Institute for Marriage and Public Policy

Federal Court Tosses Lawsuit that Challenged Federal Defense of Marriage Act

Study Confirms Cohabitation Leads To Higher Chance Of Divorce and Lower Relationship Quality

Living Together: Not Good Preparation for Marriage

Characteristics of Cohabiting Adults

Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation Before Marriage

Unmarried Pregnancy: The Real Crisis

Family Breakdown in Canada Costs $7 Billion Annually: New Research

Same-Sex "Marriage" Suffers Plunge in Popularity: Poll

Why the State Must Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage”: Professor

Cohabitation, Second Marriages, and Children Outside Marriage Linked to Higher Probability of Breakups: Australian Study

New! Study: Marriage Reduces Stress-related Hormone Production...

INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC POLICY
An online source for marriage statistics, marriage law updates, and policy briefs, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to high quality research and public education on ways that law and public policy can strengthen marriage as a social institution.

Working with top scholars, public officials, and community leaders, iMAPP brings the latest research to bear on important policy questions, seeking to promote thoughtful, informed discussion of marriage and family policy at all levels of American government, academia, and civil society.

A sample item, a study on trends on cohabiting and marriage in the Netherlands, can be found here: http://www.marriagedebate.com/up.php. Cultural trends in the United States parallel those in Dutch society of a generation ago.
(Source: http://www.marriagedebate.com/about.php)
[Abstinence Clearinghouse, posted 25Aug09]

Federal Court Tosses Lawsuit that Challenged Federal Defense of Marriage Act
A federal court Monday threw out a lawsuit filed against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision to dismiss the case comes just over a month since the same court threw out a portion of the lawsuit that challenged California's constitutional amendment protecting marriage. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys represent ProtectMarriage.com in the suit.

In December 2008, two men filed the lawsuit Smelt v. United States of America, claiming that the California marriage amendment, which voters decisively passed as Proposition 8 in last November's election, violates the U.S. Constitution.  They also challenged the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The two men had obtained a "marriage" license in California during the short window of time in which such licenses were allowed to be issued to members of the same sex.

On July 16, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, threw out the portion of the lawsuit filed against the California marriage amendment. The court dismissed the rest of the suit Monday, saying that the case had been improperly filed in state court prior to being moved to federal court and that, therefore, the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the case.

"Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. Americans understand and believe that there's more to a marriage than that. Therefore we are pleased that this challenge to the federal law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been dismissed," said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. "If another lawsuit is filed against the federal DOMA, we are confident that it will be found to be constitutional."

ADF-allied attorneys Andrew Pugno of Folsom and Sam Kim of Buena Park also represent ProtectMarriage.com in the case.  Pugno and ADF attorneys continue to defend marriage in a separate lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
[SANTA ANA, CA, August 25, 2009, www.LifeSiteNews.com]

Study Confirms Cohabitation Leads To Higher Chance Of Divorce and Lower Relationship Quality
A new study [see below] published in the Journal of Family Psychology shows that couples who live together before getting engaged and/or married are more likely to get divorced than those who don't move in together until engagement or marriage, and that couples who live together before engagement report lower satisfaction in their marriages.

Using a random telephone survey of 1,050 men and women married within the past 10 years, the current study replicated previous findings regarding the timing of engagement and the "premarital cohabitation effect" which generally indicated a higher subsequent divorce rate. Those who cohabited before engagement (43.1%) reported lower marital satisfaction, dedication, and confidence as well as more negative communication and greater potential for divorce than those who cohabited only after engagement (16.4%) or not at all until marriage (40.5%).

The study was conducted at the University of Denver and led by Galena Rhoades, senior researcher for the Center for Marital and Family Studies in the Psychology Department, Scott M. Stanley, research professor, and Howard Markman, professor of psychology.

"We think that some couples who move in together without a clear commitment to marriage may wind up sliding into marriage partly because they are already cohabiting," Dr. Rhoades said.

"It seems wise to talk about commitment and what living together might mean for the future of the relationship before moving in together, especially because cohabiting likely makes it harder to break up compared to dating," said researcher Scott Stanley.

To measure the potential of a couple to divorce, study participants were asked, "Have you or your spouse ever seriously suggested the idea of divorce?"

About 19 percent of those who cohabited before getting engaged had suggested divorce compared with 12 percent of those who moved in together after getting engaged. Only 10 percent of participants who did not cohabit prior to marriage said they had ever suggested divorce.

In a related study led by Rhoades and published in the February issue of the Journal of Family Issues, the researchers studied the reasons why couples chose to live together.

Citing statistics that reveal almost 70 percent of US couples are cohabiting before marrying, the research team found that more than 60 percent gave spending more time together as the reason for cohabiting, with 19 percent saying "it made most sense financially," and 14 percent saying they were testing the relationship.

Couples who listed "testing" as the primary cohabitation reason were more likely than others to score high on measures of negative communication, such as, "My partner criticizes or belittles my opinions, feelings, or desires."

"Cohabiting to test a relationship turns out to be associated with the most problems in relationships," Rhoades said. "Perhaps if a person is feeling a need to test the relationship, he or she already knows some important information about how a relationship may go over time."


Related LSN articles on the problems associated with cohabitation:

Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100902.html

Reality Says Cohabitation a Disaster for Marriage but Poll Shows Public Believes Otherwise
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08080106.html

Cohabitation Ends in Separation 90% of the Time
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06072106.html

Living Together Before Marriage Has Disastrous Results Study Finds
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/oct/05100305.html

The Pre-Engagement Cohabitation Effect: A Replication and Extension of Previous Findings
Purchase the full-text article

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Galena K. Rhoadesa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Scott M. Stanleya and Howard J. Markmana

aDepartment of Psychology, University of Denver

Received 20 March 2008;
revised 28 August 2008;
accepted 2 September 2008.
Available online 28 February 2009.

Using a random telephone survey of men and women married within the past 10 years (N = 1,050), the current study replicated previous findings regarding the timing of engagement and the premarital cohabitation effect (see Kline et al., 2004). Those who cohabited before engagement (43.1%) reported lower marital satisfaction, dedication, and confidence as well as more negative communication and greater potential for divorce than those who cohabited only after engagement (16.4%) or not at all until marriage (40.5%). These differences were generally small, but could not be accounted for by length of marriage or by variables often associated with selection into cohabitation (i.e., age, income, education, and religiousness). Similar results were found in a subsample of individuals who cohabited only with the current spouse. There were no significant differences between those who cohabited after engagement and not at all before marriage, supporting a pre-engagement, but not a premarital cohabitation effect.

Author Keywords: cohabitation; commitment; couples; engagement; marriage

Support for this research was provided by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, awarded to the second and third authors (R01 HD047564–01A2).
Corresponding Author Contact InformationUniversity of Denver, Department of Psychology, 2155 South Race Street, Denver, CO 80208.  
[http://www.science-direct.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WYG-4VR6NB9-D&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2009&_rdoc=12&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%237186%232009%23999769998%23947088%23FLP%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=7186&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=13&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dac86f6e3a0bdeec11d0c533ffb8f71 ]

[15July2009, T. M. Baklinski, Washington, www.LifeSiteNews.com]

LIVING TOGETHER NOT GOOD PREP FOR MARRIAGE

A recent study out of the University of Denver confirms prior data showing
cohabitation to be more of a trial divorce than a trial marriage.

Live-ins often find themselves “sliding into” marriage, according to lead researcher Galena Rhoades: "We think there might be a subset of people who live together before they got engaged who might have decided to get married really based on other things in their relationship," Rhoades said, "because they were already living together and less because they really wanted and had decided they wanted a future together."(22 July 2009, abstinence.net,
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090714-cohabit-couples.html)

CHARACTERISTICS OF COHABITING ADULTS

Bookmark this report from the North Carolina Family Policy Council for more on the above study and other ongoing research.

Surveys show that a happy marriage is still most adults’ dream, but they are unaware that living together first is not the best way to reach that goal.

Characteristics of Cohabiting Adults Studied

Cohabitation is becoming more common among young adults in their early twenties, and two recent studies shed light on the attitudes and characteristics of men and women who live together outside of marriage.

The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that between four and five percent of U.S. households are cohabiting households, 60-70 percent of couples live together before marriage, and 39 percent of cohabiting households contain children.

A July 2009 report by researchers at Child Trends notes that despite the increase in cohabitation, young adults continue to express high expectations about marriage.

According to the Child Trends report, 75 percent of young adults say that “love, fidelity and making lifelong commitment” is very important to a successful relationship.

However, over half of young adults (57 percent) said that it is “OK for unmarried couples to live together even if marriage is not being considered.”

While the majority of young unmarried adults said that they do not want to be married right now, 83 percent said they would like to be married someday. The desire for marriage was also strong among the majority of adults who believe that cohabitation is acceptable, with 83 percent saying that it was either important or very important to them personally to be married someday.

“Cohabitation may actually serve as an alternative to marriage, but only temporarily, because most cohabiting young adults felt that it was important or very important to be married someday,” according to the authors of the Child Trends brief.

While many young adults may view cohabitation an acceptable step toward a successful marriage, most research shows that the opposite is true.

According to Professor Scott M. Stanley and Galena Rhoads of the University of Denver’s Center for Marital and Family Studies, “The ‘facts’ about cohabitation just do not line up well with the beliefs most people, especially young people, hold.”

In a recent article for the National Council for Family Relations, they write that “Virtually every published study that has examined premarital cohabitation finds it to be associated with greater, rather than lower, risk for problems in marriage.”

According to Stanley and Rhoads, cohabiting before marriage is associated with something called the “cohabitation effect,” which includes:   

    * More negative commitment in marriage   

    * Lower levels of marital satisfaction   

    * Erosion over time of the value and view of marriage and childrearing   

    * Greater likelihood of divorce.

Stanley and Rhoads, along with Howard Markman, are involved in a new (and ongoing) study of unmarried adults, which is funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

...When the researchers compared daters who plan to marry with cohabiting individuals who plan to marry, they found that cohabiting adults tend to be: less educated, older, more likely to already have children, more likely to have divorced parents, and to have experienced conflict in their families as children...

Alysse ElHage, associate director of research for the North Carolina Family Policy Council: “...it is important that they know the truth about cohabitation,
especially that it significantly raises their risk of marital conflict and divorce, once they do get married.”

[22 July 2009, www.abstinence.net: 16July09 Special Report, http://ncfamily.org/stories/090716s1.html)

MARRIAGE : SHOULD WE LIVE TOGETHER?: WHAT YOUNG ADULTS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT COHABITATION BEFORE MARRIAGE
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf

This comprehensive review of recent research on marriage and cohabitation by David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead of the National Marriage Project systemically refutes the myth that living together is a positive, or at least harmless, step preceding actual marriage.

As the authors point out, although it is becoming more and more common, “a careful review of the available social science evidence suggests that living together is not a good way to prepare for marriage or to avoid divorce. What’s more, it shows that the rise in cohabitation is not a positive family trend.

Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of marriage and pose special risks for women and children. Specifically, the research indicates that:

o Living together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after marriage.
o Living together outside of marriage increases the risk of domestic violence for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children.
o Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and wellbeing than married couples.” 
(Source: http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf; 3June09, www.abstinence.net

UNMARRIED PREGNANCY: THE REAL PREGNANCY CRISIS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294779002345281.html#printMode
W. Bradford Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, maintains that one of the primary reasons for the rising rate of births to unmarried girls and women is the changing attitude toward marriage in the US. If he is right, abstinence programs which emphasize setting and reaching life goals within this contemporary context are on to something.

Wilcox: “As sociologist Andrew Cherlin has noted, marriage used to be the "foundation" for adulthood, sex, intimacy and childbearing. Now, marriage is viewed by many Americans as a "capstone" that signals that a couple has arrived -- financially, professionally and emotionally. This also helps to explain why college-educated mothers are bucking the trend toward having children out of wedlock.”
(Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294779002345281.html#printMode; 3June09, www.abstinence.net]

Family Breakdown in Canada Costs $7 Billion Annually: New Research
 The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada released new research yesterday on the cost of family breakdown in Canada at a briefing on Parliament Hill. “Private choices, public costs: How failing families cost us all” examines the relationship between poverty, families and government.

The authors, Rebecca Walberg and Andrea Mrozek, quantify government spending directed at poverty alleviation for broken families through welfare, child care costs and housing. They find that cost to be close to $7 billion annually. If family breakdown decreased by half, a conservative estimate of savings is close to $2 billion annually.

The report can be read in full: http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Cost%20of%20Family%20Breakdown%20finalHR.pdf

The in-depth, quantitative assessment examines the links between broken homes and poverty alleviation measures. Consistently, not only in Canada but in all OECD nations — lone parent households are more likely to live in poverty. “Certainly the main concern around family breakdown is the emotional toll,” say the authors. “But the fiscal costs are evident, and those can be more readily measured.”

The report highlights the costs province by province, discussing why and how stable marriages contribute to a stronger economy. “If we are serious about reducing poverty,” say the authors, “especially children and women in poverty, we must address the effects of family breakdown.”

“This calls all of us to reconsider the value currently placed on family today, without pointing fingers. We may believe that family structure doesn’t matter; but the data show the best thing you can do for your kids is raise them in a stable, married-parent home.”

Some of the data in the report highlight the higher proportion of lone-parent families living below the Low Income Cut-off (LICO) and the higher proportion of lone-parent families with children on welfare. The data is troubling, say the authors, given that Canadian statistics show the percentage of married parents is falling, while the percent of lone parents and those living common law is rising. In 1961, 92 percent of families were married; 2006 census data indicates that has fallen to 69 percent.

International research, particularly from the United Kingdom, points to family breakdown as one of the pathways to poverty.

Walberg and Mrozek say that they undertook the study in the belief that providing Canadians with the facts about single parenthood, divorce, growing up without two parents, and the emotional and financial hardships that accompany family breakdown in general will help them understand the likely consequences of the different choices available to them in their own lives. Long term solutions to limit the consequences of poverty, they suggest, must involve encouraging stable, two-parent homes for children, primarily because this benefits the children but also because marriage acts as a public good.
[4June09, www.lifesitenews.com]

Same-Sex "Marriage" Suffers Plunge in Popularity: Poll. The results of a poll revealed this week show a significant drop in support for same-sex "marriage" since April of this year.

Only 33% of respondents to the CBS News/New York Times poll said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, down 9% from April's findings, which was an all-time high at 42%. 30% in the June survey said that homosexual couples should be allowed civil unions, while 32% said homosexual couples should be given no legal recognition.

The new data brings the numbers back on a level with March's poll, where one out of three supported same-sex "marriage."

Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family Action, conjectured that the plummeting support may represent a backlash from Americans troubled by a sudden rash of states legalizing same-sex "marriage" through the judiciary or the legislature, rather than a voter referendum.

Since April, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Iowa joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in recognizing same-sex "marriage." The circumstances of Iowa's decision was particularly controversial, as it resulted from an activist court ruling instigated by homosexual activists, who openly admitted that the decision was the fruit of years of researching sympathetic state Supreme Courts. (see coverage)

True marriage supporters also fear that instability in New York's legislature may lead to a hastened vote on that state's proposed same-sex "marriage" legislation.

Scheenburger also suggested that the poll results could indicate Americans are turning to alternative media to learn about same-sex "marriage."

"In reporting the results of its own poll, CBS used the word 'dip' to describe the 9 percent plunge in support for gay marriage," Schneeberger said. "In elections, it's considered a landslide when a candidate wins by 10 points. So to describe this as a 'dip' pretty clearly illustrates where CBS, at least, stands on this issue."
[19June09, Kathleen Gilbert, New York, www.LifeSiteNews.com]

Why the State Must Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage”: Professor
“Why is there an institution called ‘marriage’ at all in a secular society?”

That is the question that David Novak, a Professor of the Study of Religion and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, poses in an article published online through the Witherspoon Institute. Novak states that unless civil society understands why same-sex “marriage” is not true marriage, it risks losing marriage as an institution altogether.

Novak proceeds to explain that unlike public schools, which are “political” institutions created by the state, marriage is actually a “pre-political” institution, which the state has inherited, that has reasons of its own which first need to be explored, rather than redefined.

“The most the state can honestly do to an institution that predates its founding” writes Novak, “is to refine and reformulate the original reasons why this institution has deserved and still deserves social recognition and support.”

Rather than argue from the authority of tradition, Novak proceeds to explain that the tradition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman “has good reasons for being limited to heterosexual couples” to the exclusion of other sexual arrangements.

Novak proceeds to point out that traditional marriage can be seen through two key aspects: the “expressive aspect” and the “procreative aspect.” The first aspect involves what philosopher Martha Nussbaum says includes “sexual relations,” “friendship and companionship,” “love,” “conversation,” and “mutual responsibility.” The second aspect includes “procreation and child-rearing.”

The procreative aspect of marriage—starting and maintaining a family—is something publicly significant and certifiable. As such, it is and should be governed by the laws of the state,” writes Novak.

“But the expressive aspects are the private reasons for marriage, which should not be governed by the laws of the state, however necessary they might be for the private happiness that makes getting married and staying married personally desirable,” Novak continues.

Novak says that the state has a legitimate concern “with marriage’s public effects, not its private affects,” because without children and their proper raising by their parents, the state cannot survive or retain its national character. , not its private ” because without children and their proper raising by their parents, the state cannot survive or retain its national character.

However Novak then proceeds to raise and address one of the common objections to limiting marriage to heterosexuals: would not procreation as marriage’s “sole public reason” then exclude infertile heterosexual couples too? Novak responds with the old legal adage, “de minimis non curat lex” which he says loosely translates, “The law is only made for what usually obtains.”

“The fact is, the overwhelming number of people who marry are fertile and are of an age to be fertile. And how could we reasonably establish a criterion to determine who is fertile and who isn’t?” said Novak, pointing out again that the law must strive for the common good, but its validity does not depend on every individual achieving his or her private good.

Other objections he raises: what about homosexual couples fulfilling the public reason of procreation through surrogacy, artificial insemination, and homosexual adoption?

Novak points out that these desires by homosexual couples cannot trump the natural rights and “socially justified desires” of children to their own “mother and father, parenting in tandem as a married couple.” The first two, Novak says, effect from the beginning a “conspiracy” to violate “a child’s natural right to have both natural parents raise him or her.” The third, however, does not suffice, because a heterosexual union “better simulates the duty of the natural parents to this child, a duty they would not or could not exercise.”

“This, by the way, is not arguing empirically that opposite sex couples are necessarily better at raising children than same-sex couples,” Novak adds. “My arguments are based on the concepts of rights, not on the concept of utility.”

The rest of the article can be read here in its entirety at the Witherspoon Insitute’s online publication: Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Good.
[19June09, Peter J. Smith, Princeton, New Jersey, www.LifeSiteNews.com]

Polish Zoophilia Cartoon Spoofing Homosexual “Marriage” as First Step to Extraspecies “Marriage” Lambasted by Pro-Homosexual Groups
Satirists wade into the fray with tongue-in-cheek letters to the editor

The Polish newspaper "Rzeczpospolita", a major conservative Polish daily, has caused a commotion among homosexualist groups in the country by running a cartoon on its online version, Fronda.pl. The cartoon shows two men getting “married” in the background, while in the foreground a man tells a goat, “We'll just wait until these two gentlemen get married and then it's our turn.” (see the cartoon here)

“We were used to the homophobia of your paper, but this time the border of rudeness has been crossed,” said Homiki.pl, a homosexualist website in a letter to the editor of Fronda.pl. “We demand an apology on the pages of your paper. We have our dignity and we also deserve respect.”

The letter also threatens Fronda.pl with lawsuits, saying, “Let us remind you that in 2006, at a court in Poznañ, four lesbians forced city council members to apologize for comparing homosexuality to zoophilia.”

The cartoon was drawn by Andrzej Krauze, a Polish cartoonist living in the UK. Upon learning of the threats from the pro-homosexual groups, he laughed, saying, “This only proves that the cartoon message was correct and that I was able to represent the whole absurdity of so-called civil unions.”

He also pointed out that many countries have registered associations of zoophiles and pedophiles that wish to have their perversions legalized. “I am sure that in coming years, some of these groups, especially animal lovers will achieve their goals,” Krauze said.

The reference may be to a registered Dutch political party called PNVD, a Dutch acronym that translates into "brotherly love, freedom and diversity,” whose party planks consist of working towards the legalization and acceptance of pedophilia, pornography, bestiality and easy availability of soft/hard drugs.

The party also lobbies for private possession of child pornography, the right of children to smoke, drink and vote at the age of 12, to use "soft" drugs like marijuana at 12 and "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin at 16. (see: A Look Into the Future?: Dutch Party Pushes Pedophilia, Pornography, Bestiality, Soft/Hard Drugs)

LifeSiteNews.com has also reported in the past on the encroachment of the approval of bestiality into the mainstream, and the rise of bestiality in jurisdictions that have embraced homosexual "marriage." Bestiality has in recent years been explicitly endorsed by well-known Princeton "bioethicist" Peter Singer and by PETA. (See below for links to coverage)

Krauze says he does not fear any legal repercussions because of his cartoon: “I live and work in the UK. Here, satirical cartoons, with the exception of those pertaining to Muslims, are treated like satire, not a battlefield,” said the artist.

Other Polish journalists have reacted to the tizzy created by the cartoon, writing satirical essays and poking fun at the homosexualists who are threatening legal action against the newspaper.

Well-known opinion journalist Maciej Ryñski published a mock letter to the editor in today's Rzeczpospolita, impersonating a female goat who is offended by the cartoon, because it suggests that human-goat sexual relationships are homosexual in nature.

Ryñski writes:

"Dear Editor in Chief

"It was with outrage that I myself and our whole community saw the cartoon by Andrzej Krauze published in RZECZPOSPOLITA. To suggest that shegoats in stable relations with men should have any homosexual tendencies is a scandal, an offence and slander. Putting an equation sign between gays and goats is a testimony to the author's ignorance and bad will.

"Leading sexologists have long ago established that relations between female goats and men -inter-species sexual relations - are heterosexual in nature. Such relations have a long historical tradition and are mentioned in the oldest written sources, including the Bible. To ridicule them is barbaric obscuration and backwardness.

"Also in our community, sex between male goats and men is treated as an abuse of the norm, at least a promiscuous perversion. That's why we think that mixed human-goat marriages, as opposite-sex institutions, are in accordance with nature. To consider them equal or even worse to homosexual marriages is irresponsible and reprehensible.

"Your paper has discredited itself by publishing this image hostile to goats. I regret to inform you that the Association of Liberated Goats has made a decision to eat up the whole circulation of the incriminated issue of RZECZPOSPOLITA, at the same time reserving the right to pursue legal action. We also have the support of sheep on this issue.

"Regretfully and without respect to you, shegoat Meæka from Po³onina"

Related:
First Comes Gay Marriage then Comes Bestiality in Massachusetts
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html

Bestiality on the Rise in Sexually Libertine Sweden
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05050406.html

RENOWNED ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP BACKS BESTIALITY PROPOSAL
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/mar/01032904.html

CHRISTIANITY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST ANIMALS: PETER SINGER
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/jul/02070212.html
[19June09, Alex Bush and Thaddeus M. Baklinski, Poland, www.LifeSiteNews.com]

   

Cohabitation and Children Outside Marriage Linked to Higher Probability of Breakups: Australian Study

Second marriages are more than 90% more likely to break up than first marriages, according to a new study by Australian researchers. The researchers also found that cohabiting, having children before marrying, and an imbalance between partners in the desire for children are all correlated with marital breakup.

“The overwhelming bulk of research on cohabitation and marital instability finds that cohabitation before marriage is linked to a greater probability that the marriage will fail,” said the researchers.

The study, titled “What’s Love Got to do With It?” by researchers from the Australian National University, found that 20% of couples who had children before marriage, either from a previous relationship or the same relationship, were separated compared to just 9% of couples without children born before marriage.

With data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA), the study tracked the history of 2,482 married or cohabiting couples over a period of six years to determine what factors might have contributed to marital “instability.”

A family history of divorce was also found to be a significant influence in the success of failure of marriage. Sixteen percent of men and women whose parents were separated or divorced suffered marital separation, compared to 10% for those whose parents did not separate.

Despite research in the UK showing marriages with more children being more likely to break up, the number or age of children born within the marriage were found not to be a factor in marital breakups in the Australian study.

Other factors listed as contributing to divorce or breakup were “dissatisfaction with the relationship, low household income, husband is unemployed, wife drinks more than her husband, and one spouse smokes where the other does not.”

New Study: Marriage Reduces Stress-related Hormone Production
The evidence for the health benefits of marriage has received a new boost by a study which showed that levels of the stress hormone cortisol were lower in married individuals than in single and unpaired individuals.

"These results suggest that single and unpaired individuals are more responsive to psychological stress than married individuals, a finding consistent with a growing body of evidence showing that marriage and social support can buffer against stress," said Dario Maestripieri, Professor in Comparative Human Development at the University of Chicago and lead author of the study, published in the current issue of the journal Stress.

The team of researchers studied 500 masters' degree students, with an average age of 27, at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. About 40 percent of the 348 men and 53 percent of the 153 women were married or in long-term relationships.

The students were asked to take a set of computerized economic decision-making tests, and were told that the tests were a course requirement and would impact their future career placement, in order to increase the potential for stress response.

The researchers found cortisol concentrations increased in all participants, but females experienced a higher average increase than males.

However, the married students experienced a smaller increase in the stress hormone that single students.

"We found that unpaired individuals of both sexes had higher cortisol levels than married individuals," Maestripieri said.

The researchers also noted that "single males without a stable romantic partner had higher testosterone levels than males with stable partners, and both males and females without a partner showed a greater cortisol response to the test than married individuals with or without children."

"Although marriage can be pretty stressful, it should make it easier for people to handle other stressors in their lives," Maestripieri wrote in the study report, titled "Between- and Within-sex Variations in Hormonal Responses to Psychological Stress in a Large Sample of College Students."

"What we found is that marriage has a dampening effect on cortisol responses to psychological stress, and that is very new," Maestripieri concluded.

 A summary of this study with links to the full text -- http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10253891003681137

Related articles:  Marriage Benefits Health: For Men Staying Single 'Worse Than Smoking'
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/aug/02081507.html

Happily Married Men and Women Have Lower Blood Pressure, Other Health Benefits
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032504.html

Study Finds Normal Sexual Relations Have Health Benefit but Not Gay or Other Sex
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jan/06012607.html

New Study Finds Thinking about God Reduces Anxiety For Believers
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080904.html

[Between- and within-sex variation in hormonal responses to psychological stress in a large sample of college students, Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress, September 2010, Vol. 13, No. 5 , Pages 413-424 (doi:10.3109/10253891003681137) ; 23 August 2010,  T.M. Baklinski, Chicago, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10082301.html ]