There’s Something About Marriage

Marriage matters.

By
142

Marriage is a fundamental institution, so why is it under attack from both ends of the political spectrum? In his new book, Get Married, Brad Wilcox—a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor at the University of Virginia—makes the case that getting married and starting a family is the best way of leading a prosperous life. But how can law and culture encourage Americans to tie the knot? Why has public interest in marriage declined? And how does marriage make people better off?

Show Notes:

– Brad’s page at AEI

– Brad’s new book, Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization

– Brad: “Marriage Is Key to Living Your Best Life”

– Brad: “Why You Should Get Married”

– The Remnant with Russ Roberts

– Elizabeth Grace Matthew: Can People Be Persuaded to ‘Get Married’? 

By
Comments (142)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Grateful Patriot

    Wow. Wow. More than an hour of discussion on marriage and, just like the old days, gay people aren't considered at all. I get it, gay people don't count. I guess it's an improvement over the period between the 1990s and 2015, when gay people who wanted to get married were vilified as a major threat to marriage. Which in turn, was an improvement on the situation before that, when the very existence of gay people was routinely denounced as an abomination when it was recognized at all.

    Funny how that gay threat to marriage never materialized after 2015.

    All that said, I agree with most of what was said here. However, the link to religion doesn't seem all that necessary. People should just be aware that the long experience of those who were allowed to marry -- the historical track record -- shows that marriage is a natural fit for human beings generally. Most people benefit when they have stable long-term relationships, and children benefit from belonging to stable two-parent families.

    Just don't leave out the gay members of the human family from this discussion. We're out here listening, reading, having lives. You just don't hear from us much for reasons mentioned above.

    Collapse
  2. Hartzlk

    I love listening to conversations like these. I never know whether I am going to find myself in the category of "this is what women tend to do" or "this is what men tend to do". My husband is the stay-at-home dad, and I'm the working mom.

    I have to be the one checking myself on how much time I'm spending at work vs home. I have to make sure I'm contributing enough with the household chores so that things are fair. There is a whole lot that my husband would have to do himself even if I shirked because he's the one on the hook during the week to get the kids what they need.

    I get this sense of dissonance when I explain to someone that I enjoy having a commute because I feel like it's the only quiet time I get to listen to "my stuff". "Oh yes," the well meaning individual will say, "you are a mom, you need that time." Yes, that's true, but my husband needs that too. We do make time for him to have time that he is in control of. But when talking to others, it feels like we have to remind the people around us that my husband also needs extra protections in how we run the house. Role becomes a bigger factor for us than gender in most of these discussions.

    Collapse
  3. Alex Landry

    I agree with a lot of the discussion, but I think Jonah and guests' continued discussion about video games misses the point. Stick to lack of direction, meaning, and healthy masculinity. But don't sit around like old people and blame the video games. It's like blaming a gun for a shooting.

    There's a healthy way to consume video games, like any medium, and there's an unhealthy way. Unhealthy people consume them irresponsibly, but that's not the video games fault for being abused.

    Collapse
    1. Hartzlk

      Yes, but there's also something to be said about prevalence.
      An addiction to knitting may be just as problematic as an addiction to video games, but there are more people who game at the expense of other responsibilities than who knit.
      Talking about video games specifically can thus be helpful for society as a whole. Maybe gamers do socialize more with people not in their house than others, but maybe that is done at the expense of socializing with people inside their house. It's worth talking about. I actually think there are lots of pointers around "gaming responsibly" that would be valuable to society as a whole.

      You don't have to think alcohol is inherently evil to believe that there should be clear messaging to each generation about drinking.

      Gaming is very mainstream now. It's not going away. I think we can afford to be less sensitive to critiques now than in the 80's and 90's.

      Full disclosure: I have been playing MMOs since the late 00's, and playing single player games since I could type.

      Collapse
      1. Alex Landry

        I agree with that entirely and find myself in your same situation, but that's not what was discussed in the episode and not really what I was criticizing.

        The discussion in the episode was about "Xbox bad, it makes irresponsible men". The conversation was more equivalent to we should go back to prohibition, not about discussing responsible drinking.

        Collapse
        1. Alex Landry

          I also, want to reiterate that in your examples, it's still not the fault of video games or alcohol for being misused, it's the fault of the misusing individuals. Conversations should be how do we raise responsible people to interact appropriately with society, not how do we cut out things people misuse, or they just find it in the black market or replace it with something else.

          Collapse
          1. Hartzlk

            You bet!

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    I’m an old Dad with a young wife and kids. Got married and had the first one in my mid-forties. I enjoyed all the available fruits and vices of a single life and never had any intention of changing that. Until I met my wife and my life is far, far, far better than it was. Probably would never had known the difference if it never happened.

    Hollywood and entertainment specifically portray marriage (and religion, by the way) inaccurately and simplistically. Maybe a spouse and kids isn’t for everyone but this idea that you’re trapped or stuck or can’t enjoy a full life is so damned misleading. And it plays into the brain dead Marxist trope of empty consumerism - which is also a giant myth.

    Don Draper getting drunk and building his kids’ doll house is a fantastic example. Sometimes kids can be tough but if you’re so selfishly wrapped up in your own personal self esteem, you’ll never know what you’re missing. And if you already have kids, you might not know the damage you’re doing.

    I lived half my life like those ad guys: fancy dinners, lots of alcohol and parties, major sports events and rock concerts, traveling all over the place…. nothing wrong with it but it will never compare to the family I’ve been fortunate enough to build over the past ten years. Maybe I had to get it out of my system.

    I still get to do enough of that other stuff but instead of being the primary objective, it’s an occasional interlude. I’ll take the wife and kids every single time.

    Collapse
    1. Wsampson

      everyone who has had a successful relationship and family agrees it is the best ever. The problem is so many fail at it, for lots of reasons. Effort matters, and so does luck. Art doesn't create reality, it mocks it. That's why the blaming the elite thing is so funny, especially after reading the guys bio.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        I think art can do both and culture prioritizes this or that. We once prioritized marriage and religion. We no longer do and in fact, most of our modern art mocks both - and has for some time. I don’t see the point in blame really but recognizing it is no sin.

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Great interview. Could not agree more wholeheartedly with Brad’s thesis.

    Collapse
  6. PROMETHEUS

    Having sex and having children and nurturing children is a biological imperative.

    But marriage, in the sense we have today, as one man/one woman monogamous relationship for life is not a biological law.
    It is most often an economic, social and emotional relationship. Different societies have had different socially acceptable arrangements, and there is a huge literature on the subject. The consensus is that the development of agriculture, where there is land to be inherited, set up the construct of nuclear family of father/mother/biological children as the blueprint of a family.

    Collapse
  7. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette

    Good discussion. As a happily married man with a young child, who also grew up as a child of divorce and then a mixed family, I am persuaded as to the benefits of a classic, nuclear family arrangement undergirded by marriage.

    That said, Jonah and Wilcox spend a shockingly little amount of time on what the institution of marriage was for women for almost all of human history: An economic/financial arrangement of necessity and survival, often riddled with abuse and exploitation. It was a mere few decades ago that women still needed a man to co-sign for them on credit card applications and bank accounts and the like. Since women began to expeirence liberation and economic freedom of their own in recent years, is it any wonder that some of them may have complicated feelings toward marriage? Is it any wonder that women may want to be more selective and intentional about the person with whom they join and build a life together? It feels like there’s a heavy undercurrent of finger wagging at women here for the audacity of having choices and choosing their own paths rather than having those choices made for them.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Delenda Est

    More marriage = more kids. The planet doesn't need it. Let's just lean into the demographic transition: human nature is to want fewer (and fewer) kids, as per capita income rises. You want more marriage in society, import more people from more marriage-prioritizing cultures. Soon enough they will habituate to the low-natality patterns of the rich, and we can finally bend the curve down on human numbers. Better for the planet, and therefore for our own survival as a species.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      What is the planet for?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Delenda Est

        I assume you state that as a rhetorical question, but it is an actually serious question.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          I’m interested in what your answer to it is.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Picov Andropov

        And more importantly, how could someone forget add a "Carthago" to their "Delenda Est?"

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Delenda Est

          Because there are so *many* other terms besides *Carthargo* that can be slotted into the phrase, in our own time.

          Collapse
    2. Pohl

      Marriage is normal. Married people having children is normal. Therefore, people are unstoppable, which is a good thing. Some of them will even find great solutions to major problems. And, if they don’t, well, social engineering is not the answer. People deserve what married life offers. Who should stop them?

      Collapse
      1. PROMETHEUS

        Marriage may be normal, and having a family may be normal, but there are a lot of abnormal marriages (and I am not talking about gay marriages) and a lot of abnormal families.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Citizen60

        Marriage is "normal" ??

        Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Delenda Est

        People are very stoppable. Governments the world over are fretting about falling populations. And people being (peaceably) stoppable is a very good thing, for reasons that should be obvious.

        The demographic transition is normal. And it points to later and less family-formation, it points to falling populations. It's no more social engineering than Capitalism itself is. Trying to stop the population decrease and goose population-numbers, that's where you find social engineering.

        Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        Nobody. And nobody is stopping them. People choosing not to get married doesn’t mean people (even the hated elites) are stopping them.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          I agree. I’m just responding in principle to Delenda Est.

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Nah- I agree that the planet doesn’t need it- we have plenty of people we just need streamlined immigration policies. However, more marriage doesn’t mean more kids.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Delenda Est

        More marriage means earlier marriage, and yes that means more kids.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          Eesh…I hope not. Thank goodness for birth control- even if more marriage means earlier marriage still doesn’t translate to more kids.

          Collapse
          1. PROMETHEUS

            "Thank goodness for birth control...."

            Not if the Christian fascists now on the warpath have a say in running the country...

            Collapse
    4. Cold Warrior

      We’re already there. The world will hit peak population sometime in the next 10-25 years, if we aren’t already. Most of the developed world is below replacement now.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Delenda Est

        We haven't yet hit peak population, but when we do it will be because of delayed marriage (plus foregone marriage) and the smaller families that that translates into (also it must be said that China's anti-natal one-child policy was a crucial factor in leading to the world reaching peak population around midcentury).

        Collapse
  9. P

    In general and *in principle,* children are more likely to thrive when their parents are obviously committed to each other. Marriage is a signal to children that they are in a safe, boundaried environment where they can grow and explore. Data and anecdotal evidence from 40 years of teaching middle school bears out this observation. But laying down one’s life for the sake of another (and others) in marriage is a big ask. The sacrifice does not always seem “worth it,” but the alternative is a self-centered life that is not more fulfilling. And it is certainly worse for children.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Citizen60

      The data is pretty strong that children living in a home with parents at each other's throats--metaphorically and literally--isn't healthy for them. Exposure to stress and trauma, uncertainty, definitely poor modeling of relationships. If that's the "price" of the children having both parents under one roof, it may be too high for the children.

      Children do better academically and psychologically living in a household of respect for all its inhabitants--one parent or two--and a mutual commitment toward providing a safe and nurturing environment for the children.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Except you can’t really know that not getting married (one choice among many) leads to a “self-centered life” that is not fulfilling. Maybe that unmarried person is extremely fulfilled and very giving and loving, and maybe they even show that to the children they have. Marriage can be great- but it doesn’t indicate that the people involved are any more or less self-centered than a single person. Same way having kids doesn’t meant you’re automatically a giving, loving parent.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Jonathan

    I’m reasonably sure that marriage is, for most people, a beneficial institution. Most people should get married and have kids. Brad Wilcox did not do a great job establishing a connection between declining marriage rates and the attitudes of progressive elites. I understand why those attitudes annoy him but I would have appreciated more evidence that progressive elites are actually driving the decline in marriage rates in America.

    Collapse
Load More