editorial MfB pg?
t6 Hov TAKE THI$ rKJT
WOMAM TO BEVou A U.AAAI S
I LAWFUL WDtP WIFE.' GOfl lUU
V V WIFE! J
jonet
white
colliite-
OSCOp3
'Til death do us part.
Over two million couples will murmur
these words before marriage altars in
1972. One-third to one-half of them will
part in divorce rather than in death,
according to one analyst.
Census figures for 1960 indicate the
divorce rate was one in four. It has been
rising steadily ever since 1895, when it
was one in 1 2.
As divorce becomes more frequent,
marriage grows more popular. Statistics
show Americans are marrying younger
and more frequently than ever before.
The 1960 marriage rate in the United
States was the highest in the western
world. Sociologists estimate that all but
three per cent of today's "younger
generation" will marry.
If marriage is more popular and
divorce is more frequent, are divorcees
likely to remarry? . Yes, in fact the
chances for divorced persons to marry are
higher than for any other category. A
divorced woman at 30 has 94 chances in
100 of marrying; a widow, 60 in 100; and
a single woman, 48 in 100. The
30-year-old male divorcee has 96 chances
in 100 of marrying; the widower, 92 in
100; the bachelor, 67 in 100.
These figures seem incongruous at
first, because they, reveal a marriage
pattern hat is not endorsed and relatively
unrecognized in American society:
marriage-divorce-remarriage. It seems that
a sizable number of people find the
lifetime marriage contract to one person
unworkable.
Infidelity was reported over a
generation ago by sex researcher Alfred
Kinsey as a clear departure from marriage
norms. In 1948, Kinsey revealed that at
least three-fourths of all men admitted to
occasionally desiring an extramarital
affair; 50 per cent participated in one.
In 1953, Kinsey reported that 30 per
cent of married women born since 1900
have an extramarital affair at sometime.
Marriage is entrenched in church
doctrine and state law. The family is the
principle economic unit for distribution
and consumption, mutual property
holding and inheritance. The adult world
is suited almost exclusively to couples
and families.
In 49 states, divorce is granted only
after one of the marriage partners has
been proved guilty. Only three states
include incompatibility as grounds for
divorce . Yet marriage counselors agree
that divorce is seldom the fault of one
person.
Divorce trials have become grueling
public exposures of private lives, injurious
to the couples and children involved.
State laws often force people seeking
divorce to engage in pretense and
collusion.
There remains a social stigma attached
to divorce, making it a heavy tax of
guilt-feelings. The rise in divorce rates is
even more striking in the light of these
deterrents.
None of this argues that the present
marriage model is no longer viable, but it
does say that not all people are suited to
the present model. Law-making and social
systems in America, rather than treating
the growing number of divorcees as
deviants or failures, should be creating
and legitimizing new and humane
marriage alternatives.
Halting responses in this field have
been made. California recently enacted a
proposal provision for no-fault divorce
proceedings. Fifteen states, including
Nebraska, are considering no-fault divorce
proposals. These not only humanize
divorce proceedings for parents and
children, but they relieve the overloaded
courts of excess baggage.
In both Maryland and New Jersey;
bills were introduced last year proposing
renewable contract marriage. Couples
would agree to be married a certain
length of time and would then have the
choice of renewing the contract or not,
without separation or divorce procedure.
Despite negative social pressures,
numerous alternative marriage models,
such as trial, group or homosexual
marriage and communal living, are
springing up across the country.
In trial marriage, couples agree not to
have children. In group marriages studied,
participants number from three to 1 5 and
are in their 30's. They consider
themselves committed to each other for
life. Children appear to benefit from this
arrangement, according to research done
by Larry and Joan Constantine.
These alternatives, if legitimately
integrated into social and political
systems, promise to be far more humane
than the marriage-divorce-remarriage
pattern many families follow today. This
is especially true when children are
involved, which is currently the case in
two out of three divorces.
Society and policy-makers should
recognize and legitimize humane marriage
alternatives to respond pluralistically to
the plural needs of society. The best
argument for liberalizing the marriage
institution is that an increasing segment
Of SOCietV is finding traditional nurriano
unworkable. " J
to ISkd
(2) "((f
Brevity in letters is requested and the Daily Nebraskan
reserves the right to condense letters. All letters must be
accompanied by writer's true name but may be submitted for
publication under a pen name or initials. However, letters will
be printed under a pen name or initials at the editor's
discretion.
Dear editor:
I wish to point out an error which appeared in the Daily
Nebraskan Feb. 7. In an article on a Board of Regents meeting
you reported that "Systems changes approved including
moving the Graduate School of Sociology. . . to Omaha."
The change is slated for the Graduate School of Social
Work. Once again let us reiterate: Sociology and social work
are separate and independent disciplines, linked only
phonetically.
This misconception is extremely annoying, especially in a
university community.
Paul L. Riedesel
Dear editor:
In his article concerning the legalization of abortion (Daily
Nebraskan Feb. 3), Barry Pilger seems to have grossly
understated the problem of abortion and its legal
ramifications. When he suggests "liberalized" statutes as the
"only solution" to Nebraska's "dilemma," he seems to be
basing his recommendations on several unfounded premises.
Need I remind him of the recent New York court decision
which questioned the assumption that the unborn have no
constitutional rights?
There was also a reference to a poll. I suspect that if
one-half of the people in the country stated that it would be
all right to suspend the Bill of Rights, Pilger would argue that
the rights therein must be abolished.
As for the mother, it is ironically absurd to talk of the
"right of privacy," which, legally or not, is depriving another
of his actual and potential rights, including the most basic one.
The question seems to be not one of rights for the mother, but
one of the responsibilities of the woman and the man involved.
Morality itself is the question here. It is a very necessary
factor in making political decisons.
I hope the Legislature will not condone the deprivation of
political rights as proposed by the advocates of this outrageous
atavism.
Michael K. Houlihan
;
Dear editor:
I had been expecting to read it sooner or later this year, but
I really hadn't anticipated coming across it in the Daily
Nebraskan. I am referring to a Feb. 3 editorial on the positive
aspects of the United Nations.
I am surprised John Vihstadt figures on winning over the
minds of fellow UNL students by stating how much money
the U.S. spends on the most efficient international monet-y
garbage disposal ever created.
He seemed pleased that America lost S86.3 million in the
UN Development Fund last year which was divided among 130
countries. What if that money had been divided among 130
American universities?
Also, how united is the United Nations if certain countries
refuse to join their fellow nations in operations approved by
the organization? Should the U.S. continue to subsidize such a
disunited group in which the more powerful members care
only of their own welfare, and not international betterment?
When one gets right down to basics one is forced to see that
the only way anyone can stave off or end a war is either to
threaten war itself or jump right in the ring with them until it's
all over.
The U.S. should either leave the UN or pay only our dues.
Dead insects in Africa aren't much of a dividend when many
Americans need sufficient food.
Parasitic nations have slowed us up, left too many of our
own hungry, uneducated and below full potential. In 25 years,
the UN has started out slowly and kind of tapered off.
Jim Baiters
Dear editor:
Theintent of my article on Jan. 31, entitled "Try it-You'll
like it" was not to compare retirement salaries of military
personnel to those of university faculty members.
My intent was to inform our young people of an additional
avenue of approach into the real world following their
graduation. Students sometimes fail to look at all the options
available. The only reason I mentioned a retirement salary
figure was to inform. . . not to compare retirement salaries. I
merely wrote the article to inform students of something I
didn t know when I was a student.
I, too, think the plight of our emeriti is a deplorable
situation and should be corrected. The article on Jan. 31
entitled "Aged Ask Equitable Pension Plans," was merely
coincidental to my article. I was not the author.
If I caused psychasthenia to rain on Professor Gerken-"My
apologies, Clay." But, at the same time, I must also repeat to
the students-"Try it. . . you'll like it "
Norman B. Hemingway
PAGE 4
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1972