A recent book from a Catholic sociologist has stirred intense debate over its argument that marriage remains the quickest path to financial success and happiness for Americans.
Brad Wilcox argues in Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization (HarperCollins, 2024) that tying the knot protects people from loneliness with human connection, gives them the meaning of living for someone else, and provides more financial stability than staying single.
A professor at the University of Virginia, Wilcox’s book presents research showing that religious believers, conservatives, Asian Americans, and the upwardly mobile have the strongest marriages. It also points out the hypocrisy of America’s left-leaning elites living conventional married lives, even as they praise the freedom of single life for poorer adults.
“It is no accident that elite families have emerged relatively unscathed from the economic and cultural transformations of the last four decades, while families lower down the economic ladder, especially in working-and middle-class communities, have lost tremendous ground,” Mr. Wilcox writes.
Some scholars have pushed back on the book. They contend that most Americans with humble incomes lack the emotional, intellectual, and financial resources to profit from matrimony.
“Ethnographic studies indicate, for example, that the most common reasons unmarried women are no longer with the fathers of their children are the men’s violent behavior, infidelity and substance abuse,” Eleanor Brown of Fordham University, June Carbone of the University of Minnesota, and Naomi Cahn of the University of Virginia wrote The Conversation, a nonprofit trade publication.
“Moreover, income volatility disproportionately affects parents who don’t go to college,” added the three law professors, who specialize in poverty issues. “So while they may have more money to invest in children together than apart, when one of these parents experiences a substantial drop in income, the other parent may have to decide whether to support the partner or the children on what is often a meager income.”
Brown, Carbonne, and Cahn noted that Mr. Wilcox’s work joins economist Melissa Kearney’s recent book The Two-Parent Privilege in supporting the idea of right-leaning enthusiasts that getting hitched creates better-adjusted children and prevents poverty.
Despite decades of federal programs promoting marriage, they point out that “nearly 30% of U.S. children live in single-parent homes today, compared with 10% in 1965.”
“The Biden administration’s child tax credit expansion included in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 helped cut the child poverty rate–after accounting for government assistance–to a record low that year,” the professors write. “It did more to address child poverty than marriage promotion efforts have ever done.”
Mr. Wilcox said that while he conceded their point that a more generous child tax credit would help families, it does not come close to “the financial and practical benefit” of having a second parent in the home. He pointed to decades-old statistical trends showing that the children of two-parent households are more likely to graduate and lead stable working lives.
“No government program will come close to having a second parent in the home, both financially and practically,” Mr. Wilcox told Catholic World Report in an email.
“This is the point of marriage: it increases the odds that children have the benefit of remaining connected day-in-day-out to both of their parents and the full financial resources of both their parents,” he added. “So we should advance policies that reinforce the economic, cultural, and legal value of marriage to reduce the odds that kids are raised in a non-intact family.”
In the book, Wilcox cites a 2021 survey that found more than one in ten unmarried Americans earning less than $50,000 a year cited the loss of government benefits as a reason for avoiding marriage. He noted that liberal tax and welfare policies penalize marriage, making it “financially costly for ordinary couples” to marry.
“Today, marriage penalties fall hardest on working-and-middle-class families, with incomes falling between about $35,000 and $65,000,” he notes. “They often rob such families of between 10 and 30 percent of their household income.”
Since hitting shelves in February, Mr. Wilcox’s book has stirred a lively conversation in The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, the Free Press, New York Times, and Catholic News Agency, among other platforms.
In a Wall Street Journal column, Meghan Cox Gurdon called the book “an urgent polemic that marshals anecdote, testimony and social-science data to make the case for wedlock in a culture increasingly averse to it.”
She pointed out several examples from the book of the popular consensus against marriage.
One article in the New York Times praised the “freedom, personal control and self-realization” of single life, while The Atlantic published a piece called “The Case Against Marriage” and Time magazine ran a story called “Having It All Without Having Children.”
In the book, Wilcox also pushes back on an unlikely but growing consensus against marriage between the alt-right men’s movement and liberal feminists. While the men’s movement sees marriage as sapping masculinity, feminists worry that it constrains women’s freedom.
The book arrives as marriage rates remain near all-time lows and the national birth rate has plunged to its lowest level in more than 100 years.
In November, the Census Bureau predicted for the first time that the U.S. population will shrink. The agency said COVID-19 deaths, falling birth rates, and an aging populace will reduce the population from a new high of nearly 370 million residents in 2080 to 360 million by 2100, barring higher immigration numbers.
On April 25, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the national birth rate last year slid to a new low in data going back to 1920.
The federal agency’s provisional analysis of birth certificates tallied almost 3.6 million newborns in 2023, down 2% from 2022. Among women of childbearing age, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics found the general fertility rate was 54.4 births per 1,000 women, down 3% from 2022.
Mr. Wilcox argues that marriage does more than shore up the nation’s population, however.
He cites research showing that marriage makes men less likely to engage in risky behavior or commit suicide. The same research shows that marriage and motherhood make women less likely to take their lives.
Emphasizing that marriage benefits men more than women, he also notes that marriage can motivate the growing number of working-age men without stable employment. He points out that the percentage of men aged 25-55 who were not working full time rose from 16% in 1975 to 20% in 2019, according to federal statistics.
To illustrate his points, Mr. Wilcox describes several anonymous case studies of real couples, including a pair of Catholic spouses he calls “Jon” and “Maria.”
“The faith that Jon and Maria share supplies the nomos, the norms, and the network to buffer them from the stresses and temptations that can end a military marriage,” Wilcox writes.
On a personal note, the author told CWR that having several children with his wife means he is “never bored.”
“Social connections and norms protect people,” Mr. Wilcox said. “Married parents have fuller schedules than their single, childless peers.”
• Related at CWR: “Get Married provides an urgent imperative based on data and experience” (Feb 13, 2024) by John M. Grondelski, Ph.D.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Mr. Wilcox points out the irony/hypocrisy of the well-off who generally live in conventional marriages while tolerating/promoting relaxed practices for others. Do as I say, not as I do.
His critics quoted here just prove his point.
See alao “The decline and fall of marriage – the last days” – Simon Caldwell, Catholic Herald, June 21.
I read that article in the Catholic Herald, Cleo. Thank you so much for recommending it.
It makes you wonder what’s actually afoot.
“Despite decades of federal programs promoting marriage…” You could have fooled me.
My advice to young Catholics: Attend an orthodox Catholic college, find another practicing Catholic to marry who believes in the permanence of marriage, don’t contracept and be open to a large family (the fact is that every child you have spreads out the extra cost making each additional child less expensive to raise), don’t succumb to the prevailing cancer of materialism and stay far, far away from Deep State.
I agree Deacon Ed. Thank you.
Typical “Catholic” take on things focusing purely on externals. As said in the father’s day thread, marriage is only about two people giving all of themselves to God in returned love and losing self so that they reflect God, aiding each other in that union by giving that same selfless love to one another, the physical union reflecting that sharing of souls, and the fruit of the union new life raised to share that same returned love of God. There is NO security in the physical world, it always only a heartbeat from disaster, death and decay. Even a sociologist should be all for a world of saints raising saints which would cure nearly all social ills.
I think you’re more sharing the Catholic take Mr. Bob. Matrimony is a Sacrament that gives us Grace, but even so there are practical concerns also to consider when raising a family.
I remember a Christian financial counselor explaining that differences over spending & debt was the number one issue he found that drove couples apart. Few engaged couples ask each other their views on financial matters & hardly anyone makes a month to month budget. Debt creates terrible stress in a marriage.
And, again, the focus on externals. You prove my point. Rich or poor makes no difference when united to God, poverty and wealth both are passing things, while while love is eternal. Of course, all should desire the humble neccessities of life for self and family, but that is not what causes strife.
Nor is what I said purely the province of Catholics, and generally it just as ignored by them. It is the province of all people of good will, and particularly Christians. If the book is an effort at getting people in the door at a local church, I think a psuedo-propsperity-gospel is the wrong approach, especially since Catholics in general not an especially great example of correct ordering of things in life, either. Instead, how about a sociologist writing a book on how peaceful and content are those who have given up selfishness and greed?
Mr. Bob, the point is that engaged couples need to agree about these practical matters before marriage. Because we live in a fallen world & suffer the effects of original sin, poverty & debt can cause real strife & lead to separation. In a perfect world things would be different. But that’s not the current world we inhabit.
Agree, but the cost of living is out of control. It’s even harder for those who live in the metro areas who don’t have many options, except to try and live in a safe affordable area and do as much of their own cooking as possible.
I think a lot of people (including me, but I’m an older woman with common sense and life experience!) watch networks like HGTV and Magnolia, and get caught up in the notion that having a house that is “dated” or “needs a complete re-model” or is “too small because we need at least 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms”–and then end up taking out a massive loan (that would pay for an entire small house!) and then they’re in debt for years (unless they are doctors or other high-earners who avoid cruises and brand-new SUVs in order to pay off their home-improvement debts first).
I also think there is a huge shortage of smaller houses (like mine) with 2-3 bedrooms, just a living room (no family room), an eat-in kitchen, one full bath, and possibly one half-bath. Many of us Baby Boomers grew up in houses like this and we turned out just fine! Many Baby Boomers even came from large families (4 or more children) that all shared small bedrooms and took turns in the bathroom–and they turned out just fine, too!
We all want too much “stuff” and too many “experiences.” I suggest ordering a wonderful book called Living More With Less by Doris Jantzen Longacre–it’s a classic book written in the late 1970s and advocating the “simple lifestyle” (which also is generally the “cheaper lifestyle”). Some of the many suggestions are not possible for non-farming families, but much of it is very adaptable (e.g., less toys and more outdoor play with balls, sticks, sandboxes, etc.). And back then, TV only had 3 channels, and even that was considered “too much”–so less TV!
You & I must live in similar houses Mrs. Sharon.
🙂
When we had satellite tv I enjoyed watching those “fixer upper” shows but after a while I saw it was the same scenario repeating itself: Couple with no children & 2 dogs looking for a 3,000 sq. foot home with an “open floor plan”, stainless steel appliances, & granite counter tops. Over & over again. And pretty much every re-do resembled the last one.
I agree, people used to expect to live in far less space, share one bathroom( or where we used to live out in the country, maybe none), & they still managed to get married & have lots of children. And I think they suffered less loneliness & mental health issues related to isolation.
“When we had satellite tv I enjoyed watching those “fixer upper” shows but after a while I saw it was the same scenario repeating itself: Couple with no children & 2 dogs looking for a 3,000 sq. foot home with an “open floor plan”, stainless steel appliances, & granite counter tops. Over & over again.”
Yes, indeed. Those shows owe so much to the old “Roadrunner” cartoons. Every week the coyote got some new whiz-bang thing from Acme, only to end up falling off a cliff, blown up or “accordioned”.
Yes, many good families raised in ranch or other type homes and everything was fine. No unavailable replacement computer chips going bad and spoiling the food. People who don’t have to move for a job think they have to move up from a “starter” home. W Buffet still lives in the same house from the 50s and I’ll bet he could afford an upgrade.
Those renovation shows make me crazy. If you want a modern, up-to-the-minute trendy house with an open floor plan, and all-new kitchen, why are you buying a charming 1930’s bungalow and ripping out all the walls and all the vintage features that make it so fascinating? There’s a wonderful website that shows old houses with all the original innards – even the ones from the 1970’s in all their avocado, melon, and harvest gold glory are delightful. : )
Brad Wilcox’s book is just the latest of his decades-long work, of value to Catholic theologians translating broader social trends to Catholic pastoral action, through his National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
Marriage is awesome. Screw the materialistic liberals. A chaste marriage with lots of children is loads better than a material marriage with deliberately zero kids. Also, good comment above, Deacon Edward.
I think in your second sentence you meant to say, “Pray for the conversion of the materialistic liberals?”
In the 80’s it was “DINKs” – dual incomes no kids
Divinity issues aside, it is a tough call on whether to bring children into this world, so much of an improvement on the past yet heading into a socialistic chasm dependent on the communists for trade and now their technological superiority in some facets of life. Public school systems with ever increasing funding and test scores and attendance percentages decreasing. Widening gaps between the rich and poor and on and on….
“Moreover, income volatility disproportionately affects parents who don’t go to college,” added the three law professors, who specialize in poverty issues.
Exactly what is the competency of a law professor to opine on “poverty issues”? They ought to confine themselves to legal matters, drafting legal documents and representing clients in court.
On the other hand, I am a CPA with an undergraduate degree in economics and an MBA, who formerly held a boutique designation in financial planning. Although I am not currently in public practice, my advice is sought with regards to personal financial issues and I have some observations with which to form an opinion.
I’m with Wilcox. Not only does marriage provide a (potential) second income in the event of a disruption, it allows the sharing of a domicile, reduces socialization and entertainment expenses and encourages thrift, investment and industry. A perfect example: I had a friend who lost a relatively lucrative career and after a long period of unemployment, secured a position that entailed a significant loss of income. His wife was able to take a job to close the gap. And if you ever get a serious disease, as I did, you find out really quick that a good wife is a treasure.
As to this:
“Ethnographic studies indicate, for example, that the most common reasons unmarried women are no longer with the fathers of their children are the men’s violent behavior, infidelity and substance abuse,”
Feminist gospel always asserts that male failing is the causative factor. I know multiple situations where the wife left for reasons of vague dissatisfaction (my favorite: “we were never meant to be together, we only got married because I was pregnant”, which of course didn’t explain the other children she abandoned).
As a rule, men don’t suddenly become violent, unfaithful or drug users. They either have have active episodes from the inception of the relationship, or exhibit warning signs that are ignored in the rush of Oxytocin released in a new relationship. In many cases, these are relationships that should never be formed, much less should be elevated to the intimacy that results in children.
As for The Atlantic, if you have a bird, it makes a fine liner for the bottom of the cage, but should never be taken too seriously as it’s biased, predictable and tedious.
I have similar feelings about The Atlantic. Or The Economist. I think newspaper is actually more absorbent and preferable for the bottom of bird cages but I hear you.
College degrees can come with substantial student loan debt so that’s something a law professor might want to consider also. Debt strains marriages.
As well as law degrees
Define “greed”.
It’s a word I hear thrown about a great deal, often by people who manifest it themselves and inn multiple forms, such as irrepressible quests for status or power or leisure. BS Bernie Sanders stammered “how much is enough” but is a rich example, with his multiple homes and a grasp on the Vermont Senate Seat that by all signs will require a visit from the grim reaper to loosen.
Much of what is called “greed” is actually acquisitiveness. Acquisitiveness is not a bad thing. People need to save and invest because life is unpredictable. I’ve used my modest accumulations for a variety of charitable expenditures.
As an aside, if you find Catholics so disordered, why are you here? Are you suffering from the delusion that your antipathy is going to cause mass apostasy?