Brigid Schulte, at The Washington Post, has written an interesting piece on Isabel Sawhill, a scholar at Brookings, and the future of marriage. Sawhill has historically promoted and defended marriage based on its economic benefits for both parents and children.  For example, children in single-parent families are four times more likely to live in poverty than children in two-parent households. Marriage, then, is tied to income inequality and the growing distinction between those who are college-educated and those who are not.

However, Sawhill says that programs that have sought to limit single-parenting and revive marriage have failed.  Marriage, she argues, must evolve and adapt because it is otherwise disappearing. How might marriage evolve?

Sawhill notes that we could see an increase in Scandinavian-style cohabitation, or perhaps limited time contracts that are reassessed. Or, maybe long-acting contraceptives will prevent pregnancy for people outside of committed, long-term relationships. Most interestingly, Sawhill wants to cultivate an “ethic of responsible parenthood” that will apply regardless of marital circumstances.

There is much to discuss here, but let me make just a couple of comments. First, this is not necessarily the evolution of marriage, unless you conceive of it in purely economic terms, but it is the end of marriage as traditionally understood. Second, Sawhill, probably nobly, is attempting to construct social arrangements that are not marriage that might still yield the benefits of marriage. This is, to put it mildly, a hope that is somewhat fanciful. This may be akin to seeking the benefits of exercise without exercise itself. Of course everyone might like to be thin, with low cholesterol, and have a dash of stamina, but those benefits are difficult to achieve without exercise. While it is possible a substitute exists, we haven’t found it yet. The same may be true for marriage. We shall see.