This is pretty interesting stuff, right? As is the news that, say, marriage reduces domestic violence, or that three out of 10 middle-aged guys who aren't married will likely die prematurely as a result, to list just two more examples. So it's pretty curious to me that the first two reviews by the cultural elite, one by Nation editor Katha Pollit in Slate and one by Margaret Talbot in the Oct. 1 Sunday New York Times, are not only negative; they actually dismiss "The Case for Marriage" as "old news" about a debate nobody cares about.
Curious, too, that not one but two such prestigious editors assigned the book to writers who have in the past published articles condemning me and anybody else who wants to reduce divorce. Most especially curious that Pollit calls "The Case for Marriage" a "clip job" and Talbot implies (either ignorantly or out of malice) that Linda Waite is just some second-rate ideologue instead of a top scholar. Finally -- curiouser and curiouser, isn't it? -- two such keen intellects cannot seem to locate a marriage debate in America just a few weeks after Time magazine put "Who Needs a Husband?" on the front cover?
All of which makes me wonder: What exactly is it about this new case for marriage that divorce advocates don't want you to hear?
Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.
Katrina vanden Heuvel: "MS, WI, TX, ND, AR, Have Become States of Misogyny of Bigotry" | Greg Hengler
Report: Boehner Won't Bring Immigration Bill to the Floor Without Majority of Republicans On Board | Guy Benson