Having Kids Before Marriage Does Not Increase Divorce Rates

[Midwest88]

mothering.com/articles/recent-data-shows-kids-marriage-not-increase-divorce-rates/

Meet. Fall in love. Get married. Have kids.

Whether due to tradition or preference, this has been the order of things for many couples.

For a long time, evidence backed the idea of getting married before having children. Data on families from 1985 to 1995, for example, demonstrated couples that wed before conceiving were more likely to stay together than those who had children first.

Even when researchers accounted for other factors that can contribute to divorce, such as financial situation, education and family background, couples that had children prior to getting married faced a 60% higher risk of divorce.

That’s a big difference!

As such, there remains a stigma around stepping away from tradition. (Just try being the couple with a child at a party who says, “Oh, we’re not married,” and have a look at people’s faces.) The reality is, those of us who do things differently still have our commitment to family questioned.

But today there is good news for those of us who didn’t do things the traditional way: data from the last few years shows no increased risk of divorce for those who had babies prior to nuptials.

That’s right: In terms of relationship longevity, it seems getting married first is now simply a preference, not a benefit.

While a surprise pregnancy out of wedlock used to be quickly “righted” by a walk down the aisle, many couples are now choosing to wait until they become parents to take their vows—if they take them at all.

In fact, a 2013 study done by the University of Virginia shows 48% of children in the U.S. are now born to unwed mothers. And before making any assumptions, it should be noted many of these women have a college education. Gone are the days when having a child out of wedlock drastically increased the risk of a life of hardship and poverty.

Why are more people having babies first? Couples are feeling less pressure to live life in one specific way. Instead, they’re choosing what works for them. Many people are moving in together, buying property and making other large investments before saying, “I do.” Commitment is now forged in no particular order.

The cost of a “dream wedding” could also be a factor. With the average U.S. wedding costing $26,000, that special day might get put on hold until it becomes more affordable.

But do all families fare well in these more contemporary arrangements? Not necessarily. Couples who have a child and never to get married are the most likely to split up. In fact, 30% of them are no longer together after five years. Why? Researchers can’t rule out other factors that can contribute to separation, so it’s hard to say. But it seems getting married does increase a relationship’s chance for success.

My own family is a happy contemporary success story. We were married quite young with a nine-month-old attached to my hip. Baby made three on our wedding day, and we are still together many years and two more children later.

It seems happily ever after takes many forms.

 

[EasterJoy]

I had a classmate who had five siblings, and they all had a different dad. It did not do him any favors, let’s just say that.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s probably the death of the shotgun wedding at play–the people who get married today are getting married because they want to, not because they “have to.”

 

[UbiCaritas]

It’s probably the death of the shotgun wedding at play–the people who get married today are getting married because they want to, not because they “have to.”

Yup.

I found out some years ago that my dad’s parents weren’t married in the church until long after he was born–like, I think he was in grad school when they finally tied the knot.

Grandpa apparently was forced into a Catholic shotgun wedding by the father of a girl he got pregnant. The resulting married life was a disaster (I’m shocked…), and he left the wife and kid. (Grandpa was not a very nice man in a lot of ways.) Since the original wedding was conducted under “you knocked up my daughter, marry her or I’ll kill you” circumstances, I think a fairly good argument could be made that it was probably invalid. However, back in the day, annulments were definitely beyond the reach of a factory worker: very rare and very expensive. He later married my grandmother in a civil ceremony, and they raised Dad in the church, though they didn’t receive communion until twenty-plus years later, when wife #1 died and he and Grandma got their marriage validated in the rectory chapel.

 

[Padres1969]

It’s probably the death of the shotgun wedding at play–the people who get married today are getting married because they want to, not because they “have to.”

Probably not a bad observation. I mean I wouldn’t be here if not for a pair of shotgun weddings I found out later in life.

My mom’s parents were forced to marry when my grandmother got pregnant. And then unfortunately miscarried a short time later. My grandparents were always somewhat distant from each other, and not the most loving couple and I suspect that may have been the reason. They were married out of cultural/religious necessity.

My dad’s parents always claim she got pregnant with my dad on their wedding night… and that my dad was born 2 1/2 months premature in the 1950’s. None of us of course buy that explanation seeing as my dad was a healthy 7+ lb baby when he was born We never pressed them on if they got married because my dad was on the way but the implication was pretty obvious. Luckily for them they were likely going to end up married anyway and had a long loving marriage.

 

[MacBP]

I wonder how much of this relates to the fact that for many individuals, life before marriage and life after marriage is essentially the same. In the past, and in contemporary traditional circles, getting married meant entering into a different life. It marked a radical change or a break point. Today, marriage is an acknowledgement of what already exists. It is the celebration of a committed, long term relationship, not the start of a new kind of life. In many senses, people life like they are married long before they are actually married. So it would make sense that divorce rates are the same for people who marry before and after children, since they have lived essentially the same circumstances.

 

[Sneaux]

It’s probably the death of the shotgun wedding at play–the people who get married today are getting married because they want to, not because they “have to.”

I assumed the same thing.

 

[Sneaux]

Ahh the “dream wedding”, my cousins girlfriend won’t marry him, because they can’t afford a dream wedding, marriage has always been out of the question for her for only that reason, despite them having a 3 year old.

 

[Xantippe]

Ahh the “dream wedding”, my cousins girlfriend won’t marry him, because they can’t afford a dream wedding, marriage has always been out of the question for her for only that reason, despite them having a 3 year old.

Maybe they and the 3-year-old can have a double wedding…

 

[Padres1969]

I wonder how much of this relates to the fact that for many individuals, life before marriage and life after marriage is essentially the same. In the past, and in contemporary traditional circles, getting married meant entering into a different life. It marked a radical change or a break point. Today, marriage is an acknowledgement of what already exists. It is the celebration of a committed, long term relationship, not the start of a new kind of life. In many senses, people life like they are married long before they are actually married. So it would make sense that divorce rates are the same for people who marry before and after children, since they have lived essentially the same circumstances.

Probably not wrong. I’ve been to over 20 weddings in the last 10 years and of the couples I can only recall 3 that did not definitely did not live together before the wedding and that little changed for them after the wedding beyond having formalized the relationship (and removed it from sin as some would say). And the 3 that didn’t live together coincidentally are the only 3 that were married in Catholic Church (one between two Catholics the other 2 weddings between a Catholic and a Protestant). Of those 20+ weddings so far only 1 has resulted in civil divorce.

 

[alphawoman]

article:

But today there is good news for those of us who didn’t do things the traditional way: data from the last few years shows no increased risk of divorce for those who had babies prior to nuptials.

Selection bias is driving this. The people who have babies out of wedlock are the group who are least inclined to be married in the first place. What is relevant is the rate of dissolution of common law partnerships AND marriages as a share of total relationships yielding children born out of wedlock.

Think of the universe of people who reproduce in relationships this way:

a. Children in wedlock – remain married
b. Children in wedlock – divorced

c. Children out of wedlock – marry & remain married
d. Children out of wedlock – marry & divorce
e. Children out of wedlock – never marry & stay together
f. Children out of wedlock – never marry & separate

The article is saying this:

a/(a+b) ~= c/(c+d)

What is the relative share of (c+d)/(c+d+e+f)? That is, what share of people who have children out of wedlock ultimately marry? It is a BIG problem for children if a growing share of our population is raised in families whose members lack permanent commitments to one another economically, socially, emotionally.

What is the share of couples whose children are born out of wedlock who remain together, either inmarriage or a common law relationship? That is, what is (c+e)/(c+d+e+f)? The tone of the article is trying to conflate c/(c+d) with (c+e)/(c+d+e+f) to suggest that having children out of wedlock is not associated with a higher rate of relational breakdown and instability of children, but the data they cite don’t answer the premise put forward. I strongly suspect that a/(a+b) >> (c+e)/(c+d+e+f). It’s a deft sleight of hand.

Further, what is the trend in (a/a+b)? Falling! It’s not exactly a coup for people with children born out of wedlock to crow about not unduly damaging their children when the standard against which they are measuring themselves is so low as to be damaging, itself!

None of this discussion even delves into the topic of shifts between marriage and common law groups over time. That alone conveys some important messages, too.

 

[gus]

Yup.

I found out some years ago that my dad’s parents weren’t married in the church until long after he was born–like, I think he was in grad school when they finally tied the knot.

Grandpa apparently was forced into a Catholic shotgun wedding by the father of a girl he got pregnant. The resulting married life was a disaster (I’m shocked…), and he left the wife and kid. (Grandpa was not a very nice man in a lot of ways.) Since the original wedding was conducted under “you knocked up my daughter, marry her or I’ll kill you” circumstances, I think a fairly good argument could be made that it was probably invalid. However, back in the day, annulments were definitely beyond the reach of a factory worker: very rare and very expensive. He later married my grandmother in a civil ceremony, and they raised Dad in the church, though they didn’t receive communion until twenty-plus years later, when wife #1 died and he and Grandma got their marriage validated in the rectory chapel.

A true shotgun wedding does not create a Catholic marraige .
A wedding has to be consensual to satisfy a Catholic definition of marriage.
The term shotgun wedding is sometimes misapplied to any marraige were the bride was pregnant even if the intent was to marry.

 

[Mardi_M]

Ahh the “dream wedding”, my cousins girlfriend won’t marry him, because they can’t afford a dream wedding, marriage has always been out of the question for her for only that reason, despite them having a 3 year old.

There doesn’t need to be a ‘*dream *wedding’. Several family members have had simple ones, remembered just as fondly. You’re just as married with a simple one. Weddings and funerals can be ridiculously expensive.

 

[bitterhope]

A true shotgun wedding does not create a Catholic marraige .
A wedding has to be consensual to satisfy a Catholic definition of marriage.
The term shotgun wedding is sometimes misapplied to any marraige were the bride was pregnant even if the intent was to marry.

Maybe these days, but it was quite common before/during the 1960’s and somewhat later even for shotgun weddings to occur in the Church. It was just what you did if a baby was in the way. Priests often had people married within weeks if a baby was in the way, not the “mandatory” (which really isn’t) six months required now or putting it off until baby was born which is even more common these days. It was cultural mainly, but also illegitimate children were not eligible for many things open to them now and a quick wedding fixed that for the children. It also prevented embarrassment and shame for the parents and soon to be grand parents. One of my dad’s sisters married like that in the early 1970’s and divorced soon after her daughter was born. She could not afford an annulment. She never remarried and raised her daughter alone. My cousin is now a nun.

 

[UbiCaritas]

A true shotgun wedding does not create a Catholic marraige .
A wedding has to be consensual to satisfy a Catholic definition of marriage.
The term shotgun wedding is sometimes misapplied to any marraige were the bride was pregnant even if the intent was to marry.

Sure, but then, as now, you still had to get that shotgun wedding (if it was conducted in a Catholic church between two Catholics, that is) annulled. In their case, it was definitely of the shotgun variety. Though one could also kinda see the father of the bride’s point, given the subsequent behavior of grandpa: he presumably wanted to both protect his daughter and his grandkid, and life was not kind in those days to unmarried moms or the children of such liaisons.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Maybe these days, but it was quite common before/during the 1960’s and somewhat later even for shotgun weddings to occur in the Church. It was just what you did if a baby was in the way. Priests often had people married within weeks if a baby was in the way, not the “mandatory” (which really isn’t) six months required now or putting it off until baby was born which is even more common these days. It was cultural mainly, but also illegitimate children were not eligible for many things open to them now and a quick wedding fixed that for the children. It also prevented embarrassment and shame for the parents and soon to be grand parents. One of my dad’s sisters married like that in the early 1970’s and divorced soon after her daughter was born. She could not afford an annulment. She never remarried and raised her daughter alone. My cousin is now a nun.

Which also makes me wonder…

When DH and I got married, we were engaged and then married six months later. (DD didn’t arrive for another 15 months, so no shotgun, or, for that matter, “shotgun” wedding there. ) When we were planning our wedding, we looked up the requirements for wedding prep/waiting period, and now at least, it’s a minimum of 3 months.

I wonder if back then a) that waiting period was in effect, b) if it was 3 months (rather than, say, a couple of weeks, or a month), and c) if a priest didn’t follow it, then if that would render those marriages invalid.

shrug I honestly have no idea, but am vaguely curious.

 

[Padres1969]

Which also makes me wonder…

When DH and I got married, we were engaged and then married six months later. (DD didn’t arrive for another 15 months, so no shotgun, or, for that matter, “shotgun” wedding there. ) When we were planning our wedding, we looked up the requirements for wedding prep/waiting period, and now at least, it’s a minimum of 3 months.

I wonder if back then a) that waiting period was in effect, b) if it was 3 months (rather than, say, a couple of weeks, or a month), and c) if a priest didn’t follow it, then if that would render those marriages invalid.

shrug I honestly have no idea, but am vaguely curious.

Wonder what the time people are a couple before they get married is on average these days as well. My parents were together for about 8 months before their marriage. I was with my wife for 7 years before we got married. And I don’t know anyone who was together less than 2 years before their marriage among the married people my age whom I know or are friends with.

 

[bitterhope]

I got married at 18. We settled marrying about 3 weeks after we started dating but at that point we had been friends for a year. We got engaged two months after we started dating and married exactly 2 months later. It was a Catholic wedding but at a regularly scheduled weekday Mass. The priest knew my husband was leaving for basic training and offered to marry us before he left instead of after. No I was not pregnant. That way I could move with him after basic to our first duty station instead of waiting to marry whenever he could take leave. So we knew each other about 18 months but we only dated/engaged for about 5 months. Right after my 18th birthday. It might vary by diocese but at least where we were living priests have a lot of lee way. It might have changed in the last 18 years though. It seems some things are not as set in stone as I once thought they were.

I’m very happy to report we are still madly in love and our marriage is stronger now than I ever thought it would be. So things can work out well for short term relationships. We knew immediately marriage was in our future but we fought it at first. The first day we met we both knew but we stayed friends thinking it was crazy.

 

[Cathoholic]

The problem with this article cited is many.

The article cited is (emphasis mine):

Recent Data Shows Having Kids Before Marriage Does Not Increase Divorce Rates (here)

This article gathers its data from a study titled: “What Happens When Couples Marry after the First Baby?” (here)

One problem is, that the study didn’t look at Divorce rates for having **“kids” **before marriage. The study cited, merely looked at couples that had ONE child before marriage. (emphasis mine)

The paper cites that cohabiting couples are less educated.

In general, cohabiting couples tend to have less education and income than married couples, and it may be that those who do not marry are a particularly disadvantaged group (for example, we could not account for the job prospects of male partners).

Our Bishops have already told us this information (here):

· Those not completing high school are almost twice as likely to cohabit as those who complete college. 40% of college graduates, however, do cohabit at some time. Only 26% of women with college degrees cohabit compared to 41% of women without a high school diploma. The higher the level of education, the more likely the cohabitor is to marry the partner. (Qian, 1998; Bumpass & Lu, 1998; Thornton, Axinn, Teachman, 1995; Willis & Michael, 1994)

The article ignores the fact that some of these couples may have cohabited with others too. Fortunately our Bishops have this information too.

· Women are likely to cohabit only once and that with the person they subsequently marry; men are more likely to cohabit with a series of partners. (Bumpass & Sweet, 1989, Teachman and Polanko, 1990)

And remember. ALL the couples in this study who married after their first child (by definition) were cohabitating, but the study seemed to ignore the fact that some couples who get pregnant do NOT cohabitate after the pregnancy but actually repent and do NOT cohabitate.

The study seems to assume ALL of these couples they studied DID cohabitate which admittedly, is “likely” the case given what they say, but is left without clarification. This oversight may skew data. I would avoid coming to scientific conclusions based on “likely” though.

The study cited also seems to assume the divorce-repercussions of out-of-wedlock children don’t have any effect on the marital outcomes of the children, or other people around them (“Well. My big brother cohabitated, so I will too” [and now this little “kid brother’s” marriage ends in divorce]).

And, now days many people are not bothering with marriage at all.

How does THAT skew their data? Marriage ideas and rates HAVE changed from 1995 and the 2006-2010 surveys they used.

The study ultimately referred to here stated . . .

We analyzed all marital and cohabiting unions in which a child was born within 10 years of the surveys

Some of this information is re-hashed old information presented as “new”.

For example our Bishops have already taught us some of this (here) . . .

Cohabitors who marry break up in the earlier years of marriage. Cohabitors and noncohabitors have the same rate of marriage stability if the marriage remains intact over seven years. (Bumpass, Sweet & Cherlin, 1991; Bennett, Blanc, & Bloom, 1988)

The study cited uses two time frames where society’s ideas about marriage (and in some cases EVEN the legal definition of such) has changed dramatically . . . .

We used large-scale data from the 1995 and 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), which asks women of childbearing age questions about relationships and family formation.

I think this statement: **“Recent Data Shows Having Kids Before Marriage Does Not Increase Divorce Rates” **is unsupported from the data cited and referred to here.

(I am not saying it is true or false here. I am just saying, based on the presentation, I don’t affirm it.)

God bless.

Cathoholic

CCC 2391 Some today claim a “right to a trial marriage” where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, "the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim."184 Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate “trial marriages.” It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.

 

[Convert1]

This statement does not align with overall statistics.

divorcesource.com/blog/unplanned-pregnancy-and-marriage/

Four of my friends are divorced and remarried. (age 45-55) All were pregnant when they married the first time and felt they “had to get married”. None of the first marriages lasted greater than five years. Sorry. I don’t buy this. Marrying without the feeling one has free will to choose, does not seem to end well. IMO.