This study contributes to research on the deinstitutionalization of marriage and changing gender ideologies by focusing on a unique group of marriage innovators. With quantitative and qualitative data from the Marriage Matters project (1997-2004), this study used a symbolic interactionist perspective to compare covenant- and standard-married couples. Findings reveal that covenants are more traditional than standards across religious, marital, and gender attitude indices. Qualitative analyses suggest that covenants see their marital status as a powerful symbol to publicly display their beliefs about the benefits and necessity of traditional religious marriage. Covenant-married couples defuse the stigma of gender subordination by casting it as a service to God and by crafting a hybrid form of gender traditionalism that incorporates emotional ethics of egalitarianism. Conversely, standard-married couples view gender, marriage, and religion as diffuse, privatized, individualized matters. Implications are discussed in light of further research on contemporary marriage and shifting gender roles.
Allen, K.R. (2004). Janet Saltzman Chafetz plenary: Discussant comments . Journal of Family Issues, 25(7), 984-989.
2.
Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1269-1287.
3.
Amato, P.R. (2004). Tensions between institutional and individual views of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 959-969.
4.
Bartkowski, J.P. (1997). Debating patriarchy: Discursive disputes over spousal authority among evangelical family commentators. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 393-410.
5.
Bartkowski, J.P. (2001). Remaking the godly marriage: Gender negotiation in evangelical families. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
6.
Baxter, J., & Kane, E.W. (1995). Dependence and independence: A cross-national analysis of gender inequality and gender attitudes. Gender and Society, 9(2), 193-215.
7.
Bogenschneider, K. (2000). Has family policy come of age? A decade review of the state of U.S. family policy in the 1990's. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1136-1159.
8.
Brooks, C. (2002). Religious influence and the politics of family decline concern: Trends, sources, and U.S. political behavior. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 191-211.
9.
Burke, P.J. (1991). Identity process and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 836-849.
10.
Cassidy, M.L., & Warren, B.O. (1996). Family employment status and gender role attitudes: A comparison of women and men college graduates. Gender and Society, 10(3), 312-329.
11.
Cherlin, A. (2004). The deinstitutionalization ofAmerican marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848-861.
12.
Collins, P.H. (1995). Symposium on West and Fenstermaker's "Doing Difference ." Gender and Society, 9(4), 491-494.
13.
Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., & Steinke, I. (2006). A companion to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Gallagher, S.K. (2003). Evangelical identity and gendered family life . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
15.
Gallagher, S.K., & Smith, C. (1999). Symbolic traditionalism and pragmatic egalitarianism: Contemporary evangelicals, families, and gender. Gender and Society, 13(2), 211-233.
16.
Glenn, N.D. (1996). Values, attitudes, and the state of American marriage . In D. Popenoe, J. B. Elshtain, & D. Blankenhorn (Eds.), Promises to keep: Decline and renewal of marriage in America (pp. 15-33). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
17.
Kane, E.W. (1995). Education and beliefs about gender inequality . Social Problems, 42(1), 74-90.
18.
Kane, E.W. (2000). Racial and ethnic variations in gender-related attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 419-439.
19.
Kane, E.W., & Sanchez, L.A. (1994). Family status and criticism of gender inequality at home and at work. Social Forces, 72(4), 1079-1102.
20.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., Jewell, T., Swank, A.B., Scott, E., Emery, E., et al. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 321-338.
21.
McLanahan, S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only families: Problems, prospects, and politics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(3), 557-580.
22.
Myers, S.M., & Booth, A. (2002). Forerunners of change in nontraditional gender ideology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(1), 18-37.
23.
Nock, S.L., Sanchez, L.A., Wilson, J.C., & Wright, J.D. (2003). Covenant marriage turns five years old. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, 10(1), 169-188.
24.
Nock, S.L., Sanchez, L.A., & Wright, J.D. (2008). Covenant marriage: The movement to reclaim tradition in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Okin, S.M. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.
27.
Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960-1990. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(3), 527-555.
28.
Rogers, S.J., & Amato, P.R. (1997). Is marital quality declining? The evidence from two generations. Social Forces, 75(3), 1089-1100.
29.
Sanchez, L.A., & Gager, C.T. (2000). Hard living, perceived entitlement to a great marriage, and marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(3), 708-722.
30.
Sanchez, L.A., Nock, S.L., Wright, J.D., & Gager, C.T. (2002). Setting the clock forward or back? Covenant marriages and the divorce revolution. Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), 91-120.
31.
Sanchez, L., Nock, S.L., Wright, J.D., Pardee, J.W., & Ionescu, M. (2001). The implementation of covenant marriage in Louisiana . Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 9, 192-223.
32.
Sanchez, L.A., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender and Society, 11(6), 747-772.
33.
Smock, P.J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.
34.
Smock, P.J., Manning, W.D., & Gupta, S. (1999). The effect of marriage and divorce on women's economic well-being. American Sociological Review, 64(6), 794-812.
35.
Solot, D., & Miller, M. (2002). Let them eat wedding rings: The role of marriage promotion in welfare reform. Boston: Alternatives to Marriage Project.
36.
Spaht, K.S. (1998a). Louisiana's covenant marriage: Social analysis and legal implications. Louisiana Law Review, 59, 63-130.
37.
Spaht, K.S. (1998b). Why covenant marriage? A change in culture for the sake of the children. Louisiana Bar Journal, 46, 116-119.
38.
Steensland, B., Park, J.Z., Regnerus, M.D., Robinson, L.D., Wilcox, W.B., & Woodberry, R.D. (2000). The measures of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces , 79(1), 291-318.
39.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P.J. (2000). The past, present, and future of identity theory . Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
40.
Twenge, J.M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970-1995. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35-51.
41.
Waite, L.J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York : Doubleday.
42.
Walker, A.J. (2004). Methods, theory, and the practice of feminist research: A response to Janet Chafetz. Journal of Family Issues , 25(7), 990-994.
43.
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9(1), 8-37.
Whitehead, B.D. (1997). The divorce culture. New York : Knopf.
47.
Wilkie, J.R. (1993). Changes in U.S. men's attitudes toward the family provider role, 1977-1989. Gender & Society, 7(2), 261-271.
48.
Wilcox, W.B. (2004). Soft patriarchs, new men: How Christianity shapes fathers and husbands. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49.
Wilcox, W.B., & Bartkowski, J.P. (2000). The conservative Protestant family: Traditional rhetoric, progressive practice. In E. J. Dionne Jr. & J. J. Dilulio Jr. (Eds.), What's God got to do with the American experiment? (pp. 32-37). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
50.
Zuo, J., & Tang, S. (2000). Breadwinner status and gender ideologies of men and women regarding family roles. Sociological Perspectives , 43(1), 29-43.
