August 16th 2014

  Buy Issue 2930

Articles from this issue:

CANBERRA OBSERVED High noon for 'End of Entitlements' Joe Hockey

FOREIGN AFFAIRS Australia should help Iraq's besieged Christians

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Locking up the dogs of war: huge decline in war-related deaths

WORLD WAR I The Great War at 100: Revisiting The Guns of August

EDUCATION 'Safe Schools' scandal: Open letter to the education minister

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Govt minister attacked for comments on cohabitation

EDITORIAL Baby Gammy case highlights weakness in surrogacy laws

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Web of criminality unveiled by royal commission

NATIONAL AFFAIRS The odd couple behind the same-sex marriage push

VICTORIA Labor leader in hot water over 'dirty' campaign

ENERGY Russian oil card a threat to European integration

CINEMA Understanding grace, mercy and suffering

BOOK REVIEW Pretext for Hitler's dictatorship: the Reichstag fire

BOOK REVIEW The feel-good policies that devastate

Books promotion page

Govt minister attacked for comments on cohabitation

by Bill Muehlenberg

News Weekly, August 16, 2014

Families Minister Kevin Andrews has come out recently saying that marriage is better for couples than cohabitation, and predictably he is getting flak for saying so.

But he happens to be absolutely correct. The statistics and data he offers on this have long been known, even if it is politically incorrect to say so.

Kevin Andrews MP 

Let me very briefly summarise the evidence on de facto or cohabitating relationships, and compare this with the benefits of marriage. First, the shortcomings of cohabitation:

Cohabiting couples are less likely to stay together, are more likely to have extra affairs, offer less stability for children, and experience higher levels of domestic violence. Marriages following cohabitation report less happiness, satisfaction and compatibility, and are 50 per cent more likely to break up.

Contrast this with what we know about marriage (based upon thousands of international studies). The many benefits of marriage include the following:

Married people live longer, are healthier, are happier, have better sex lives, and tend to have better incomes. Children do best when raised in a married, two-parent family. Societies also benefit from marriage.

Family structure does matter, in other words, and not all forms of relationships are equal. But the social activists – be they feminist, homosexualist or any other sort – have been hell-bent for a half-century now to deny the mass of social science data on this, as they seek to attack marriage and family.

That is why it takes real guts today to stand up for the evidence, even though it is politically incorrect to do so.

Let’s have a look at what Mr Andrews said. Samantha Maiden provided the following report in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph. She wrote: “For better or worse, Families Minister Kevin Andrews has urged de facto couples to get married if they want to boost their chances of a long-term relationship and protect their children.

“With the number of couples living together before marriage leaping from one in five couples in 1979 to almost four in five in 2012, Mr Andrews said the simple fact was that de facto couples are more likely to separate. And those who suffered most from relationship breakdowns were children.

“Figures show that the effects are not only emotional, with the cost of long-term marriage and relationship breakdowns costing individuals $60,000 on average. Mr Andrews said women, who were more likely to commit earlier than men, were often left at the mercy of an ‘emotional wallop’ [from] male partners who walked out after never truly committing to the relationship.

“But he warned many Australian blokes are sleepwalking to oblivion by ‘sliding rather than deciding’ to commit to their female partners. ‘The data shows there is a higher incidence of de facto relationships breaking up,’ he said. ‘What a lot of people do is drift into a relationship. They get together. They like each other. They move in together. And then they try and drift along without making a decision. One might think, “This is a pathway to getting married.” The other might think, “I am happy where things are.” That’s why I think this Stronger Relationships trial is important.’

“Mr Andrews has championed the roll-out of $200 relationship counselling vouchers for married and de facto couples. New figures reveal 2,982 couples have registered for the trial, including several couples over the age of 70. The largest age group to enrol were aged 25-34.

“Mr Andrews said it was clear that divorce was a ‘real poverty trap’’ for older women without adequate superannuation. But he insisted he was not suggesting that de facto couples could not involve long-term commitment. ‘No, I am not. I just want them to be stable,’ he said.

“Asked if he believed de facto couples were more likely to be unstable he said the statistics suggested this was the case. ‘Well, it’s not that I think that. That’s what the research shows to date. The consequences for government is we end up paying for programs. Why not invest a bit upfront?’

“Mr Andrews said while relationships were a matter of personal choice the impact of family breakdown was a huge cost to government. ‘Look, people can enter into whatever relationship they want. That’s a matter for them,’ he said. ‘But … it becomes a question for the government and the community when relationships break up. The people who suffer the most out of relationships breaking up are kids’.” (Daily Telegraph, Sydney, August 3, 2014).

He is quite right to stress the wellbeing of children and the interests of society as well. Marriage is far more than a private agreement; it is a social institution which impacts all of us. When we allow marriage to be devalued and minimised, then the whole community suffers.

People such as Mr Andrews are simply speaking from what the social research data are telling us. He is quite familiar with it, having penned a 496-page book on the topic, Maybe ‘I Do’: Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness, which was reviewed by me on my blog (CultureWatch, October 20, 2012) and by Angela Shanahan (News Weekly, November 24, 2012).

But the forces of PC and leftist social engineering have done their best to suppress, ignore or deny a half century of social science research on the benefits of marriage and the harms of other forms of family structure, including de facto relationships.

It is extremely rare today for anyone to actually stand up publicly and champion marriage. But we must do so nonetheless. The attack on marriage impacts on us all.

Indeed, to see how very much under siege this institution is, consider a few quick facts on marriage:

• Fewer people are marrying.

• People are marrying later in life.

• More people cohabit before marriage.

• In fact, four out of five couples now cohabit before marriage.

• More divorces are occurring.

• Families are having fewer children.

• We have one million children of divorce.

The problem is, it is not just that individual marriages are failing. The very idea of marriage is under threat.

And the two feed off each other. Strong individual marriages help support the idea and institution of marriage, while public support for the ideals and value of marriage helps individual couples sustain their marriages.

Thus it is vital that we stand up for the institution of marriage, and highlight the shortcomings of its many substitutes.

Despite the flak that he is now getting, Mr Andrews is certainly right to champion marriage over cohabitation.

And anyone concerned about the quality of their own relationships should pay attention to the data here.

Bill Muehlenberg is a commentator on contemporary issues, and lectures on ethics and philosophy. His website CultureWatch is at:



Samantha Maiden, “Statistics don’t lie: de facto couples living in sin more likely to separate, says Families Minister Kevin Andrews”, Daily Telegraph (Sydney), August 3, 2014.

“Cohabitation vs. marriage: How love’s choices shape life outcomes” (Heritage Foundation, Washington DC), Family Facts brief no. 9, 2014.

Bill Muehlenberg’s review of Maybe ‘I Do’ by Kevin Andrews, CultureWatch, October 20, 2012.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am