News-Record.com

This sounds like a great idea for a new Magnet School. Surely there's a grant out there that would fund this.

Possibly, if done just right, you could take the class, get married, get a Whopper Meal Deal to go!--AND get High School credit for it!

Man, I'm callin' Terry Grier right now. I can't beleive he hasn't already thought of this!

After reading, I'm still at a loss for why you think this is a good idea, Allen. Rather, I see why you think it's a good idea, but your reasons seem weak.

You say it's a good idea because the divorce rate is too high. Do you have any indication that premarital education lessens divorce?

You also say that people should only get married after careful consideration. Fine. Do we really want the government deciding what careful consideration is? Must it be defined as participation in a mandatory "program?" What if the couslelors decide that a couple's participation wasn't adequate or that they have not acheived the appropriate level of careful consideration? Without "certification" will a marriage be disallowed?

It sounds like unnecessary government buraucracy to me.

Allen,

Heaven forbid that I should get off topic, but do you know if there is a N&R blog that is discussing today's editorial regarding school suspensions?

Allen:

The evidence is that these types of programs do help make marriages better functioning and healthier. Many mainline churches require this type of premarital education.

As part of the recent welfare reform reauthorization, the Bush admininistration sought and got money to promote "healthy marriages" among low-income families.

One way that a program like this might work is to offer couples a discount on their marriage license fee if they can document participation in a marriage education program.

Nothing chills my blood more than the idea of marriage counselling before or after the fact. I told my wife that if she ever wanted to go, it would be pointless, because I would never be married to a person who went to marriage counselling. Fortunately, we're happily married after 13 years except when she nags me to cut the grass or do the dishes. That makes her happy, though.

Look, it's not the government's job to keep people from making stupid decisions. Dave, just because Bush supported something doesn't make it right. As much as you obviously admire the man, you'll probably concede that he's been wrong before.

As an empirical test, look at divorce rates before anyone ever heard of marriage counselling. That should put into perspective the usefulness of such programs.

I think it's a good idea, dahling. It may actually help some people and has not much chance of hurting anybody, dahling. So why not?

As I understand it, this is a voluntary program. I can't produce numbers to prove it, but common sense would seem to argue for at least trying it (as they are doing) and seeing if it has an impact.

Quest:
That editorial is open for comments.

I was surprised when I found out some time ago that the highest divorce rates in the US occurred right here in the Bible Belt, the backyard of Baptist country, Conservatism Central; unlike in the Northeast where the majority faith is Catholic and consistently posts the lowest divorce rates.

Perhaps when obtaining a marriage license a list of faith orgs with their marriage success rates should be given to the soon to be married couples giving them some options (all voluntary) for counseling for a compatible marriage. The Baptists wouldn't fare so well, but the Catholics would be right up there at the top as a result of their success in keeping marriages together.

Expanding on my earlier post. Since the Northeast is predominantly Democratic and the Bible Belt, predominantly the Southeast, has a tendency to vote Republican, then it appears Democrats divorce less than Republicans and are more honorable when it comes to the institution of marriage. I wonder why Rush or Ann haven't reported on this phenomenon?

The regional difference appears to boil down to poverty (high correlation to divorce rate) and Catholics (low correlation). The South loses both ways. Evangelicals divorce at about the same rate as the national average, as do African-Americans, although their marriage rate is much lower. Weekly attendees of religious meetings have a lower rate than average.

If the program is voluntary, fine. But I'd still rather get a divorce than listen to some marriage expert.

My wedding date is set for later this year and, unlike the poster above, I'm not getting married without some sort of counseling. Here's why: as an older bride I have lots of friends who are married and among the relationships ones that are troubled, they did not receive premarital counseling. I also have a relative who cancelled her wedding during premarital counseling because the things that all of us could see finally revealed themselves to HER. So, counseling can be useful to some people. I mean, people want kids to stop and pause before they have abortions, right? Isn't this just as important a decision?

Write4food,

In light of the fact that apparently the Prots have a higher divorce rate than do the Catholics if I were you I'd seek marriage counseling from a priest or go even a step further and consult one of the Mormon counselors. I've never met a Mormon who was working on a second marriage.

Brian:

The highest divorce rates occur for those who appear to rush into marriage, especially young couples. A non-coercive program to provide information seems worthwhile, especially since some of these programs do appear to generate results. The big question though in the research is that it has focused on white middle- and upper-income couples and largely ignored poor and minority couples.

Divorce has enormous costs, even worse are marriages with lots of conflict. Programs that could help with this seem worthwhile. We have no objection to birthing classes becoming a de facto norm, why not create similar norms for marriage classes.

I'm sorry that the mere thought of marriage counseling chills your blood. There are definitely some bad counselors out there (like the ones who promise that they can save any marriage). However, if it came down to a choice between my marriage and meeting with a counselor, I would put my marriage first and lay things out before a counselor, no matter how uncomfortable it might be. A few more years of marriage past 13 has taught me to never say "never."

Dave:
I agree absolutely. I see counseling doing no harm at the very least.
When I get married, you'd better believe there'll be counseling.

Allen, can I be the first to give some advice on your future not-yet-planned marriage? If a conversation comes up that you don't feel like talking about or a situation comes up where the lovely Mrs. Johnson is obviously right and you are wrong, don't run away, hide for a few days and refuse to talk about it. Just admit that you were wrong. The Mrs. will respect that.

Marriage counselling is part, I think, of the expertization of everyday life. Once you take a normal human relationship like marriage, friendship, parenthood, citizenship, etc. and declare normal people incompetent to enter such relationships without the guidance of the expert, you've infantilized the human race. For millions of years, people managed to do these things without the help of PhD-bearing experts. Suddenly, for some reason, we need them. Why?

I take friendship seriously, but I somehow manage to be friends with people (i.e., those who don't hate me) without a certificate of friendship signed by some dude with a Ph.D. in Friendship Counselling. I even have friends of different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, creeds, and national origins despite--and here's the amazing part--never having received Diversity Training. Probably in the future I won't be allowed to do this.

We don't need, in my opinion, government programs in everyday life even if the deterioration of culture, wherein expertise once resided, has created a gap. We need instead a rehabilitated culture. If you're a liberal, you of course will see the need for a government program here, since you understand the role of govt to be the repair of all problems.

When your car is broken, you take it to a mechanic. If you think of marriage as a machine to be fixed--adjusting the conversational intake, installing a new listening skills manifold, etc.--then by all means go to a marriage mechanic. But do it on your own dime, please.

Oh yeah, on the future marriage front, Allen, I'd advise not giving an inch. My wife is a feminist, and she delights in inverting the normal patriarchal structure of human society. Once I started letting her be boss, it was all over.

Bryan:

Instead of a blanket ban on government programs, the standard should be whether a program provides more benefits to society than it costs. The demonstration programs that take place in Guilford County may help to establish the evidence--one way or the other.

Government support for these types of programs may be needed here because the personal and societal benefits of instruction (or counseling) may differ. For example, the benefits would differ if couples fail to consider the impacts of their personal decisions on others, such as their children or the public court system.

I slightly disagree about this being a symptom of the "expertization" of life. Instead, it looks like norms regarding what constitutes a good marriage are changing. On average, people are waiting longer to marry, and stories regarding Brittany Spears and other celebrities notwithstanding, people are also being more selective before they marry. Divorce rates are also edging downward. There is also the issue that women's view on what constitutes a successful marriage probably differ from your views and mine. As women gain more power in other spheres they are likely to demand better treatment inside of marriages. Instruction and counseling may help us to navigate (or at least be aware) of this evolution.

In addition, there is also the issue that fewer children are growing up inside of stable two-parent families. The positive role models and examples that we might have had are not there for many young people. Instruction and counseling might be needed as substitutes for these other disadvantages.

The important criterion here is whether these types of programs can make things better. We'll never know the answer until we try them.

I agree, Dave. As for Brian's contention that premarital counseling is "the expertization of everyday life," I guess you could lump any kind of counseling or therapy into that category.
But that would be shortsighted.
The thrust of the counseling in question, as I understand it, is communication skills and conflict resolution. I can see considerable value in both, especially with an impartial professional helping to facilitate the conversation.

There is lots of evidence showing that many of those marriages of yesteryear endured not because people had better coping skills but because women weren't in a position to earn enough money to live on their own and raise children, too. Once women stopped being chattel and were able to earn money and not have to rely on some man to support them and their offspring, they left those unhappy marriages. While I realize that counseling can't ensure the survival of my marriage, it certainly can't hurt to equip myself with all the tools available to me so that I can be the best wife and partner to my mate. Asking for help afterward seems assbackward to me.

Dave writes that "The important criterion here is whether these types of programs can make things better. We'll never know the answer until we try them."

Yikes. A blanket ban on all government programs is far more sensible. If we try them on the off chance that they'll work, we'll be stuck with them forever whether they work or not. And tomorrow some other nanny-state activist will say we need another program for this other social problem, and pretty soon you're stuck in an oozing morass of creeping socialism. The important criterion here is whether Ronald Reagan ever supported it.

Allen, most counseling is based on the diagnosis of a problem (which tends to morph into a "disease," since that ensures insurance reimbursements). If you begin with the premise that marriage is a problem waiting to happen, then you can reasonably think of marriage counseling as prophylactic. The same if you think, as Dave does, of marriage as a matter of cultural trends requiring information-based navigation. The same if you think of marriage as a complex machine for which one needs "tools" like "communications skills" and "conflict resolution" in order to operate successfully and keep in good repair.

If you think as I do--apparently alone--that marriage just isn't that difficult, but rather a basic matter of mutual respect and affection, then counseling becomes unnecessary. You pretty much learned in kindergarten all you need to know about having a good marriage. Well, almost everything.

Nah, I don't think marriage is "a problem waiting to happen" no more than I think driving a car is. But it doesn't hurt to take Drivers Ed before taking the wheel.

I never took Drivers Ed (and never had a wreck). That's part of creeping socialism, too.

(The post above, incidentally, is mine.)

But I imagine SOMEBODY taught you how to drive.

Brian:

I assume that you are talking about the same Ronald Reagan who signed into law:
1) a massive expansion, including added taxes and coverage, in the Social Security system;
2) a giant and ultimately unpopular expansion of Medicaid to include Catastrophic Health Insurance; and
3) a reform of welfare that included additional job training programs (Job Opportunity and Basic Skills, or JOBS programs) and transitional child care and Medicaid coverage.

This would also be the same libertarian president who supported a constitutional amendment mandating prayer in schools. How would that be less coercive than offering voluntary marraige supports?

President Reagan supported small government and fewer regulations when it suited him and supported an expansion of government at other times when it suited him.

Given the former President's checkered history at marriage (somewhere I still have a button that says "Jane Wyman was Right!") and relations with his children, he might have actually benefited from more counseling and less astrology.

Allen, I did receive some private sector driving instruction from my parents, at no cost to the taxpayer.

Dave, Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect, and because of the socialist machinations of Tip O'Neill, he wasn't able to abolish as much of the government as he wanted--imagine the world without a Department of Education!--but he was good enough to get a major airport named after him, and that's pretty good. I think he supported the prayer amendment for the good of the atheists and infidels.

As for counseling and astrology, there's really not that much difference. See:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1292614&pageindex=2

Bryan:

Yes, the airport, a great example of the "new federalism." Following the well-honed Republican practice of "follow what I say, not what I do," the federal government forced the name change on an unwilling local airport authority.

It sure didn't sound like Tip O'Neill was forcing the President's hand when he introduced his Catastrophic Health Insurance initiative. See the President's 1987 transmittal message. Ditto his support for the 1988 Family Support Act (welfare reform). Actually, it's hard to imagine that Tip O'Neill had much to do with either of these events as he retired from Congress on January 3, 1987. Those were some powerful machinations.

The Social Security changes did occur on Tip O'Neill's watch but followed the plan put forth by Alan Greenspan before he became the Fed chairman. I guess you include Greenspan as a card-carrying member of your socialist cabal.

Your research cite does not refer to marital counseling but to all kinds of counseling. It also shows neutral to positive effects for counseling. So the balance of the evidence in the article supports counseling.

A peer-reviewed meta analysis that directly examines marital interventions is posted here. It concludes that the programs have beneficial effects. See also a 2002 summary by that hotbed of socialist activism and manipulation, The Heritage Foundation.