Monday 2nd February 2004
For immediate release

MARRIAGE – A LOVE THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME

As National Marriage Week (8-15th February) begins throughout the UK, leading academics and campaigners highlight the Government’s latest approach to marriage – simply avoid all references to the institution.

Government documents talk of "committed" or "stable" couples suggesting that differences in health, wealth and well-being between married and cohabiting couples are due to selection effects. They argue that married couples are only healthier and wealthier because it's healthier and wealthier couples that get married. Kathleen Lamb and others in the November issue of Journal of Marriage & Family argue that marriage boosts well-being whilst living together makes no difference. A growing body of studies since the 1990s is now showing clearly that it is marriage itself that brings the benefits, whereas cohabitation simply breeds impermanence and fragile families. 60% of marriages still last a lifetime whilst fewer than 10% of the "happily unmarried" are still with the same partner ten years later.

Dave Percival, founder of www.2-in-2-1.co.uk said "The Government has a clear duty to frame policy and action for the long term stability of society and success of the nation - that should be its number one priority. The Government's current policy to ignore the fact that marriage is quite different from other forms of relationship, and the only one that brings these benefits, is a shameful abdication of its duty"
Further, founder of national Marriage Week, Richard Kane said "The government’s approach is misguided for peculiar reasons, the research is compelling, but the response is negligent".

Jill Kirby, who chairs the family policy group at the Centre for Policy Studies, says: "The biggest cause for concern is the impact on children, who are suffering the fall-out. Every child deserves the opportunity to be brought up by two parents in a lasting relationship, and the evidence keeps telling us that marriage is the key to relationship stability. If we fail to endorse and uphold marriage, we are failing children".
Commitment and stability are the norm in marriage and the exception amongst cohabitees says" says marriage educator Harry Benson. "The research case for pro-marriage initiatives is as strong today, as the case for an anti-smoking campaign."

Lamb and her colleagues looked at a sample of 722 people out of the 9,000-strong US National Family & Household Survey conducted in the late 80s and early 90s. Levels of depression reported in the initial survey made no difference whatsoever to the odds of getting married or cohabiting. This rules out any selection effect. Levels of depression in the follow-up survey were unchanged amongst those who cohabited whereas they reduced significantly amongst those who had got married without cohabiting. There was also a small reduction amongst those who cohabited and then married although not enough to be significant.
"This is not a surprise really", said Dave Percival, founder of www.2-in-2-1.co.uk. "Marriage is founded on promises of permanence and exclusivity which lay foundations for quite different attitudes and behaviours which induce stability. Cohabitation is based on a conditional contract (I'll hang in here as long as it feels good). Different foundations give different outcomes."
This is certainly not the first study to demonstrate these effects. A study by Claire Kamp Dush in the previous issue of JMF found that the gap in relationship success between those who cohabit and those who marry had not closed between the 1960/70s and 1980/90s. If the original cohabitees did worse mainly because of special characteristics, the increased popularity of cohabitation over time should have reduced the gap but it didn't. Although there is mixed evidence for any selection effect at all, several other studies have found strong evidence in favour of a relationship effect.
A major ongoing UK study published last year by Dr Alan Marsh for Department of Work and Pensions showed that the rate of breakdown of relationship was much higher for cohabiting couples than for those who married amongst low-income couples, irrespective of income, education and race. Ends.

Editors Notes
Richard Kane, Founder & Director of National Marriage Week.
T: 01202 883887. M: 07702 426500. E: marriageweek@tiscali.co.uk W: www.nmw.org.uk
Harry Benson runs Bristol Community Family Trust and teaches couples how to stay married.
T: 0117 924 1480 E: info@bcft.co.uk W: www.bcft.co.uk

Dave Percival www.2-in-2-1.co.uk the UK's leading access point for resources for every stage of marriage." Office Tel 01344 779658. Mobile 07802 660524 email dave@2-in-2-1.co.uk
Jill Kirby, Chairman, Family Policy Group, Centre for Policy Studies Email: jill@tjrkirby.demon.co.uk Tel: 020 8670 2525 m 07879 647 784
Lamb, K., Lee, G., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Union formation and depression: selection and relationship effects. Journal of Marriage & Family, 65, 953-962.
Kamp Dush, C., Cohan, C., & Amato, P. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage & Family, 65, 539-549.
Marsh, A. & Perry, J. (2003) Family change 1999 to 2001. DWP research no 181. CDS: Leeds.