New version page

file35343

Upgrade to remove ads

This preview shows page 1-2-3-23-24-25-26-46-47-48 out of 48 pages.

Save
View Full Document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 48 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

Working Paper Series 02-06Laura SanchezJulia L. WilsonHusband’s IncomeCovenantStandardWife’s IncomeIncome Recoded to Mid-Point ValuesFinancial Costs of ChildrenWorries of ChildrearingPrestige in ChildrearingDuty to Bear ChildrenCentrality of Marriage in LifeGender AttitudesTable 8: Seemingly Unrelated Regressions of Social Attitudes, Net Effects of Covenant MarriageGender Attitudeshttp://www.bgsu.edu/organizations/cfdr/main.html Phone: (419) 372-7279 [email protected] Bowling Green State University Working Paper Series 02-06 Laura Sanchez Steven L. Nock Julia L. Wilson James D. WrightWord count: 9211 Is Covenant Marriage a Policy that Preaches to the Choir? A Comparison of Covenant and Standard Married Newlywed Couples in Louisiana Laura Sanchez Department of Sociology & Center for Family and Demographic Research Bowling Green State University Steven L. Nock Department of Sociology University of Virginia Julia L. Wilson Department of Sociology University of Virginia James D. Wright Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of Central Florida Address correspondence to Laura Sanchez, 226 Williams Hall, Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 43403. Phone: 419-354-7951. Email: [email protected] This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant #9819156.Is Covenant Marriage a Policy that Preaches to the Choir? A Comparison of Covenant and Standard Married Newlywed Couples in Louisiana Recently, concern about relatively high non-marriage and divorce rates encouraged policymakers to focus marriage and welfare law reforms on marriage promotion initiatives. The creation of the 1997 covenant marriage law in Louisiana grows out of this context and is an historically unprecedented innovation. The provisions of covenant marriage make entering and exiting marriage marginally more difficult, and are a firm step toward a return to fault-based divorce. The law provides a social experiment by creating a two-tier marriage regime. Never before have citizens had the option between two sets of laws to govern their marriages. In this study, we use demographic and social-psychological data from the first wave of a panel study of 538 newlywed couples who married in Louisiana in 1999-2000, shortly after the implementation of covenant marriage. We compare covenant and standard marriages to examine whether spouses who have characteristics that predispose them to marital stability self-select into covenant marriage. Covenant and standard married couples share similar childhood and economic histories, but differ in most other measured respects. Covenant married couples have less complicated union and parenthood histories, are far more religious and traditional in attitudes, and engage in more premarital counseling and more positive conflict resolution strategies. Most important, they have substantially different attitudes about gender, the centrality of marriage, and the social duty to bear children, net of self-selection characteristics. 1Marriage and divorce rates have changed considerably in the United States over the past several decades (Bumpass 1990; Bennett, Bloom and Craig 1993; McLanahan and Casper 1995; Teachman, Tedrow and Crowder 2000). Estimates indicate that 40 to 50% of all marriages will end in divorce and some suggest that more marriages will end in divorce than in death or widowhood (Watkins, Menken and Bongaarts 1987). Research also indicates that the proportion who never marry may be increasing (Teachman, Tedrow and Crowder 2000). These fundamental changes in marriage formation and dissolution fueled a widespread debate about whether marriage as an institution is failing (Glenn 1996; Furstenberg 1994; Popenoe 1993; Schneider 1996; Whitehead 1997). At one extreme, some scholars perceive a loss of marriage as a bedrock institution and note what they see as a concomitant rise in immorality and value-free lifestyles devoid of respect for enduring bonds (Kass 1997; Mattox 1995). The other extreme often argues that perhaps marriage should be aided in its demise because the legal, social and economic benefits that favor married couples stigmatize and disadvantage non-married people and alternative families (Struening 1999; Rauch 1999; Fineman 1995; Robson 1994). The middle range of this debate contains a wealth of perspectives about whether there are benefits to encouraging marriage (Waite and Gallagher 2000) or not (Okin 1989, Solot and Miller 2002). The more important veins of research address the potential social and psychological costs of divorce to children (Amato 2000, 1996; Amato and Gilbreth 1999; Morrison and Coiro 1999), the economic costs of divorce for women and children (Holden and Smock 1991; Smock 1993; Bianchi, Subaiya and Kahn 1999; Funder and Kinsella 1991; Seltzer and Garfinkel 1990; Kurz 1995; Morgan, Kitson and Kitson 1992; Smock, Manning and Gupta 1999), and the economic and social costs to society and the welfare state, if marriage as an 2institution is so disorganized that it is unable to financially support, emotionally nurture and socialize into citizenship its family members (Furstenberg, Hoffman and Shrestha 1995; Teachman 1994; Seltzer and Bianchi 1988; McLanahan and Booth 1989; Furstenberg and Harris 1992; Rogers and Amato 1997). At the same time, social welfare advocates and policymakers are placing great emphasis on developing public programs and legal reforms intended to encourage marriage formation, strengthen marital unions, and discourage divorce (Bogenschneider 2000; Galston 1996; Popenoe 1999). Thus, the past few years witnessed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), revisions of welfare laws to promote marriage as a route out of poverty (Besharov and Sullivan 1996), and many state and local initiatives to offer marriage communication education as a part of school curricula and marriage license application procedures (Bogenschneider 2000; Hawkins et al, 2002). Among these initiatives, covenant marriage stands out as an historically unprecedented outlier. In August 1997, Louisiana became the first state to pass this legislation and Arizona and Arkansas followed suit soon after. In 1998 alone, more than 17 states considered similar covenant marriage bills (Nichols 1998). In total, 20-30 states either considered or are considering covenant marriage bills (http://www.divorcereform.org/cov.html).


Download file35343
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view file35343 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view file35343 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?