this renders a positive effect on the children. The social bonds created through marriage benefits not only family members, but others as well. As an example, a married couple is more likely to vote and to be involved in community, religious and civic associations. However, the most functional effect of marriage is economy as it is able to provide more under the institution of marriage. In their own future dating and marriage relationships, children benefit from the models set by their married parents. Children whose parents stayed married have more fulfilling dating relationships, more optimistic attitude toward future marriage and a greater success in forming lasting marriages. Young men raised in a two-parent household also have more positive attitudes toward women, children and family life than men who were raised by a single parent (Fischer, p. 216).
One of the most negative aspect of marriage is the existence of conflict. It could be the result of adultery, economic or behavioral. It should be mentioned that the chief reason behind spouse problem is mistrust. This mistrust arises from the parameters of low knowledge about the feeling of the other. If it was possible to intermingle mentally, it is certain the aspect of conflict would be completely abolished. This is a favorable undertaking to play down the possible spouse tension among the couple. It is almost like a plan to implement conflict management techniques where conflict tends to disappear as soon as an individual understands the position of the other and starts respecting the position. This is the teaching of conflict management in the business communities and is well applicable in the greater of family life too (James, pp. 154-5).
In conclusion, sadly, much of humans preoccupations with love, romance, marriage, and sexuality end with bitterness and disappointment. However, perhaps it is proper to end this paper on a positive note. While disappointments are inevitable, amorous feelings are among the most supremely pleasurable experiences. Happy relationships provide human beings, both male and female, with hope, exhilaration, intellectual stimulation, exciting, satisfying sex, and vital emotional support. Above all, the human preoccupations with sex and companionship are normal and natural, marriage after all discontents, and problems remains as a favorable institution in the modern world. From a personal note it can be stated that marriage has been proved to be a bliss and beneficial (Lamb, p. 227).
Works cited
Fischer, J. & Corcoran, K; Measures for clinical practice (2nd ed.); New York: The Free Press (1994)
