The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially

by Linda J. Waite, Maggie Gallagher

A groundbreaking look at the most basic and universal of all human institutions, this authoritative and provocative book reveals the benefits -- emotional, physical, economic, and sexual -- that marriage brings to individuals and society as a whole. Everyone knows that we are experiencing an epidemic of divorce; rates of single-parenthood and unmarried cohabitation…  See more details below


A groundbreaking look at the most basic and universal of all human institutions, this authoritative and provocative book reveals the benefits -- emotional, physical, economic, and sexual -- that marriage brings to individuals and society as a whole. Everyone knows that we are experiencing an epidemic of divorce; rates of single-parenthood and unmarried cohabitation are skyrocketing while marriage rates continue to decline. Yet 93% of Americans still say they hope to form a lasting and happy union with one person, though fewer now believe that this is possible.

Numerous books have been written about the impact of divorce on men, women, children, and society at large. But no one has yet studied the long-term benefits of being and staying married. The Case for Marriage is a critically important intervention in the national debate about the future of the family. Based on the authoritative research of family sociologist Linda Waite and other scholars, the book's findings dramatically contradict the anti-marriage myths that have become the common sense of most Americans.

Today a broad consensus holds that marriage is a bad deal for women, that divorce is better for children when parents are unhappy, and that marriage is essentially a private choice, not a public institution. Waite and Gallagher flatly contradict these assumptions, arguing instead that by a broad range of indices, being married is actually better for you physically, materially, and spiritually than being single or divorced. Married people live longer, have better health, earn more money and accumulate more wealth, feel more fulfilled in their lives, enjoy more satisfying sexual relationships, and have happier and more successful children than those who remain single, cohabit, or get divorced. Statistics show, for example, that violence is less prevalent in married households and that divorce reduces male life expectancy on the order of a pack-a-day cigarette habit.

While their book is not primarily a work of moral exhortation, the authors argue that in order for marriage to do its beneficial work it must be treated as a socially preferred option, not merely one choice among others that are equally valid. Combining clearheaded analysis, penetrating cultural criticism, and practical advice for strengthening the institution of marriage, the authors provide clear, essential guidelines for reestablishing marriage as the foundation for a healthy and happy society.

Read More

Editorial Reviews

Library Journal
Both of these books are trumpeting the same messages: Marriage is imperiled! We cannot let marriage die! Marriage is an unmitigated good! Both also agree that unreasonable expectations are a major cause of divorce. People believe that if they're in love, they will be happy. And if they're not happy, there must be something wrong with their marriages. Therefore, they will quickly jettison the relationship to gain self-fulfillment--the concept that has all three authors in an uproar. Marriage, they say, is not about individuals; it's about a partnership. Americans must change their value systems so that they can work for the good of the marriage--and therefore society--instead of for the good of an individual. Fowers (psychology, Univ. of Miami) mainly focuses on the idea that people leave marriages because they aren't "emotionally fulfilled." In order for marriages to succeed, he claims, couples must look beyond emotions and focus instead on marriage as a shared ride to a common goal. He lambastes the marriage-counseling community for stressing communication as a panacea and insists that without common goals and Aristotelian virtues, communication will not save a marriage. He gives concrete examples from couples with whom he's worked in his counseling and research career as well as from his own life. Waite (sociology, Univ. of Chicago) and Gallagher (analyst, Inst. for American Values) probably wouldn't argue with any of Fowers's points. Instead of focusing on specific marriages, however, they have done number-crunching and an extensive search of the literature to prove that lasting marriages benefit the participants in myriad ways: married partners have better health, financial resources, sex, and careers. They attempt to combat longstanding opinions that marriage is good for him and bad for her, that cohabitation is an acceptable lifestyle, and that divorce is better than a bad marriage. They suggest several ways of getting people to opt for lasting marriages. Either of these works would be acceptable for public libraries, although some people may be put off by the moralizing tones of both and by Waite and Gallagher's almost complete dismissal of homosexuals. The Waite and Gallagher book could be useful in academic sociology collections because of its wealth of statistics.--Pam Matthews, Gettysburg Coll., PA Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
Waving the banner of science, sociologists Waite (Sociology/Univ. of Chicago) and Gallagher (Enemies of Eros, not reviewed) champion "the most basic and universal of human institutions."

Read More

Product Details

Doubleday Publishing
Publication date:
Edition description:
1 ED
Product dimensions:
6.47(w) x 9.51(h) x 0.94(d)

Read an Excerpt

The Marriage Wars: Five Myths of the Postmarriage Culture

In America over the last thirty years, we've done something unprecedented. We have managed to transform marriage, the most basic and universal of human institutions, into something controversial.

For perhaps the first time in human history, marriage as an ideal is under a sustained and surprisingly successful attack. Sometimes the attack is direct and ideological, made by "experts" who believe a lifelong vow of fidelity is unrealistic or oppressive, especially to women.

"Even in the early 1960s," sum up social historians Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg, "marriage and family ties were regarded by the 'human potential movement' as potential threats to individual fulfillment as a man or a woman. The highest forms of human needs, contended proponents of the new psychologies, were autonomy, independence, growth, and creativity," which marriage often thwarted. The search for autonomy and independence as the highest human good blossomed with the women's movement into a critique of marriage per se, which the more flamboyant feminists denounced as "slavery," "legalized rape," and worst of all, "tied up with a sense of dependency."

"From this vantage point," Mintz and Kellogg note, "marriage increasingly came to be described as a trap, circumscribing a woman's social and intellectual horizons and lowering her sense of self-esteem."1

Even today scholars warn, as one 1995 college textbook put it, "[M]arriage has an adverse effect on women's mental health."2 Reflecting both these broader trends and this expert consensus, the proportion of high-school-senior girls who agreed that most people will havefuller and happier lives if they choose legal marriage rather than staying single or just living with someone dropped about one-fourth (or ten percentage points) between 1976 and 1992, while the opinion of boys remained unchanged.3 Indeed, a journalist recounts the time she congratulated a twenty-four-year-old woman on her impending nuptials. "She grabbed my hand, held it, and said with emotion, 'Thank you!' As it turns out, I'd been the only woman to offer her congratulations without immediately expressing worry that she'd done the wrong thing." Her friends "simply couldn't fathom why she'd tossed away her freedom."4

But for the most part, the war on marriage is not a frontal assault from outside enemies but a sideways tug-of-war inside each of us between competing values: between rights and needs, between individualism and community, between fear and hope, between freedom and love. On the one hand, we cherish marriage as the repository of our deepest hopes and wishes to forge stable families, to find lasting love. On the other hand, we fear being "tied down" or "trapped" and jealously guard our right to redefine ourselves and our lives, with or without our partners' consent.

Mel Harris (the actress who played Hope on thirtysomething), a twice-divorced mother who understands "the logistical problems that can only arise when dealing with three kids and six sets of parents," captures something of the ambivalence toward marriage all Americans share in varying degrees: "The other day [my son] Byron asked me if I was ever going to marry again, and I told him the truth: I don't know. . . . Some people might think I perceive marriage in a flippant way because I have been divorced twice. I'm not proud of the divorces. I feel marriage is a serious, sacred thing."5

Despite the startling rise in divorce, cohabitation, and unwed parenthood, marriage remains a core value and aspiration of many Americans. One might imagine that, as Professor Norval Glenn puts it, "Americans are marrying less and succeeding less often at marriage because alternatives have become more attractive, relative to marriage, than they once were." But, Glenn continues, survey data on attitudes toward marriage provide "scant evidence for it."

We aren't as certain anymore about whether marriage is good for other people, but when it comes to their own life goals, Americans put marriage at the top of the list. Ninety-three percent of Americans rate "having a happy marriage" as either one of the most important, or very important objectives. Asked to select their top two goals, a majority of Americans included a happy marriage as one of the choices, far outpacing such other life goals as "being in good health" (35 percent) or even having "a good family life" (36 percent). In 1992 the number-one aspiration of high-school seniors was "having a good marriage and family life," and the proportion of seniors calling that goal "extremely important" has actually risen over the last two decades.6 Only 8 percent of American women consider remaining single an ideal, a proportion that has not changed over the last generation.7

The paradox, as Glenn writes, is that "marriage remains very important to adult Americans—probably as important as it has ever been—while the proportion of Americans married has declined and the proportion successfully married has declined even more."8

Americans are still the marrying kind. But our ideas about what marriage means have changed in subtle ways that undermine our ability—as individuals or as a society—to achieve the goals of wedlock, creating a lasting love between a man and a woman, and a firm bond of mutual support between a mother and a father.

When it comes to marriage, Americans have both high hopes and debilitating fears. As two scholars put it after an exhaustive study of the attitudes of today's college students, "They are desperate to have only one marriage, and they want it to be happy. They don't know whether this is possible anymore."9

But the dreams and hopes of young Americans to forge more perfect unions are hampered by five myths that, despite the recent revival of interest in marriage, remain powerfully, if thoughtlessly entrenched in the conventional wisdom. For although marriage as an ideal still holds a firm fascination in Americans' minds, we believe that it is fair to describe America as a society on the verge of becoming a postmarriage culture. A postmarriage culture is not one in which nobody ever makes it to the altar. Rather, it is a culture in which marriage is viewed as unnecessary, or, strictly speaking, optional—a private taste rather than a matter of urgent shared concern.


Chapter 1: The Marriage Wars

01. Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg, Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life (New York: The Free Press, 1988), 206-207. (All three previous quotes come from this source.)

02. Randall Collins and Scott Coltrane, Sociology of Marriage and the Family: Gender, Love and Property, 4th ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1995) 372.

03. Norval Glenn, David Popenpoe, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and David Blankenhorn eds. "Values, Attitudes, and the State of American Marriage," in Promises to Keep: Decline and Renewal of Marriage in America, (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996), 28.

04. Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), 60.

05. Alan W. Petrucelli, "Mel Harris: We Are Not the Waltons," Working Mother, December 1996, 21.

06. Glenn, "Values, Attitudes," 20-21.

07. Dennis K. Orthner, David Blankenhorn, Steven Bayme, and Jean Bethke Elshtain eds. "The Family in Transition" in Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family (Milwaukee: Family Service America, 1990), 95.

08. Glenn, "Values, Attitudes," 15.

09. Arthur Levine and Jeanette S. Cureton, When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today's College Student (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 95.

Read More

Meet the Author

Linda J. Waite is a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and the author of New Families, No Families. She lives in Glencoe, Illinois.

Maggie Gallagher is Director of the Marriage Program at the Institute of American Values, a nationally syndicated columnist, and the author of Enemies of Eros. She lives in New York City.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >