New Yorker on Oklahoma/Replies to Covenant & Predicition/Cohabitation-8/03

[Smartmarriages ®]

subject: New Yorker on Oklahoma/Covenant & Predicition/Cohabitation-8/03

from: Smart Marriages®

- OOOPS, WRONG NUMBERS AND CONFUSING EXPLANATION
- HOTELS
- NEW YORKER "FAMILY ISSUE" FEATURES OKLAHOMA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE
- COVENANT MARRIAGE REPLY
- PREDICTION - REPLY TO REPLY
- COHABITING SPELLS DIVORCE

#######################

- OOOPS, WRONG NUMBERS AND CONFUSING EXPLANATION

What is it with me and typing phone numbers!?  Sorry.

> Diane, the numbers you gave us for the tape company had errors. the area code
> is 800 [not 899] and the last three numbers of the Doherty "Time for Marriage"
> tape are 082 not 08b.  Thanks for your work!  Mark Liston

Thanks.  Order tapes at 800-241-7785. The Doherty keynote tape, "Who's Got
Time to Be Married?" is #753-082.

> Diane, No one at the number you gave us has any information about how to get
> the free software template from Dennis Stoica.  Can you please send that info?
> - David 

What I meant was that on the tape Dennis explains it all - how to set up the
web site, how to get the needed platfrom and then how to get the template
from him.  And, how to use the site to grow your Community Marriage
Initiative.  You need to order the tape.  It's not fair to ask Dennis to
explain it to the 10,000 of you on this list one-by-one.  It's all on Tape
#753-314. Plus there's more from Dennis (visuals) on the keynote session
Sunday, Tape #753-P10. Order at Playback - 800-241-7785.  - diane

> Hi Diane, 
> 
> I ordered the tape of "Marital Sex as it Ought to Be"  by Barry McCarthy.
> Wow!  I was blown away.  I just cant believe that one man can know so much
> about sex.  Right after hearing the tape (for the second time--it was too much
> to digest at once) I started teaching one of my couples some of the
> principles.  We are lucky to have him at the Smart Marriages conference.  My
> experience listening to the tape, as well as meeting Dr McCarthy in person at
> the conference, just reinforces what a unique service you provide to a world
> of practitioners who are devoted to improving the institution of marriage.
> Just want to take the time to say thanks and to recommend the tape to others.
> Scott Haltzman, MD
> www.SecretsofMarriedMen.com

The McCarthy tapes - "Marital Sex as It Ought To Be" #753-810 and
"Rekindling Desire" #753-304 are both available at 800-241-7785 as is Dr
Haltzman's own very highly rated session, "Win Your Wife's Heart Forever"
#753- 804.  - diane

#############

- HOTELS:

No decision, but Orlando has come down to $99 at a great, sparkly new
all-suites hotel w/ free shuttle to Disney.  Louisville, KY - within driving
range for lots of people - has come in at $75 at the Galt House, a great
hotel!  Still negotiating w/ Dallas now down to $89.  Chicago is still at
$109 and Miami Beach is still at $109.  If any of this changes your votes,
LET ME HEAR from you.  In summary, the consensus seems to be that the
conference keeps you us busy that you don't care which city we're in (no
time to do anything but attend sessions) and you want a nice hotel with
reasonable rates.  You also agree that it's nice to move it to different
parts of the country, but rates matter.  Oh, and then there are those that
are insisting it would be fun to meet on the beach in Miami.  - diane

##################

- NEW YORKER "FAMILY ISSUE" FEATURES OKLAHOMA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE

The current New Yorker (Aug 18 & 25 - a thick double issue on the Family)
features an article - "The Marriage Cure: Promoting Wedlock in the Projects"
-  on the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.  It is a month-in-the-life look at
the lives of two African American women -  Kim single, 22, with no kids and
Corean a 49 year old single mother about to graduate the youngest of her 5
children from high school.  The piece opens with their participation in a
three-day PREP marriage/relationship skills seminar taught by Rev George
Young. George Young presented several times at the Reno Smart Marriages
conference including at the Fri morning keynote with Scott Stanley. (You'll
like him as much after reading this piece as you did in Reno.)  The article
(in my opinion) subtly makes the point that it's not a matter of either/or -
either help with jobs, education and child care OR marriage/relationship
skills education.  It also makes very real the inter-generational
transmission of poverty and family breakdown and (again, maybe it's just me)
shows some light/hope at the end of the tunnel. This article is not
available on line. - diane

However, the feature "The Talk of the Town" is available on line
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/?030818ta_index  and has commentary on "the
family issue" (the changing face of "fam-ilee") and on the rising costs of
raising children in "The Financial Page: Leave No Parent Behind":

> The solution seems simple enough: have fewer kids or none at all. This may
> seem coldhearted, but it¹s a choice that many Americans, particularly in the
> middle class, already find themselves making. Between 1980 and 2000, the
> percentage of women between forty and forty-four who had no children doubled;
> the percentage of women who had only one child nearly did, too.

> In a sense, children are what economists like to call a ³public good,² like
> national defense or scientific research. The essential characteristic of a
> public good is that everyone benefits from it even if not everyone pays for
> it. Government usually plays a valuable role in making sure that a public good
> is paid for. This doesn¹t mean that the state has to take over driving the
> kids to soccer practice‹or, God forbid, require each couple to have 3.2
> ³Heroes for the Homeland²‹but it should certainly help spread the financial
> burden of raising a family. There may be some sense after all in having those
> taxpayers who don¹t have children subsidize those who do, and there¹s little
> sense in cutting back on programs like Head Start. All of us, it turns out,
> have an interest in improving public schools. It may not take a village to
> raise a child, but these days it seems to take a village to pay for one.
> ‹ James Surowiecki


############################
- COVENANT MARRIAGE REPLY

> Diane, 
> In the August 11 2003 newsletter, Dr. William Bailey of the University of
> Arkansas is quoted:
> 
>> "I can only speculate as to the reasons for the failure of couples to select
>> Covenant Marriages. However, these numbers suggest that Covenant Marriage
>> Policies may not be the solution to the problems of marriage, divorce, and
>> cohabitation in the United States."
> 
> As a Marriage and Family Therapist in Northeast Arkansas, I have followed the
> progress of Arkansas' Covenant Marriage Act with interest.  I provide
> pre-marital training as part of my practice, and since the Covenant Marriage
> was made put into place, I have given the couples I've seen the materials they
> need to receive a Covenant Marriage license.  However, none of the couples
> I've seen were aware of the Covenant Marriage option before I met them.
> 
> In short, I would speculate that one reason for the failure of couples to
> select Covenant Marriages is that they've never heard of it.  There has been
> very little promotion of the Covenant Marriage option here in Arkansas.  The
> legislature has provided no funds I'm aware of to promote the new option, and
> for most of our state's citizens, I believe the law has simply passed under
> the radar.  I and my colleagues are making efforts to educate couples and
> local ministers about the availability of the Covenant Marriage, but awareness
> is still very low.
> 
> I believe Dr. Bailey's suggestion that "Covenant Marriage Policies may not be
> the solution to the problems of marriage, divorce, and cohabitation in the
> United States" is extremely premature.  While Covenant Marriage Policies are
> certainly not the only solution, or perhaps even the best solution to these
> problems, it has not yet been determined whether couples who are informed
> about their choices will choose Covenant Marriages or traditional marriage
> licenses.  Rather, the numbers indicated by the AR Dept. of Health suggest
> that more data is needed about why these couples made their choice.  In
> addition, further study must be done to determine the effect of Covenant
> Marriage licenses on the longevity and satisfaction of those marriages.
> Greg Brooks, MS
> Executive Director
> Better Life Counseling Center, Inc.
> Jonesboro, AR 72401
> gbrooks at betterlife.org
> 
#######################

- PREDICTION - REPLY TO REPLY

> Diane, Dr. Scuka criticizes Murray's published report on an equation
> predicting the probability of divorce. I understand Scuka's point but I would
> disagree as to the value of Murray's data. There are, of course, different
> types of research--descriptive, prescriptive, basic, applied, etc. And, as
> with the body, where each part has its function and value, so it is with
> research. Epidemiological studies, for example, describe the occurrence or
> nonoccurrence of diseases. It remains for other workers to design
> interventions to eradicate those diseases. Personally, (and 36 years into my
> own marriage) I think we can err in a number of ways in the effort to make
> marriage the best it can be. Cohabiting (testing-the-waters-before-diving-in)
> is one of the better documented of these errors. But, in the current climate
> in premarital/marital assessment, research, and coaching/mentoring, etc., I
> think we may be introducing some additional, more subtle potential errors into
> the search for the ideal marriage; to cite a couple: (1) fueling the age-old
> myth of the "soul mate" (i.e., just find Mr./Ms. Right) by suggesting that
> matching certain compatability factors is the royal road to a
> happily-ever-after marriage, and (2) re-inventing the myth of Walden
> II--better living through behavior mod; or, just learn to act in certain ways
> and your marriage will prosper and endure. At the risk of being accused of
> cynicism and/or naivete (and perhaps rightfully so) the fact that the WWII
> generation did well without our help makes me wonder if the bottom line for
> marital endurance (and satisfaction) isn't as simple as two people (regardless
> of how imperfect or different from one another) being committed to work, work,
> work at being the best partners they can to one another and, in the process,
> learn to accept their mate as they are--to dance with the one who brung 'em.
> 
> Cary Lantz 
#######################
- COHABITING SPELLS DIVORCE
The Evening Standard
By Mark Prigg
7 August 2003

Living together before marriage could double your chances of divorce.
New research has found that cohabiting couples who get married are almost
twice as likely to get divorced as those who do not live together first.

The research could send a warning sign to celebrity couples such as Chris
Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow.

The researchers, from Penn State University in Pittsburgh, believe many
unhappy couples simply get married rather than go through the emotional
trauma of splitting up their shared possessions.

Claire Dush, who led the study, said: "It can really come down to the couch
in many cases. Couples who live together are far more likely to get married
simply because it's the easier option.

"Nobody wants the trauma of sorting out who owns what, and it appears a lot
of people are happier to simply carry on with a dysfunctional relationship
and get married rather than go through a break-up."

The research looked at 1,425 American couples who married between 1981 and
1997. They were asked about their relationship history and marriage status,
and the results were compared with marriage statistics for couples between
1964 and 1970, when cohabitation was far less common.

They found that in both groups, cohabiters reported being far less happy
and experiencing far more conflict.

In both groups, cohabitees were more likely to divorce. In the couples
married in the Eighties and Nineties, those who cohabited were more than
twice as likely to have divorced than those who did not.

Dush said: "Popular belief is that living together will improve your
ability to choose the right marriage partner. However, it seems the
opposite is true.

"One of the surprising things we found is that very little research has
been done in this area - given the number of people who cohabit, it was
surprising. Perhaps the key to this is 'just don't buy a couch together'."

Paula Hall, a counsellor with Relate, said: "I would say that UK figures
would probably not be quite as dramatic as this, and we believe the numbers
for divorce might be evenly split here."

The study is published this month in the Journal of Marriage and the Family.

##################

**************************
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
use the form on our website (http://www.smartmarriages.com). Do not reply to
this email. On the website, click Newsletter - right under the puzzle piece.

Please respect our copyright. If you wish to use any of our content send an
email and request permission.

This is a moderated list. Replies are read by Diane Sollee, editor. Please
indicate if your response is NOT to be shared with the list.

The newslist shares information on marriage, divorce and  educational
approaches.  Opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by members of the
Coalition.

Newsletter archive - to read ALL past posts to the newsletter:
http://archives.his.com/smartmarriages/index.html#start

The 7th annual Smart Marriages conference/RENO, Nevada took place
June 26-29, 2003  To order conference tapes:
http://www.smartmarriages.com/conferencedetails.html

List your program in the Directory of Classes at www.smartmarriages.com

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
Diane Sollee, Director
5310 Belt Rd NW,   Washington, DC 20015-1961
www.smartmarriages.com  202-362-3332
cmfce at smartmarriages.com

FAIR USE NOTICE: This e-newsletter contains copyrighted material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
make such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family breakdown, etc. We
understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
--