This article accompanied the analysis of divorce/marriage data in Hamilton County sent earlier. The reporter interviewed many in the Coalition including Popenoe, Gallagher, Nock and Sollee as she tried to make sense of the rapidly declining divorce rate in her county. - diane

News The State of Matrimony; I do, I don't; Marriages are down; so are divorces. The impact of change is profound. By: Richelle Thompson

12/17/2000 The Cincinnati Enquirer This is marriage in Cincinnati today:

Fewer people say "I do" than did 20 years ago - and far fewer people divorce.

People wait until their late 20s and early 30s to exchange vows, resulting in a stunning 85 percent drop in teen marriages.

More than half the women who had babies in 1998 did it alone - forgoing marriage altogether.

An Enquirer analysis of more than 14,000 Hamilton County marriage licenses in 1979 and 1999 reveals a dramatic shift in when and if people decide to enter the state of matrimony. At a time when family values top social and political agendas, the city that prides itself as a family-focused place is undergoing profound change.

The analysis - the first of its kind in Hamilton County - found marriage rates fell 22 percent in two decades, compared to a 20 percent national decline. Divorce dropped 46 percent, three times faster than the decline nationally.

These changing marriage patterns redefine the concept of the modern family in our neighborhoods and impact almost every part of our lives, from health and childcare to consumer spending and poverty levels.

"We're in the middle of a massive shift about what marriage means and what role it plays in people's lives," says Dorian Solot, executive director of the Boston-based Alternatives to Marriage Project.

"Images we have of what adult life is about often center on marriage," she says. But as Americans increasingly postpone marriage - or skip it entirely - "we need to update these visions of adulthood."

Emerging adulthood

Jennifer Suder's wedding was rich with tradition. She walked down the aisle Dec. 9 in a flowing white dress. She exchanged vows with Brian Frye, promising to love and honor, for richer and for poorer. The Miamitown couple celebrated with 300 of their family, friends and co-workers. The next day, they headed off for a honeymoon in the tropics.

But like many of her peers today, Jennifer Suder Frye breaks with tradition as well.

Mrs. Frye is 27, 3 1/2 years older than the average first-time bride in 1979. Before she married, she wanted to finish a paramedic class and feel secure in her job.

"I'm glad I'm a bit older getting married," she says. "We're both established in our careers. Our personalities are more established."

Mr. Frye adds: "We're not wet behind the ears."

The Enquirer's analysis found only 64 of 5,781 marriages in 1999 involved two teens 15 to 19 years old. That's an 85 percent drop in two decades.

Nationally, the number of married teens in 1998 is less than half the number in 1979, census figures show.

The trend of fewer teen marriages is one Hanan Yehia supports.

"I think most of the time getting married young won't last," says the 16-year-old North Avondale girl. "Because as people grow older, they change. They grow apart and have different values. What they want out of life changes."

A junior at Walnut Hills, Hanan says she plans to attend college first and start a career in law or politics before even considering marriage.

Many young adults across Hamilton County are postponing - or even shunning - marriage to compete in the work force. The changing labor market requires young adults to have more education, skills and work experience than previous generations to snag the best-paying jobs. They put in longer hours and frequently job-hop to the next bigger and better position.

Dramatic changes in the lives of women also account for the shift in marital trends. Accessible contraception means they can delay pregnancy. More women than ever work outside the home, giving them financial success and stability that marriage formerly provided.

Women don't have to marry to have the money to buy a house and car or even to raise a child. They're earning it themselves.

"Women don't want some guy who's a slob who just brings home the bacon. Women don't have to put up with that kind of guy today," says Dr. David Popenoe, a sociology professor and co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University in New York.

As a result, the average age of a first-time groom in Hamilton County last year was 29.4, up four years from 1979. Brides were an average of 27.5 years old, also a four-year jump during the same period. All brides and grooms, including those marrying for the second or more times, waited an average of 4 1/2 years longer.

Marriage isn't what it used to be, says Barbara Hawkins, 62, of Woodlawn. She and her husband, Vernon, celebrated their 25th anniversary last month.

"A lot of the young people don't even want to get married anymore," Mrs. Hawkins says. "They value careers, and their freedom of coming and going. Some don't want to commit for the rest of their life."

Some psychologists have coined a phrase, "emerging adulthood," to refer to the time between living with your parents and running your own family.

In 1950, only 2 percent of young adults 18 to 29 were not living within a family. Today it's closer to 25 percent.

Stoney Scales of Kennedy Heights married last year for the first time at age 36.

In his 20s, marriage wasn't a priority; climbing the corporate ladder was. Like a nomad, Mr. Scales moved often to seize new employment opportunities and propel his career.

When Mr. Scales came to Cincinnati for a marketing research position, he was 31 and never married.

That was when he started to take stock of his life.

"You begin to look at what you are chasing, and are you ever going to catch it," Mr. Scales says.

He met Bridget Kelly at a Mount Adams bar, and they began dating. A teacher at a private school, Bridget wasn't ready to get married - even though she was interested in Stoney.

Top priority was finishing a master's degree in education and obtaining a Montessori certificate. She wanted to be established in her career and to follow her parents' advice.

"They always said, 'Go out and experience everything first,' " says Mrs. Scales, now 31. " 'You can still get married, but explore everything first.' "

Living together

Today the majority of couples who marry lived together first, says Dr. Steven Nock, a sociologist and statistician at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Census figures show cohabitation increased 164 percent since 1980. To better track the numbers, the census bureau added to its 1990 form a circle for unmarried partner.

Young people are more realistic than their parents about the chances of a successful marriage, says Ms. Solot of Alternatives to Marriage.

"They want to enter into marriages with care," she says. "I think unmarried relationships are a way of slowing things down and making sure you're not rushing into something prematurely."

As a result, cohabitation has evolved into a major trend, Ms. Solot says.

"There's a recognition that you don't need to be married to have a healthy or fulfilling life," she says. "People see marriage isn't a magic cloak they can put on and be protected."

The Enquirer surveyed Xavier University students taking a course on marriage and family. Three-quarters of the 53 students who responded said they would consider living with an unmarried partner. Only seven felt living together was morally wrong.

The students primarily were 19, 20 or 21 years old.

Just under half of the students said living together is a good way to test whether a marriage will work. Experts say the notion of "trying out" a marriage is driving much of the increase in cohabitation.

But Dr. Nock says it's a risky strategy.

"There's no debate among anybody who does research . . . living together increases chances for divorce," he says. The most conservative estimates show people who live together before marrying are three times as likely to divorce than those who do not cohabit.

The question researchers are still trying to determine, Dr. Nock says, is whether "people who live together also tend to divorce or does living together precipitate divorce?"

Andrea Queale, 30, of St. Bernard believes a relationship should move from dating to living together to marriage. She thinks such a progression may eventually drive down divorce rates.

"When you're dating, you're kind of on your best behavior," says Mrs. Queale, 30. "It's hard to be on your best behavior 24 - 7. Your (true self) is gonna shine through."

The Scales lived together first - but for different reasons.

For Bridget, it was a matter of convenience. They planned to marry. Living together simply gave them the opportunity to save money for the wedding and finish schooling.

For Stoney, the issue was compatibility.

"In order for me to totally commit, I have to know who (the person) is all the time, not just for a nice little visit," Mr. Scales says.

When they moved in, they discovered differences: He likes a baking- soda brand of toothpaste; she leaves a messy cap. But they found they not only loved each other, but they also could live with each other, an important distinction, Mr. Scales says.

"Everyone's not compatible, even if they love each other."

Maggie Gallagher, co-author of The Case for Marriage, strongly advocates marriage over cohabitation. Because of the sense of permanence intrinsic in marriage, couples can plan for a future, mesh their finances and share expectations of faithfulness and fidelity, she says.

"When they're not marrying, they're holding out the possibility that someone else may come along," Mrs. Gallagher says.

More single mothers

When Deborah Owsley got pregnant, she thought about marriage. Then she dismissed it. It's not that the Springfield Township woman wouldn't prefer having a husband, but it hasn't worked out, she says.

"I thought, 'I can handle this.' Sure, it wasn't going to be easy. I was just willing to do it," says Ms. Owsley, 42, a human resources professional. "I'm secure in who I am. I make a decent living, maybe not tons of money, but I can take care of a child."

Even though contraception and abortion are available, 40 percent of children born in Hamilton County in 1998 were to unwed mothers. In the city of Cincinnati, the percentage was 58. And it's not teen pregnancy driving the increase. In Cincinnati, unwed mothers in 1979 accounted for only 23 percent of all mothers ages 22 to 34. By 1998, 45 percent of mothers ages 22 to 34 were unwed.

Some women, like Ms. Owsley, make the choice to become a single mother. For others, it's a matter of chance, the result of a reluctant or absent father.

What is clear is that marriage is less tied to child-rearing today than in the past. In the 1930s, if you conceived a child out of wedlock, you got married. Today, that's not a given. A 1999 U.S. Census report says the percentage of children conceived out of wedlock was nearly the same in the 1930s as in the 1990s. The difference: Children born out of wedlock increased fivefold.

The combination of out-of-wedlock births and divorces translates into nearly 50 percent of white children and two-thirds of African- American children who are likely to spend some part of their childhood in a single-parent family, according to a report in the November edition of the Journal of Marriage and the Family. The latest census figures show nearly a third of children live with a single parent.

"Divorce is one of the leading causes of poverty, along with out- of-wedlock births," Dr. Spock says.

In the census bureau's annual poverty report, 28 percent of female- headed households fall under national poverty guidelines. Nearly one in five children under the age of 18 also lives in poverty, figures show.

For her book, Mrs. Gallagher interviewed several unwed mothers under the age of 25.

"They all wanted to get married," she says. "They just didn't see that a baby is a good reason to get married."

Women are marrying more for love than need, says Andrea Engber, who founded the National Organization of Single Mothers in 1991 in North Carolina.

"Rather than settling for Mr. Adequate, women are waiting for Mr. Right," Ms. Engber says. Women don't want to take care of an immature husband and a newborn baby.

Families without marriage

The combination of postponing marriage, living together and having children out-of-wedlock has spurred tremendous change in the dynamics of the American family.

Ms. Owsley struggles with "the storybook view of two parents, two kids and a dog."

She says, "I have to think of my unit as a family and not get so hung up on what is and what isn't. I need to instill the confidence that we are a family - even though it doesn't have all the players the media and world think it should."

As the family changes, Ms. Owsley believes attitudes should follow.

"Let's recognize that there are different types of families, instead of saying it should always be this way," she says. "I wish, in the perfect world, people wouldn't judge single parents."

Ms. Solot calls for new legislation to reflect changing families. Unmarried couples need protection from discrimination, she says. Health care is difficult to obtain for men and women who live together and, in many areas, landlords legally can refuse to rent to unmarried couples.

"In this most recent presidential campaign, I heard a lot of talk about families," Ms. Solot says. "We need to rewrite our definitions of family, given that a smaller and smaller percentage of families are structured around marriage."

A shift toward fewer married couples could alter the political landscape, Dr. Nock says. Married people tend to be more conservative. Consider the presidential election: A Portrait of America exit poll showed married voters leaned toward George W. Bush while single voters chose Al Gore.

Already there are more singles in the population than ever before, Dr. Nock says.

In 1960, three out of four households contained a married couple. Today, it's little more than half. American households with single men or women have risen from 26 percent to 31 percent from 1980 to 1997.

In a society with a growing number of childless singles, it could be harder to get a school levy passed, Dr. Popenoe says. It stands to reason, he says, that the fewer people with families, the less the concern about children. Likewise, legislation on child safety or school reform might have a lower priority.

Shifts in marriage trends also could affect consumer spending and the economy, says Dr. George Vredeveld, director of the University of Cincinnati's Center for Economic Education.

Single people tend to spend more on leisure activities. They go out to eat more often, to the movies, to the theater. Even housing demands could be affected.

"Non-married people would tend to opt for a different kind of housing, smaller housing, than the Brady Bunch would," he says.

The economy could even have a role in the lowered marriage rate, Dr. Vredeveld contends.

"Marriage might be more than love and companionship," he says "There is a good economic basis for marriage."

Married people enjoy the fruits of economies of scale - they pay one mortgage, water, telephone, cable and electric bill.

"I'm confident that a more affluent society gives people more flexibility in their choice of lifestyle," he says.

Dr. Vredeveld theorizes a long-term recession could cause the marriage rate to spike upward; continued affluence could propel the current trend.

Public health issue

Politicians should view marriage as a public health issue, Dr. Nock says.

"For every three divorces, there's one new family created in poverty. The average duration of poverty is about seven months," he says. "Someone has to pick up the costs of all those people who fall below the poverty level."

Married couples have the opposite effect on society, he says. They tend to make more money and save more, which means they also pay more taxes.

A few states already recognize the cost of divorce and are working to shore up marriage. Arizona and Louisiana have had laws since 1998 that require couples to decide before marriage what type of divorce they would be eligible to file.

Couples can choose a "covenant" marriage, which means that should they choose divorce, they would have to prove fault or specific wrongdoing. Otherwise, couples can choose no-fault divorce, an easier process to end a marriage.

Florida passed a Marriage and Preservation Act in 1998, which requires high school students to take a marriage skills and education course, Ms. Sollee says. Couples who have taken the course also get a discount on their marriage application fees.

Oklahoma set aside $10 million of its state surplus this year for projects and institutions that support marriage, and Arizona in April approved a $1 million initiative for community-based education programs.

There are no similar proposals in Ohio, Kentucky or Indiana, says Diane Sollee, founder and director of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education in Washington, D.C., whose organization tracks marriage initiatives throughout the country.

The intangibles

Beyond the economic and political impact are the intangible benefits of marriage.

For the Hawkinses, it's a life of shared history and an extended family that fills the backyard when they gather together.

The joy for the Scaleses is planning a future together, looking toward the days when their Kennedy Heights house is filled with the sounds of children giggling.

For Jennifer and Brian Frye, their wedding a week ago consumated 18 months of friendship and love.

"I'm very old-fashioned," says Mr. Frye, his arm draped around his bride. "This is a one-time thing. There is no divorce. Forever's a very long time."

As views on marriage continue to shift, Dr. Nock says some of these intangible benefits may be at risk. He points to numerous studies that show married people generally tend to be happier, live longer, and are less likely to commit crimes. The same is true for the children raised by married parents, he says.

"If society goes from being one with more marriages to one where there's less, then you're likely to see a little more poverty and an increase in health problems," he says. "You could probably expect to see more unemployment, less earnings and less educational attainment."

If the trends continue, the United States could head in the direction of Europe, Dr. Poponoe says. There will be fewer marriages, more cohabitation and lower birth rates.

Still, "we can't really know what the effect will be on human lives," he says.

Dr. Robert Emery, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Children, Families and the Law, maps the benefits and the downsides to the marriage trends.

Changing attitudes toward marriage afford more opportunity to escape an unfulfilling relationship and allow people to assume different roles in life, including unmarried partner, single parent or spouse.

On the downside, he says, unmarried couples can expect to face more economic troubles, and children often face more struggles.

"It's not the end of society or the downfall of society," Dr. Emery says. "It's a change in practice and tradition, a change in values."

Dick and Joan Maier have witnessed these changes in the state of matrimony -- both through 49 years of marriage and from counseling engaged couples at their church, St. Agnes in Fort Wright.

When the Park Hills, Ky., couple married, people didn't admit if they lived together first, and single mothers were an anomaly. None of their friends divorced.

"We didn't feel it was an option," says Mrs. Maier, 71.

Mr. Maier says young people think of marriage "as moonlight and roses. Sometimes it's dusk and dandelions."

But those times pass, he says.

"There's never been any question between us of our love for each other."