Quote:

---

In 1960, nearly 70% of American adults were married; now only about half are. Eight times as many children are born out of wedlock. Back then, two-thirds of 20-somethings were married; in 2008 just 26% were. And college graduates are now far more likely to marry (64%) than those with no higher education (48%).

When an institution so central to human experience suddenly changes shape in the space of a generation or two, it's worth trying to figure out why. This fall the Pew Research Center, in association with TIME, conducted a nationwide poll exploring the contours of modern marriage and the new American family, posing questions about what people want and expect out of marriage and family life, why they enter into committed relationships and what they gain from them. What we found is that marriage, whatever its social, spiritual or symbolic appeal, is in purely practical terms just not as necessary as it used to be. Neither men nor women need to be married to have sex or companionship or professional success or respect or even children — yet marriage remains revered and desired.

When an institution so central to human experience suddenly changes shape in the space of a generation or two, it's worth trying to figure out why. This fall the Pew Research Center, in association with TIME, conducted a nationwide poll exploring the contours of modern marriage and the new American family, posing questions about what people want and expect out of marriage and family life, why they enter into committed relationships and what they gain from them. What we found is that marriage, whatever its social, spiritual or symbolic appeal, is in purely practical terms just not as necessary as it used to be. Neither men nor women need to be married to have sex or companionship or professional success or respect or even children — yet marriage remains revered and desired.

The Marrying Kind

In 1978, when the divorce rate was much higher than it is today, a TIME poll asked Americans if they thought marriage was becoming obsolete. Twenty-eight percent did.

Since then, we've watched that famous royal marriage and the arrival of Divorce Court. We've tuned in to Family Ties (nuclear family with three kids) and Modern Family (nuclear family with three kids, plus gay uncles with an adopted Vietnamese baby and a grandfather with a Colombian second wife and dorky stepchild). We've spent time with Will and Grace, who bickered like spouses but weren't, and with the stars of Newlyweds: Nick & Jessica, who were spouses, bickered and then weren't anymore. We've seen some political marriages survive unexpectedly (Bill and Hillary Clinton) and others unpredictably falter (Al and Tipper Gore).

We've seen the rise of a $40 billion-plus wedding industry, flames fanned by dating sites, and reality shows playing the soul-mate game — alongside the rise of the prenup, the postnup and, most recently, divorce insurance. We care about marriage so much that one of the fiercest political and legal fights in years is being waged over whom the state permits to get married. We've seen a former head of state's child (Chelsea Clinton) marry after living with her boyfriend and a potential head of state's child (Bristol Palin) have a child before leaving home.

So, where are we on the marriage question? Less wedded to it. The Pew survey reveals that nearly 40% of us think marriage is obsolete. This doesn't mean, though, that we're pessimistic about the future of the American family; we have more faith in the family than we do in the nation's education system or its economy. We're just more flexible about how family gets defined.

---

Quote:

---

You've been living with the love of your life for months or years. Things are going great. So why get married at all and possibly mess up a good thing?

Cohabiting couples often decide to get married for one of two reasons, experts say.

The couple might see marriage as a jump-off-the-cliff type declaration that "we're all in" this relationship. Or the "I do's" are said because the person who has been reluctant to walk down the aisle finally decides that step would be less painful than losing their partner.

.....

But that pre-wedding, living together arrangement should have a limit, according to Britain's Prince Charles

While responding that he was thrilled that his son Prince William had finally asked his live-in girlfriend Kate Middleton to marry him, Prince Charles also remarked, "They've been practicing long enough."

.....

But what if one cohabiting partner can't get the other to commit?

Psychologist Diana Kirschner suggests taking a "cost of loss stance" to try to create commitment in the other person. She says it is not an ultimatum but a communication that the relationship may be lost if it doesn't proceed to marriage.

Start by deciding what relationship you want, she says. That may be finding a committed partner to build a life together and have children. But whatever your love intention is, she says, take a stance for yourself.

"You announce it to your partner. 'I'd love you to be the one. Here's why I think you would be great. However, if you're not available to do this, I will be taking measures to look at other people."

Kirschner, author of "Love in 90 Days: the Essential Guide to Finding Your Own True Love," says in many cases that kind of statement is not voiced but it may be in the air.

"If the man is dragging his feet, he knows his partner is not going to hang in there much longer because she may want to have children, she's getting in her late 30s -- he just knows."

And it's that moment when the potential for loss occurs, Kirschner says, that the couple "becomes very ripe for commitment, becomes very ripe for moving forward."

---