《性别、亲密关系与社会》课程教学资源：The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case number:09-2292 ANDREW J.CHERLIN Johns Hopkins PLTF/DEFT EXHIBIT NO.DIX49 Date admitted: The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage This article argues that marriage has under- when it is appropriate to discipline a child.I gone a process of deinstitutionalization a predicted that,over time,as remarriage after weakening of the social norms that define part- divorce became common,norms would begin ners'behavior-over the past few decades.Ex- to emerge conceming proper behavior in step- amples are presented involving the increasing families-for example,what kind of relationship number and complexity of cohabiting unions a stepfather should have with his stepchildren. and the emergence of same-sex marriage.Two In other words,I expected that remarriage transitions in the meaning of marriage that would become institutionalized,that it would occurred in the United States during the 20th become more like first marriage.But just the century have created the social context for opposite has happened.Remarriage has not deinstitutionalization.The first transition,noted become more like first marriage;rather,first by Ernest Burgess,was from the institutional marriage has become more like remarriage. marriage to the companionate marriage.The Instead of the institutionalization of remarriage, second transition was to the individualized mar- what has occurred over the past few decades is riage in which the emphasis on personal choice the deinstitutionalization of marriage.Yes,re- and self-development expanded.Although the marriage is an incomplete institution,but now, practical importance of marriage has declined, so is first marriage-and for that matter,cohabi- its symbolic significance has remained high and tation. may even have increased.It has become a By deinstitutionalization I mean the weaken- marker of prestige and personal achievement. ing of the social norms that define people's Examples of its symbolic significance are behavior in a social institution such as marriage. presented.The implications for the current state In times of social stability,the taken-for-granted of marriage and its future direction are nature of norms allows people to go about their discussed. lives without having to question their actions or the actions of others.But when social change produces situations outside the reach of estab- A quarter century ago,in an article entitled “Remarriage as an Incomplete Institution” lished norms,individuals can no longer rely on (Cherlin,1978),I argued that American society shared understandings of how to act.Rather, lacked norms about the way that members of they must negotiate new ways of acting,a pro- stepfamilies should act toward each other.Par- cess that is a potential source of conflict and ents and children in first marriages,in contrast, opportunity.On the one hand,the development could rely on well-established norms,such as of new rules is likely to engender disagreement and tension among the relevant actors.On the other hand,the breakdown of the old rules of a gendered institution such as marriage could Department of Sociology,Johns Hopkins University,556 lead to the creation of a more egalitarian rela- Mergenthaler Hall,Baltimore,MD 21218 (cherlin@jhu.edu). tionship between wives and husbands. Key Words:cohabitation,marriage,remarriage,same-sex This perspective,I think,can help us under- marriage. stand the state of contemporary marriage.It 848 Journal of Marriage and Family 66(November 2004):848-861

ANDREW J. CHERLIN Johns Hopkins University The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage This article argues that marriage has under￾gone a process of deinstitutionalization—a weakening of the social norms that define part￾ners’ behavior—over the past few decades. Ex￾amples are presented involving the increasing number and complexity of cohabiting unions and the emergence of same-sex marriage. Two transitions in the meaning of marriage that occurred in the United States during the 20th century have created the social context for deinstitutionalization. The first transition, noted by Ernest Burgess, was from the institutional marriage to the companionate marriage. The second transition was to the individualized mar￾riage in which the emphasis on personal choice and self-development expanded. Although the practical importance of marriage has declined, its symbolic significance has remained high and may even have increased. It has become a marker of prestige and personal achievement. Examples of its symbolic significance are presented. The implications for the current state of marriage and its future direction are discussed. A quarter century ago, in an article entitled ‘‘Remarriage as an Incomplete Institution’’ (Cherlin, 1978), I argued that American society lacked norms about the way that members of stepfamilies should act toward each other. Par￾ents and children in first marriages, in contrast, could rely on well-established norms, such as when it is appropriate to discipline a child. I predicted that, over time, as remarriage after divorce became common, norms would begin to emerge concerning proper behavior in step￾families—for example, what kind of relationship a stepfather should have with his stepchildren. In other words, I expected that remarriage would become institutionalized, that it would become more like first marriage. But just the opposite has happened. Remarriage has not become more like first marriage; rather, first marriage has become more like remarriage. Instead of the institutionalization of remarriage, what has occurred over the past few decades is the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Yes, re￾marriage is an incomplete institution, but now, so is first marriage—and for that matter, cohabi￾tation. By deinstitutionalization I mean the weaken￾ing of the social norms that define people’s behavior in a social institution such as marriage. In times of social stability, the taken-for-granted nature of norms allows people to go about their lives without having to question their actions or the actions of others. But when social change produces situations outside the reach of estab￾lished norms, individuals can no longer rely on shared understandings of how to act. Rather, they must negotiate new ways of acting, a pro￾cess that is a potential source of conflict and opportunity. On the one hand, the development of new rules is likely to engender disagreement and tension among the relevant actors. On the other hand, the breakdown of the old rules of a gendered institution such as marriage could lead to the creation of a more egalitarian rela￾tionship between wives and husbands. This perspective, I think, can help us under￾stand the state of contemporary marriage. It Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, 556 Mergenthaler Hall, Baltimore, MD 21218 (cherlin@jhu.edu). Key Words: cohabitation, marriage, remarriage, same-sex marriage. 848 Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (November 2004): 848–861 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case number: 09-2292 PLTF/DEFT EXHIBIT NO. DIX49 Date admitted: ________________ By: ___________________________

ANDREW J.CHERLIN Johns Hopkins University The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage This article argues that marriage has under- when it is appropriate to discipline a child.I gone a process of deinstitutionalizationa predicted that,over time,as remarriage after weakening of the social norms that define part- divorce became common,norms would begin ners'behavior-over the past few decades.Ex- to emerge conceming proper behavior in step- amples are presented involving the increasing families-for example,what kind of relationship number and complexity of cohabiting unions a stepfather should have with his stepchildren. and the emergence of same-sex marriage.Two In other words,I expected that remarriage transitions in the meaning of marriage that would become institutionalized,that it would occurred in the United States during the 20th become more like first marriage.But just the century have created the social context for opposite has happened.Remarriage has not deinstitutionalization.The first transition,noted become more like first marriage;rather,first by Ernest Burgess,was from the institutional marriage has become more like remarriage. marriage to the companionate marriage.The Instead of the institutionalization of remarriage, second transition was to the individualized mar- what has occurred over the past few decades is riage in which the emphasis on personal choice the deinstitutionalization of marriage.Yes,re- and self-development expanded.Although the marriage is an incomplete institution,but now, practical importance of marriage has declined, so is first marriage-and for that matter,cohabi- its symbolic significance has remained high and tation. may even have increased.It has become a By deinstitutionalization I mean the weaken- marker of prestige and personal achievement. ing of the social norms that define people's Examples of its symbolic significance are behavior in a social institution such as marriage. presented.The implications for the current state In times of social stability,the taken-for-granted of marriage and its future direction are nature of norms allows people to go about their discussed. lives without having to question their actions or the actions of others.But when social change A quarter century ago,in an article entitled produces situations outside the reach of estab- “Remarriage as an Incomplete Institution” lished norms,individuals can no longer rely on (Cherlin,1978),I argued that American society shared understandings of how to act.Rather, lacked norms about the way that members of they must negotiate new ways of acting,a pro- stepfamilies should act toward each other.Par- cess that is a potential source of conflict and ents and children in first marriages,in contrast, opportunity.On the one hand,the development could rely on well-established norms,such as of new rules is likely to engender disagreement and tension among the relevant actors.On the other hand,the breakdown of the old rules of a gendered institution such as marriage could Department of Sociology,Johns Hopkins University,556 lead to the creation of a more egalitarian rela- Mergenthaler Hall,Baltimore,MD 21218 (cherlin@jhu.edu). tionship between wives and husbands. Key Words:cohabitation,marriage,remarriage,same-sex This perspective,I think,can help us under- marriage. stand the state of contemporary marriage.It 848 Journal of Marriage and Family 66(November 2004):848-861

ANDREW J. CHERLIN Johns Hopkins University The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage This article argues that marriage has under￾gone a process of deinstitutionalization—a weakening of the social norms that define part￾ners’ behavior—over the past few decades. Ex￾amples are presented involving the increasing number and complexity of cohabiting unions and the emergence of same-sex marriage. Two transitions in the meaning of marriage that occurred in the United States during the 20th century have created the social context for deinstitutionalization. The first transition, noted by Ernest Burgess, was from the institutional marriage to the companionate marriage. The second transition was to the individualized mar￾riage in which the emphasis on personal choice and self-development expanded. Although the practical importance of marriage has declined, its symbolic significance has remained high and may even have increased. It has become a marker of prestige and personal achievement. Examples of its symbolic significance are presented. The implications for the current state of marriage and its future direction are discussed. A quarter century ago, in an article entitled ‘‘Remarriage as an Incomplete Institution’’ (Cherlin, 1978), I argued that American society lacked norms about the way that members of stepfamilies should act toward each other. Par￾ents and children in first marriages, in contrast, could rely on well-established norms, such as when it is appropriate to discipline a child. I predicted that, over time, as remarriage after divorce became common, norms would begin to emerge concerning proper behavior in step￾families—for example, what kind of relationship a stepfather should have with his stepchildren. In other words, I expected that remarriage would become institutionalized, that it would become more like first marriage. But just the opposite has happened. Remarriage has not become more like first marriage; rather, first marriage has become more like remarriage. Instead of the institutionalization of remarriage, what has occurred over the past few decades is the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Yes, re￾marriage is an incomplete institution, but now, so is first marriage—and for that matter, cohabi￾tation. By deinstitutionalization I mean the weaken￾ing of the social norms that define people’s behavior in a social institution such as marriage. In times of social stability, the taken-for-granted nature of norms allows people to go about their lives without having to question their actions or the actions of others. But when social change produces situations outside the reach of estab￾lished norms, individuals can no longer rely on shared understandings of how to act. Rather, they must negotiate new ways of acting, a pro￾cess that is a potential source of conflict and opportunity. On the one hand, the development of new rules is likely to engender disagreement and tension among the relevant actors. On the other hand, the breakdown of the old rules of a gendered institution such as marriage could lead to the creation of a more egalitarian rela￾tionship between wives and husbands. This perspective, I think, can help us under￾stand the state of contemporary marriage. It Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, 556 Mergenthaler Hall, Baltimore, MD 21218 (cherlin@jhu.edu). Key Words: cohabitation, marriage, remarriage, same-sex marriage. 848 Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (November 2004): 848–861

Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage 849 may even assist in the risky business of predict- The Growth of Cohabitation ing the future of marriage.To some extent,sim- ilar changes in marriage have occurred in the In the 1970s,neither I nor most other American United States,Canada,and much of Europe,but researchers foresaw the greatly increased role of the American situation may be distinctive.Con- cohabitation in the adult life course.We thought sequently,although I include information about that,except among the poor,cohabitation would Canadian and European families,I focus mainly remain a short-term arrangement among child- on the United States. less young adults who would quickly break up or marry.But it has become a more prevalent and more complex phenomenon.For example, THE DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION cohabitation has created an additional layer of OF MARRIAGE complexity in stepfamilies.When I wrote my Even as I was writing my 1978 article,the article,nearly all stepfamilies were formed by changing division of labor in the home and the the remarriage of one or both spouses.Now, increase in childbearing outside marriage were about one fourth of all stepfamilies in the undermining the institutionalized basis of mar- United States,and one half of all stepfamilies in riage.The distinct roles of homemaker and Canada,are formed by cohabitation rather than breadwinner were fading as more married marriage (Bumpass,Raley,Sweet,1995;Sta- women entered the paid labor force.Looking tistics Canada,2002).It is not uncommon,espe- into the future,I thought that perhaps an equita- cially among the low-income population,for ble division of household labor might become a woman to have a child outside marriage,end institutionalized.But what happened instead her relationship with that partner,and then was the "stalled revolution,"in Hochschild's begin cohabiting with a different partner.This (1989)well-known phrase.Men do somewhat new union is equivalent in structure to a step- more home work than they used to do,but there family but does not involve marriage.Some- is wide variation,and each couple must work times the couple later marries,and if neither has out their own arrangement without clear guide- been married before.their union creates a first lines.In addition,when I wrote the article,I out marriage with stepchildren.As a result,we now of 6 births in the United States occurred outside see an increasing number of stepfamilies that do marriage,already a much higher ratio than at not involve marriage,and an increasing number midcentury (U.S.National Center for Health of first marriages that involve stepfamilies. Statistics,1982).Today,the comparable figure More generally,cohabitation is becoming is 1 out of 3 (U.S.National Center for Health accepted as an alternative to marriage.British Statistics,2003).The percentage is similar in demographer Kathleen Kiernan (2002)writes Canada (Statistics Canada.2003)and in the that the acceptance of cohabitation is occurring United Kingdom and Ireland (Kiernan,2002). in stages in European nations,with some na- In the Nordic countries of Denmark,Iceland, tions further along than others.In stage one, Norway,and Sweden,the figure ranges from cohabitation is a fringe or avant garde phenome- about 45%to about 65%(Kiernan).Marriage is non;in stage two,it is accepted as a testing no longer the nearly universal setting for child- ground for marriage;in stage three,it becomes bearing that it was a half century ago. acceptable as an alternative to marriage;and in Both of these developments-the changing stage four,it becomes indistinguishable from division of labor in the home and the increase in marriage.Sweden and Denmark,she argues, childbearing outside marriage-were well under have made the transition to stage four:in con- way when I wrote my 1978 article,as was trast,Mediterranean countries such as Spain, a steep rise in divorce.Here I discuss two more Italy,and Greece remain in stage one.In the recent changes in family life,both of which early 2000s,the United States appeared to be in have contributed to the deinstitutionalization of transition from stage two to stage three (Smock marriage after the 1970s:the growth of cohabi- Gupta,2002).A number of indicators sug- tation,which began in the 1970s but was not gested that the connection between cohabitation fully appreciated until it accelerated in the and marriage was weakening.The proportion of 1980s and 1990s,and same-sex marriage, cohabiting unions that end in marriage within which emerged as an issue in the 1990s and has 3 years dropped from 60%in the 1970s to come to the fore in the current decade. about 33%in the 1990s (Smock Gupta)

may even assist in the risky business of predict￾ing the future of marriage. To some extent, sim￾ilar changes in marriage have occurred in the United States, Canada, and much of Europe, but the American situation may be distinctive. Con￾sequently, although I include information about Canadian and European families, I focus mainly on the United States. THE DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MARRIAGE Even as I was writing my 1978 article, the changing division of labor in the home and the increase in childbearing outside marriage were undermining the institutionalized basis of mar￾riage. The distinct roles of homemaker and breadwinner were fading as more married women entered the paid labor force. Looking into the future, I thought that perhaps an equita￾ble division of household labor might become institutionalized. But what happened instead was the ‘‘stalled revolution,’’ in Hochschild’s (1989) well-known phrase. Men do somewhat more home work than they used to do, but there is wide variation, and each couple must work out their own arrangement without clear guide￾lines. In addition, when I wrote the article, 1 out of 6 births in the United States occurred outside marriage, already a much higher ratio than at midcentury (U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, 1982). Today, the comparable figure is 1 out of 3 (U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, 2003). The percentage is similar in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2003) and in the United Kingdom and Ireland (Kiernan, 2002). In the Nordic countries of Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, the figure ranges from about 45% to about 65% (Kiernan). Marriage is no longer the nearly universal setting for child￾bearing that it was a half century ago. Both of these developments—the changing division of labor in the home and the increase in childbearing outside marriage—were well under way when I wrote my 1978 article, as was a steep rise in divorce. Here I discuss two more recent changes in family life, both of which have contributed to the deinstitutionalization of marriage after the 1970s: the growth of cohabi￾tation, which began in the 1970s but was not fully appreciated until it accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s, and same-sex marriage, which emerged as an issue in the 1990s and has come to the fore in the current decade. The Growth of Cohabitation In the 1970s, neither I nor most other American researchers foresaw the greatly increased role of cohabitation in the adult life course. We thought that, except among the poor, cohabitation would remain a short-term arrangement among child￾less young adults who would quickly break up or marry. But it has become a more prevalent and more complex phenomenon. For example, cohabitation has created an additional layer of complexity in stepfamilies. When I wrote my article, nearly all stepfamilies were formed by the remarriage of one or both spouses. Now, about one fourth of all stepfamilies in the United States, and one half of all stepfamilies in Canada, are formed by cohabitation rather than marriage (Bumpass, Raley, & Sweet, 1995; Sta￾tistics Canada, 2002). It is not uncommon, espe￾cially among the low-income population, for a woman to have a child outside marriage, end her relationship with that partner, and then begin cohabiting with a different partner. This new union is equivalent in structure to a step￾family but does not involve marriage. Some￾times the couple later marries, and if neither has been married before, their union creates a first marriage with stepchildren. As a result, we now see an increasing number of stepfamilies that do not involve marriage, and an increasing number of first marriages that involve stepfamilies. More generally, cohabitation is becoming accepted as an alternative to marriage. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan (2002) writes that the acceptance of cohabitation is occurring in stages in European nations, with some na￾tions further along than others. In stage one, cohabitation is a fringe or avant garde phenome￾non; in stage two, it is accepted as a testing ground for marriage; in stage three, it becomes acceptable as an alternative to marriage; and in stage four, it becomes indistinguishable from marriage. Sweden and Denmark, she argues, have made the transition to stage four; in con￾trast, Mediterranean countries such as Spain, Italy, and Greece remain in stage one. In the early 2000s, the United States appeared to be in transition from stage two to stage three (Smock & Gupta, 2002). A number of indicators sug￾gested that the connection between cohabitation and marriage was weakening. The proportion of cohabiting unions that end in marriage within 3 years dropped from 60% in the 1970s to about 33% in the 1990s (Smock & Gupta), Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage 849

850 Journal of Marriage and Family suggesting that fewer cohabiting unions were distinctions between married and unmarried trial marriages (or that fewer trial marriages same-sex and opposite-sex couples were elimi- were succeeding).In fact,Manning and Smock nated for couples who have lived together for at (2003)reported that among 115 cohabiting least a year.Still,the Supreme Court of Canada working-class and lower middle-class adults ruled in 2002 that when cohabiting partners dis- who were interviewed in depth,none said that solve their unions,they do not have to divide he or she was deciding between marriage and their assets equally,nor can one partner be com- cohabitation at the start of the union.Moreover, pelled to pay maintenance payments to the only 36%of adults in the 2002 United States other,even when children are involved (Nova General Social Survey disagreed with the state- Scotia [Attorney General]v.Walsh,2002).In ment,"It is alright for a couple to live together France,unmarried couples may enter into Civil without intending to get married"(Davis, Solidarity Pacts.which give them most of the Smith,Marsden,2003).And a growing share rights and responsibilities of married couples of births to unmarried women in the United after the pact has existed for 3 years (Daley, States (about 40%in the 1990s)were to cohab- 2000).Several other countries have instituted iting couples(Bumpass Lu,2000).The com- registered partnerships (Lyall,2004). parable share was about 60%in Britain (Ermisch.2001). Canada appears to have entered stage three The Emergence of Same-Sex Marriage (Smock Gupta,2002).Sixty-nine percent of The most recent development in the deinstitu- births to unmarried women were to cohabiting tionalization of marriage is the movement to couples in 1997 and 1998 (Juby,Marcil- legalize same-sex marriage.It became a public Gratton,Le Bourdais,in press).More- issue in the United States in 1993,when the over,the national figures for Canada mask Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a state law substantial provincial variation.In particular, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples the rise in cohabitation has been far greater in violated the Hawaii state constitution (Baehr Quebec than elsewhere in Canada.In 1997 and v.Lewin,1993).Subsequently,Hawaii voters 1998,84%of unmarried women who gave birth passed a state constitutional amendment barring in Quebec were cohabiting (Juby,Marcil- same-sex marriage.In 1996,the United States Gratton,Le Bourdais).And four out of five Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, Quebeckers entering a first union did so by which allowed states to refuse to recognize cohabiting rather than marrying (Le Bourdais same-sex marriages licensed in other states.The Juby,2002).The greater acceptance of cohabi- act's constitutionality has not been tested as of tation in Quebec seems to have a cultural basis. this writing because until recently,no state al- Francophone Quebeckers have substantially lowed same-sex marriages.However,in 2003, higher likelihoods of cohabiting than do the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down English-speaking Quebeckers or Canadians in a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex the other English-speaking provinces (Statistics couples,and same-sex marriage became legal in Canada,1997).Celine Le Bourdais and Nicole May 2004 (although opponents may eventually Marcil-Gratton (1996)argue that Francophone succeed in prohibiting it through a state consti- Quebeckers draw upon a French,rather than tutional amendment).The issue has developed Anglo-Saxon,model of family life.In fact, further in Canada:In the early 2000s,courts in levels of cohabitation in Quebec are similar to British Columbia,Ontario,and Quebec ruled levels in France,whereas levels in English- that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex speaking Canada and in the United States are couples were discriminatory,and it appears more similar to the lower levels in Great Britain likely that the federal government will legalize (Kiernan,2002). gay marriage throughout the nation.Although To be sure,cohabitation is becoming more social conservatives in the United States are institutionalized.In the United States,states and seeking a federal constitutional amendment,I municipalities are moving toward granting co- think it is reasonable to assume that same-sex habiting couples some of the rights and respon- marriage will be allowed in at least some North sibilities that married couples have.Canada American jurisdictions in the future.In Europe, has gone further:Under the Modernization of same-sex marriage has been legalized in Benefits and Obligations Act of 2000,legal Belgium and The Netherlands

suggesting that fewer cohabiting unions were trial marriages (or that fewer trial marriages were succeeding). In fact, Manning and Smock (2003) reported that among 115 cohabiting working-class and lower middle-class adults who were interviewed in depth, none said that he or she was deciding between marriage and cohabitation at the start of the union. Moreover, only 36% of adults in the 2002 United States General Social Survey disagreed with the state￾ment, ‘‘It is alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married’’ (Davis, Smith, & Marsden, 2003). And a growing share of births to unmarried women in the United States (about 40% in the 1990s) were to cohab￾iting couples (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). The com￾parable share was about 60% in Britain (Ermisch, 2001). Canada appears to have entered stage three (Smock & Gupta, 2002). Sixty-nine percent of births to unmarried women were to cohabiting couples in 1997 and 1998 (Juby, Marcil￾Gratton, & Le Bourdais, in press). More￾over, the national figures for Canada mask substantial provincial variation. In particular, the rise in cohabitation has been far greater in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. In 1997 and 1998, 84% of unmarried women who gave birth in Quebec were cohabiting (Juby, Marcil￾Gratton, & Le Bourdais). And four out of five Quebeckers entering a first union did so by cohabiting rather than marrying (Le Bourdais & Juby, 2002). The greater acceptance of cohabi￾tation in Quebec seems to have a cultural basis. Francophone Quebeckers have substantially higher likelihoods of cohabiting than do English-speaking Quebeckers or Canadians in the other English-speaking provinces (Statistics Canada, 1997). Ce´line Le Bourdais and Nicole Marcil-Gratton (1996) argue that Francophone Quebeckers draw upon a French, rather than Anglo-Saxon, model of family life. In fact, levels of cohabitation in Quebec are similar to levels in France, whereas levels in English￾speaking Canada and in the United States are more similar to the lower levels in Great Britain (Kiernan, 2002). To be sure, cohabitation is becoming more institutionalized. In the United States, states and municipalities are moving toward granting co￾habiting couples some of the rights and respon￾sibilities that married couples have. Canada has gone further: Under the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act of 2000, legal distinctions between married and unmarried same-sex and opposite-sex couples were elimi￾nated for couples who have lived together for at least a year. Still, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2002 that when cohabiting partners dis￾solve their unions, they do not have to divide their assets equally, nor can one partner be com￾pelled to pay maintenance payments to the other, even when children are involved (Nova Scotia [Attorney General] v. Walsh, 2002). In France, unmarried couples may enter into Civil Solidarity Pacts, which give them most of the rights and responsibilities of married couples after the pact has existed for 3 years (Daley, 2000). Several other countries have instituted registered partnerships (Lyall, 2004). The Emergence of Same-Sex Marriage The most recent development in the deinstitu￾tionalization of marriage is the movement to legalize same-sex marriage. It became a public issue in the United States in 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Hawaii state constitution (Baehr v. Lewin, 1993). Subsequently, Hawaii voters passed a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. The act’s constitutionality has not been tested as of this writing because until recently, no state al￾lowed same-sex marriages. However, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, and same-sex marriage became legal in May 2004 (although opponents may eventually succeed in prohibiting it through a state consti￾tutional amendment). The issue has developed further in Canada: In the early 2000s, courts in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec ruled that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples were discriminatory, and it appears likely that the federal government will legalize gay marriage throughout the nation. Although social conservatives in the United States are seeking a federal constitutional amendment, I think it is reasonable to assume that same-sex marriage will be allowed in at least some North American jurisdictions in the future. In Europe, same-sex marriage has been legalized in Belgium and The Netherlands. 850 Journal of Marriage and Family

Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage 85 Lesbian and gay couples who choose to meaning of marriage during the 20th century. marry must actively construct a marital world The cultural trends included,first,an emphasis with almost no institutional support.Lesbians on emotional satisfaction and romantic love and gay men already use the term“family”to that intensified early in the century.Then,dur- describe their close relationships,but they usu- ing the last few decades of the century,an ethic ally mean something different from the standard of expressive individualism-which Bellah. marriage-based family.Rather.they often refer Marsden,Sullivan,Swidler,Tipton (1985) to what sociologists have called a "family of describe as the belief that "each person has choice":one that is formed largely through vol- a unique core of feeling and intuition that untary ties among individuals who are not bio- should unfold or be expressed if individuality is logically or legally related (Weeks,Heaphy, to be realized"(p.334)became more impor- Donovan,2001;Weston,1991).Now they face tant.On the material side,the trends include the the task of integrating marriages into these decline of agricultural labor and the correspond- larger networks of friends and kin.The partners ing increase in wage labor;the decline in child will not even have the option of falling back on and adult mortality;rising standards of living; the gender-differentiated roles of heterosexual and,in the last half of the 20th century,the marriage.This is not to say that there will be no movement of married women into the paid division of labor;one study of gay and lesbian workforce. couples found that in homes where one partner These developments,along with historical works longer hours and earns substantially more events such as the Depression and World War than the other partner,the one with the less II,produced two great changes in the meaning demanding,lower paying job did more house- of marriage during the 20th century.Emest Bur- work and more of the work of keeping in touch gess famously labeled the first one as a transi- with family and friends.The author suggests tion“from an institution to a companionship” that holding a demanding professional or mana- (Burgess Locke,1945).In describing the rise gerial job may make it difficult for a person to of the companionate marriage,Burgess was invest fully in sharing the work at home,regard- referring to the single-earer,breadwinner- less of gender or sexual orientation (Carrington, homemaker marriage that flourished in the 1999). 1950s.Although husbands and wives in the We might expect same-sex couples who have companionate marriage usually adhered to children,or who wish to have children through a sharp division of labor,they were supposed to adoption or donor insemination,to be likely to be each other's companions-friends,lovers- avail themselves of the option of marriage.(Ac- to an extent not imagined by the spouses in the cording to the United States Census Bureau institutional marriages of the previous era.The [2003b],33%of women in same-sex partner- increasing focus on bonds of sentiment within ships and 22%of men in same-sex partnerships nuclear families constituted an important but had children living with them in 2000.)Basic limited step in the individualization of family issues.such as who would care for the children. life.Much more so than in the 19th century,the would have to be resolved family by family. emotional satisfaction of the spouses became an The obligations of the partners to each other fol- important criterion for marital success.How- lowing a marital dissolution have also yet to be ever,through the 1950s,wives and husbands worked out.In these and many other ways,gay tended to derive satisfaction from their partici- and lesbian couples who marry in the near pation in a marriage-based nuclear family future would need to create a marriage-centered (Roussel,1989).That is to say,they based their kin network through discussion,negotiation, gratification on playing marital roles well:being and experiment. good providers,good homemakers,and respon- sible parents. Two Transitions in the Meaning of Marriage During this first change in meaning,marriage remained the only socially acceptable way to In a larger sense,all of these develop- have a sexual relationship and to raise children ments-the changing division of labor,child- in the United States,Canada,and Europe,with bearing outside of marriage,cohabitation,and the possible exception of the Nordic countries. gay marriage-are the result of long-term In his history of British marriages,Gillis(1985) cultural and material trends that altered the labeled the period from 1850 to 1960 the "era

Lesbian and gay couples who choose to marry must actively construct a marital world with almost no institutional support. Lesbians and gay men already use the term ‘‘family’’ to describe their close relationships, but they usu￾ally mean something different from the standard marriage-based family. Rather, they often refer to what sociologists have called a ‘‘family of choice’’: one that is formed largely through vol￾untary ties among individuals who are not bio￾logically or legally related (Weeks, Heaphy, & Donovan, 2001; Weston, 1991). Now they face the task of integrating marriages into these larger networks of friends and kin. The partners will not even have the option of falling back on the gender-differentiated roles of heterosexual marriage. This is not to say that there will be no division of labor; one study of gay and lesbian couples found that in homes where one partner works longer hours and earns substantially more than the other partner, the one with the less demanding, lower paying job did more house￾work and more of the work of keeping in touch with family and friends. The author suggests that holding a demanding professional or mana￾gerial job may make it difficult for a person to invest fully in sharing the work at home, regard￾less of gender or sexual orientation (Carrington, 1999). We might expect same-sex couples who have children, or who wish to have children through adoption or donor insemination, to be likely to avail themselves of the option of marriage. (Ac￾cording to the United States Census Bureau [2003b], 33% of women in same-sex partner￾ships and 22% of men in same-sex partnerships had children living with them in 2000.) Basic issues, such as who would care for the children, would have to be resolved family by family. The obligations of the partners to each other fol￾lowing a marital dissolution have also yet to be worked out. In these and many other ways, gay and lesbian couples who marry in the near future would need to create a marriage-centered kin network through discussion, negotiation, and experiment. Two Transitions in the Meaning of Marriage In a larger sense, all of these develop￾ments—the changing division of labor, child￾bearing outside of marriage, cohabitation, and gay marriage—are the result of long-term cultural and material trends that altered the meaning of marriage during the 20th century. The cultural trends included, first, an emphasis on emotional satisfaction and romantic love that intensified early in the century. Then, dur￾ing the last few decades of the century, an ethic of expressive individualism—which Bellah, Marsden, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton (1985) describe as the belief that ‘‘each person has a unique core of feeling and intuition that should unfold or be expressed if individuality is to be realized’’ (p. 334)—became more impor￾tant. On the material side, the trends include the decline of agricultural labor and the correspond￾ing increase in wage labor; the decline in child and adult mortality; rising standards of living; and, in the last half of the 20th century, the movement of married women into the paid workforce. These developments, along with historical events such as the Depression and World War II, produced two great changes in the meaning of marriage during the 20th century. Ernest Bur￾gess famously labeled the first one as a transi￾tion ‘‘from an institution to a companionship’’ (Burgess & Locke, 1945). In describing the rise of the companionate marriage, Burgess was referring to the single-earner, breadwinner￾homemaker marriage that flourished in the 1950s. Although husbands and wives in the companionate marriage usually adhered to a sharp division of labor, they were supposed to be each other’s companions—friends, lovers— to an extent not imagined by the spouses in the institutional marriages of the previous era. The increasing focus on bonds of sentiment within nuclear families constituted an important but limited step in the individualization of family life. Much more so than in the 19th century, the emotional satisfaction of the spouses became an important criterion for marital success. How￾ever, through the 1950s, wives and husbands tended to derive satisfaction from their partici￾pation in a marriage-based nuclear family (Roussel, 1989). That is to say, they based their gratification on playing marital roles well: being good providers, good homemakers, and respon￾sible parents. During this first change in meaning, marriage remained the only socially acceptable way to have a sexual relationship and to raise children in the United States, Canada, and Europe, with the possible exception of the Nordic countries. In his history of British marriages, Gillis (1985) labeled the period from 1850 to 1960 the ‘‘era Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage 851