Issues & Implications dedicated marriage promotion activi- ties and related research. Meanwhile, Reproductive Health Advocates according to an April 2004 report by the Center for Law and Social Policy And Marriage Promotion: (CLASP), a growing number of states have begun to sponsor marriage pro- Asserting a Stake in the Debate motion activities, such as premarital counseling, school-based marriage By Cynthia Dailard education, and education and sup- port services to married couples; “Marriage promotion” represents a ly structure by encouraging out-of- seven states already commit a signifi- cornerstone of social conservatives’ wedlock births among poor women, cant portion of their federal welfare domestic policy agenda, and propos- three of the four purposes of the block grant funding to such types of als designed to promote and strength- 1996 law were designed to promote activities. en marriage are gaining currency at marriage. Notably, however, these all levels of government. Since taking marriage promotion goals permitted Ideology, Research & Reactions office, President Bush has promised the states to spend their welfare to invest in marriage promotion on block grant funds on marriage pro- For many social conservatives, pro- an unprecedented scale through his motion activities targeting not only moting heterosexual marriage goes proposal to reauthorize the nation’s welfare recipients but all Americans. hand in hand with fierce opposition welfare reform law, and legislation to the formal sanctioning of homo- pending before Congress would allo- Although conservatives applauded sexual unions, in the name of “pro- cate substantial funding toward that the 1996 law’s success in promoting tecting” marriage. It also falls under end. Yet even as the president waits “work over welfare,” many felt that it the umbrella of a larger ideological for Congress to act, his administra- had failed to live up to its promise to and religiously motivated policy tion is finding ways to devote signifi- promote marriage. Accordingly, Pres- agenda that includes teaching young cant funding to marriage promotion ident Bush, shortly after taking people that remaining abstinent out- activities through existing programs office, pledged to devote unprece- side of marriage is the expected and funding streams. dented attention and resources to standard of behavior and that sup- marriage promotion activities. Since ports channeling substantial funding The very question of government then, the House of Representatives to faith-based organizations to involvement in this area provokes twice passed welfare reauthorization achieve these related policy goals. strong reactions among players rep- proposals that would make good on resenting a wide range of interests the president’s promise, but the more For these social conservatives, little and ideologies. The sexual and repro- moderate Senate’s attempts to move further justification for governmen- ductive health community potential- similar legislation fell apart over tal marriage promotion may be nec- ly has much to contribute to debates issues unrelated to marriage. Follow- essary. The fact is, however, that over policies and programs designed ing the 2004 election, which broad- they also can point to an established to promote or maintain the forma- ened the conservative margin in and growing body of research show- tion of intimate relationships that are Congress, both the House and Senate ing that marriage is good for individ- healthy and stable—whether married Republican leadership announced in uals, particularly children. Married or otherwise. To date, however, sexu- January that Congress now would people are healthier, live longer and al and reproductive health advocates move swiftly to enact welfare legisla- have higher earnings than single and practitioners largely have sat on tion that would devote $200 million people. Children raised in married, the sidelines of this important social per year for “healthy marriage pro- two-parent families, moreover, are policy debate. motion grants” as well as $100 mil- five times less likely to be poor than lion per year for marriage-related those raised by a single parent; they research and demonstration projects. are also less likely to drop out of The Politics of Marriage school or become a teen parent. The federal government first began The Bush administration, however, Moreover, it would appear that it is promoting marriage as a matter of has not been idly awaiting congres- not just the presence of two parents public policy through the 1996 wel- sional action on this front. According in the home that matters—children fare reform law. Based on the argu- to various estimates, the administra- raised by their married, biological ment that the existing welfare system tion during its first term tapped parents have better developmental provided a disincentive to marriage existing programs and funding outcomes than children who grow and undermined the traditional fami- streams to spend $90–200 million for up with stepparents, and often with

The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy February 2005 1 unmarried, cohabiting parents. (It is not possible or desirable, government Existing research, however, fails to also worth noting, however, that would help parents cooperate better explain what it is about being mar- high-conflict marriages, and the in raising their children. ried that makes people less likely to stress and loss of parental income experience contraceptive failure and associated with divorce, can adverse- unintended pregnancy. Married peo- A Stake in the Debate ly affect both children and adults.) ple are more likely to be older than Virtually absent from the public those who are not married. Married At the same time, an array of pro- debate so far has been any serious people also have less reason to be gressive constituencies either consideration or even discussion of concerned about sexually transmitted express concern about the potential the potential interactions between infections (STIs), including HIV. All form that government efforts to pro- relationship status and stability on of this may influence a couple’s mote marriage may take, or question the one hand and the sexual and choice of a contraceptive method and the notion of governmental involve- reproductive health of individuals their ability to use that method effec- ment in this area entirely. Common and couples on the other. To some tively. But does being married in and concerns include that such policies extent, this may be due to the lack of itself offer some protection against have the potential to denigrate of an extensive body of research these events, or do married people women by reinforcing outdated gen- directly addressing these questions. have different characteristics than der roles; may harm victims of Yet common sense and the research unmarried people—such as maturity domestic violence by encouraging that does touch on this subject and dedication, or a more positive them to remain in abusive relation- strongly suggest that relationship outlook for the future—that facilitate ships; and may push teens and status and stability can affect sexual effective contraceptive use? These young adults prematurely into mar- and reproductive health—and vice questions deserve further exploration. riages that tend to be unstable and versa. The research demonstrates, leave them at increased risk of moreover, that marriage, by itself, is Reproductive health outcomes affect poverty and reduced educational not entirely protective against nega- relationship stability. While it cer- attainment when those relationships tive sexual and reproductive health tainly appears, at least on the sur- dissolve. For some, marriage promo- outcomes that, in turn, can destabi- face, that the stability and security tion policies simply place govern- lize a couple’s relationship. afforded by many marriages has a ment in the inappropriate position of beneficial effect on people’s ability to promoting a particular moral or reli- Stable relationships foster better control their fertility and to avoid gious viewpoint—one that sanctions reproductive and sexual health out- adverse reproductive outcomes, some forms of intimate relationships comes. There is no question that common sense suggests that the while denigrating others. married people do better than single reverse is true as well. Individuals people in controlling their fertility and couples who have control over Some experts familiar with the litera- and timing their pregnancies. Mar- their fertility, and who successfully ture related to marriage and child ried women have lower levels of achieve their childbearing goals by well-being recognize that the research unintended pregnancy (which having the number of children they in this area is incomplete, and account for 31% of their pregnancies) want when they want them, are like- acknowledge that there is no evi- than single women (75%). This is ly to enjoy greater stability both dence that public policies to promote presumably due, at least in part, to within and beyond marital relation- marriage will lift children out of their lower rates of contraceptive fail- ships. Having children too early in a poverty or improve child welfare. ure: During the first year of using a marriage or spaced too closely Additionally, they appreciate the contraceptive method, 9% of married together, or raising a child that was harm that could accrue from mar- women experience a contraceptive not planned for, can place a great riage promotion efforts that are ill- failure resulting in an unintended deal of stress on a couple’s relation- conceived or too doctrinaire. These pregnancy, compared with 14% of ship, as can a hasty marriage initiat- advocates are staking out a middle single, noncohabiting women. More- ed in response to an unintended ground, by proposing a broader over, 37% of unintended pregnancies pregnancy. There can also be signifi- approach for government involvement among married women end in abor- cant financial costs associated with than that embraced by the Bush tion, compared with 61% among sin- raising a child that a couple did not administration. For example, under gle women. This makes sense, given plan for, and it is no secret that what CLASP has dubbed a “marriage- that married couples are more likely financial pressures can undermine plus” perspective, government poli- to have the resources necessary to relationships. And relationships can cies would help more children grow raise a child that had not been antic- be pushed to the breaking point up with two biological parents in low- ipated than single people (who may when couples do not agree on conflict marriages; when marriage is or may not have the emotional or whether to have a child or terminate financial support of a partner).

The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy February 2005 2 an unintended pregnancy, or when Marriage is not a panacea when it munication between couples, and they attribute blame for not being comes to reproductive and sexual helping them to negotiate conflict “careful enough” to avoid an health. On a practical level, however, surrounding extremely sensitive unwanted pregnancy. the fact remains that marriage, and issues such as personal intimacy and the stability that it can bring, still childbearing. They also understand Moreover, research demonstrates fails to solve many of the problems that providing individuals and cou- that the ability of single people to that couples face in regard to control- ples with the education, counseling control their fertility affects their ling their fertility and timing their and health care services they need to prospects for establishing enduring pregnancies (and that marriage is not avoid unintended pregnancy and to relationships. Women who have a even entirely protective against STIs). lead sexually healthy lives free from nonmarital birth are less likely to A 2003 AGI analysis shows that mar- disease, violence and sexual exploita- ever marry, and are more likely to ried people, like unmarried people, tion will provide them with the build- divorce once they eventually marry, still experience considerable difficulty ing blocks they need to form stable than women who do not experience in avoiding unintended pregnancy and long-lasting relationships. such a birth. Because almost 60% of and abortion, planning and spacing births to never-married women are their births, and using contraception For these reasons, sexual and repro- unintended, Daniel Lichter, of Ohio correctly and consistently over time ductive health advocates have a legit- State University, who conducted (“Marriage Is No Immunity From imate claim to a seat at the table in research on this issue, suggests that Problems with Planning Pregnancies,” future discussions about how to “marriage promotion might best TGR, May 2003, page 10). Indeed, spend federal marriage promotion begin with expanded efforts to one million married women each dollars, on the basis that counseling reduce nonmarital childbearing.” year unexpectedly find themselves for married couples and couples con- Lichter further suggests that “poli- pregnant, with 420,000 of these preg- templating marriage should include cies that aim to reduce nonmarital nancies ending in abortion. Of those information about how to avoid unin- childbearing in the first place may women who carry their pregnancies tended pregnancy. They are well- have the indirect benefit of increas- to term, two-thirds had hoped to wait poised to argue, moreover, that ing the incidence and stability of longer before having their first child family planning providers, with their marriage.” or next child; one-third had not long history of collaborating and intended to have a child at all, usual- partnering with a range of social ser- THE USES OF MARRIAGE ly because they had already achieved vice providers, have an important PROMOTION DOLLARS their desired family size. role to play in this effort. And since marriage is not a panacea in terms of helping couples avoid unintended The “Healthy Marriage Promotion Grants,” as defined by Taking a Seat at the Table both the House and Senate bills, would support any of the pregnancy, they can also assert that following activities: Certainly, more research needs to be family planning counseling and ser- done to further elucidate these (1) Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage vices that empower couples to take and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health; important associations. Yet, given the control over their reproductive lives apparent synergies between relation- and to avoid unintended pregnancy (2) Education in high schools on the value of marriage, ship status and sexual and reproduc- relationship skills, and budgeting; are central to efforts both to promote tive health—and the fact that and to sustain healthy marriages. (3) Marriage education, marriage skills, and relationship married people also experience nega- skills programs, which may include parenting skills, financial management, conflict resolution, and job and career tive outcomes that, in turn, can The concerns being voiced about gov- advancement, for non-married pregnant women and non- destabilize their relationship—it is ernment involvement in marriage married expectant fathers; clear that sexual and reproductive promotion, both in general and in (4) Pre-marital education and marriage skills training for health professionals have much to specific, are real and legitimate. Yet, engaged couples and for couples or individuals interested in contribute to the marriage promotion the fact remains that the federal gov- marriage; debate. Indeed, the list of marriage ernment and the states are poised to (5) Marriage enhancement and marriage skills training promotion activities that can be invest substantial amounts of funding programs for married couples; funded under the legislation current- in this area. This presents a chal- (6) Divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills; ly pending before Congress speaks to lenge, to be sure. But it also presents many of the skills that sexual and an opportunity for advocates and (7) Marriage mentoring programs, which use married cou- reproductive health practitioners ples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities; and practitioners who are concerned possess (see box). For example, fami- about fostering both sexual and repro- (8) Programs to reduce the disincentives to marriage in ly planning providers and sex educa- means-tested aid programs, if offered in conjunction with any ductive health, and healthy, stable [of the other activities described]. tors have considerable expertise in couples and families, to make gains bolstering people’s relationship and on both of these important fronts. interpersonal skills, fostering com-

The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy February 2005 3