All you commenters on here - you do realize that Bill M. wrote a BOOK REVIEW, not the book - right?! And a fine job of it too. He gave a clear synopsis of the books content, purpose and major points. As a traditional marriage advocate this topic is of interest to me. Because of this excellent review I will get the book for the deeper detail.

So why the attacks? You don't like the review? Simple, don't get the book. Why snipe at the reviewer because he agrees with the author? People won't want to review books, (for readers benefit by the way) and post it here, if jackals come out.

A few ideas from an 'old fogy':

Marriage has some association with religion - across a broad sweep of religions - but its principal underlying role and objective is optimal societal structure and stability, largely but not solely aimed at provision of a stable and secure family environment for the raising of children - since it is also a sought-after safe harbour for childless couples. Essentially it is the ultimate monogamous ideal - though some stable long-term de-facto relationships can and do represent a reasonable equivalent (probably including some same-sex couples).

I would contend that marriage has fallen out of favour because of individual selfishness and self-interest, engendered largely by 'brave new world' expectations, mobility and opportunity and by mass media generated corruption of individual responsibilities and life-role. (As an example, in my day movies would hesitate to show a couple kissing, and there was much emphasis on respect and restraint - no sex outside of marriage - but now everyone's readily portrayed ripping each other's clothes off, and so much of the oral acrobatics (kissing) verges on comedy or sickening debauchery.)

Sex and particularly pregnancy outside marriage was severely frowned upon, and unwed mothers were rare. In our more 'equitable' and 'fair' society we have a proliferation of single parents, most of whom are totally reliant on welfare, and hence on the working tax payer. Such liberties come with a price - on society, on family stability and environment, and on the long-term prospects for many of the children involved.

Many men are happy to take advantage of these laissez-faire societal attitudes, but essentially in their own, and no-one else's interest. (Quite a lot of men in our society have children by a number of partners, and many single mothers have children from multiple male partners. Is this a healthy scenario?)

There are many contributing factors to the downfall of marriage as the pinnacle of the human life-role, but it is not due to any deficiency in religious aspirations of association.

Experiment, but leave children out of it until really ready to commit.

"cohabiting couples are less likely to stay together;
cohabiting couples are more like to have extra affairs;
cohabiting couples offer less stability for children;
marriages following cohabitation are 50 per cent more likely to break up; and
marriages following cohabitation report less happiness and compatibility."

Yes; and perhaps that's why they choose to cohabit instead of getting married. The population who choose to cohabit -- of whom I am one -- are different in many ways from the population who choose to marry -- less religiosity, for one thing, and probably more freedom from parental pressure. You -- or Andrews -- can't simply assume that if the same people had chosen to marry rather than cohabit, all their issues would magically disappear. If they choose to cohabit, presumably they have valid reasons for doing so.

Children who wear pants generally score higher on maths tests than children who wear skirts, but that doesn't mean you can improve maths scores by making all children wear pants.

Welfare is destroying marriage, in one way or another.

The taxes paid to maintain the welfare state are probably the difference between a stay at home mum, & a working mum. This after the often huge cost involved in earning the second income is deducted from hers. It also makes it much easier to separate at those times when the going gets a bit rough.

When I was a kid it was very much a case of "us against the world" where it required the effort of a couple to survive. In the 40s & 50s, single life was not on.

Housekeeping was no bed of roses either. I remember gathering the wood to boil the copper on wash day. I also remember how much I hated those rough unbleached calico sheets my mother made. They were better I suppose, than the used flower bags their predecessors were made from, although they were smooth, if you could avoid the seams.

The rewards were greater. I remember our first house. What an achievement, built by dad, mum & me, [aged 10], & really ours, even if most of the internal walls were just framework for years.

They were so proud of the old lounge they reupholstered. It was sharing those things that was the bond much tighter.

Today, signing the mortgage papers, & skimping to pay it does not offer the same cement, but often more pain.

Of course the fact that the legal system today, financially rewards the lady who walks does not do much to keep couples together. In fact with everything against it, I can't imagine why any young bloke even considers it today.

Businesses would never succeed if based on LOVE. Neither will marriges. 3 year marriage contracts are essential for social stability in an era where individual freedoms demand more information about all the dirty details of what marriage really is.
To expect marriages to last based on LOVE and not HARD fine detail business law is an anachronism from an age where wars and life and death were always on a knife edge and governments needed children not just for future taxation revenues but for their VERY SURVIVAL.
Today we have men who need sex at least 3 times a day every day being deceived by mass marketeered scantily clad, highly perfumed environmet destroying women who need sex about once a month, an oestrous cycle that demands at least 3 children and a mind that demands a house a car and slave to put out garbage.
This is what the church expects of marriage. It is why priests and religious leaders are generally single. The fact that mothers raise their sons knowing this inequity is in fact a crime. They fail to educate them properly and it shows a lack of real LOVE. This should be a central theme in famaily courts when deciding divorce outcomes. It is not.

It is wrong to blame me for their sexual urges or their frequency. It is equally wrong to blame women for their complementary oestrous urges.
3 year marriage contracts would enshrine who we each are and our true needs.

And yes their would be far fewer marriages if the truths were known.

continued ..

Continuing /.

But with 3 year contracts that stipulate all eventualities including children. And stipulate them up front. The chances of true love entering the frame, if indeed anyone today believes in it, are enhanced. Knowledge is power. Equally the arcane hiding of this knowledge in religiosity and LOVE is WEAKNESS. 40% + divorce rates are a testament. The unseen unhappiness in the other 60% is an outrage when modern governments legislate all business & other contracts be tightly regulated whilst allowing marriage contract based on antiquated knowledge of human needs to infect our society with fake respectability underwritten by carnality and selfishness.

Here endeth the sermon .. now rollout the 3 year marriage contracts and the TRUTH.
Even if there is no LOVE , at least everyone will be on the same page and a certain amount of mutual respect will be present and accounted.