The institution of marriage is in serious trouble in America. According to the “State of Our Unions: 2005” report released earlier this month by National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, marriage rates are on a steady decline – down nearly 50 percent since 1970.

If the same percentage of people were getting married in 2005 as 35 years ago, there would be 1.1 million more marriages a year; 3.3 million marriages rather than the 2.2 million who married in 2004. This trend has had a tremendous impact on the viability of the institution of marriage. According to the Census, only half of Americans are married today compared to two-thirds in 1960.

The report finds that the decline corresponds with two trends: people are getting married later (the average age at marriage today is 27 compared to 23 in 1970) and the dramatic increase in young couples choosing extended co-habitation rather than marriage.

But these are merely symptoms of the malady and don’t explain the root cause.

It is not simply that people are putting off marriage, but many men and women are avoiding it altogether and choosing life-long singlehood.

But why are so many young couples avoiding or delaying marriage in favor of extended co-habitation? Why are many young men and women choosing to remain single?
I believe the primary cause for the decline in marriage is that modern men, after seeing how their friends, brothers, uncles and fathers were ruined – both financially and emotionally – by divorce, are simply scared to death to “take the plunge.”

The first generation of sons raised in the era of widespread divorce has reached the marrying age and they are resisting. Many of these men witnessed first hand how badly their fathers were treated in divorce and custody proceedings and how emotionally devastated that left both father and child. They simply are protecting themselves and their future children.

To be fair, there is evidence to support that there is reluctance from both young men and women to marry – a byproduct of the rampant divorce culture over the last 25 years. However, the breakdown of the traditional family seems to have had a more significant impact on men’s attitudes towards marriage.

According to the 2004 State of Our Unions report, men who grew up in intact families whose father was involved in their lives are more likely to be married. For example, 63 percent of all married men were living with both of their biological parents at age fifteen, compared to 55 percent of the unmarried men.

The experience of divorce is negatively associated with the desire and propensity to marry. More than half — 54 percent of singles from intact families—agree with the statement "you’d be ready to marry tomorrow if the right person came along" compared to 43 percent of those from other kinds of family backgrounds. Men who say that their fathers were very involved in their upbringing are also more "ready" than men who say their fathers were not very involved – 53 percent versus 38 percent.

This is one of the unforeseen consequences of a system that discriminates against dads and treats them as secondary parents. Men are unwilling to become part of a system that will not treat them fairly.
The impact of pushing men away from marriage could have a devastating and long-term affect on the American family by creating a lost generation of men. The trend does not seem to be slowing down either. In fact, as out of wedlock births and cohabitation continue to become more socially acceptable, it appears the system will get worse before it gets better.

Lawmakers and judges need to be cognizant of this and act now to correct this gender bias. The preservation of marriage and family values depends on it.

Jeffery M. Leving is one of this country’s leading family law attorneys and the co-author of the Illinois Joint Custody Law. His book, “Father’s Rights” on which these columns are based, is regarded as a definitive work on this important subject.

Mr. Leving has been appointed Chairman of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood by Governor Rod Blagojevich.