This kind of statistical analysis - with cold mathematical precision and veracity - tells only part of the story. Anyone who observes American society with care must notice that marriage is becoming more and more marginalized, both in terms of how it is conceived and in terms of how it is lived.

The acceptance of easy no-fault divorce, the delay of marriage far into adult years, the remarkable rise in rates of cohabitation, and the decline of marriage as a personal and social expectation all contribute to this phenomenon.

The recovery of a marriage culture demands the attention of all Americans, not just African Americans. Respect for marriage must be rebuilt group by group, couple by couple, and individual by individual. Young people must be shown that marriage is the covenant relationship that is conducive for human happiness, well being, and satisfaction and that it is the optimal context for the raising of children and for the sustenance of society.

Christians have a special stake in this, because we understand that marriage is not only a social institution, but that is also the unique arena in which the glory of God is demonstrated in the holy relationship between the husband and his wife and in the proper ordering of the household as a testimony to the grace and goodness of God.

How have we gotten here? What has shifted in African American customs, in our community, in our consciousness, that has made marriage seem unnecessary or unattainable?

Although slavery was an atrocious social system, men and women back then nonetheless often succeeded in establishing working families. In his account of slave life and culture, "Roll, Jordan, Roll," historian Eugene D. Genovese wrote: "A slave in Georgia prevailed on his master to sell him to Jamaica so that he could find his wife, despite warnings that his chances of finding her on so large an island were remote. ... Another slave in Virginia chopped his left hand off with a hatchet to prevent being sold away from his son." I was stunned to learn that a black child was more likely to grow up living with both parents during slavery days than he or she is today, according to sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin.

Traditional notions of family, especially the extended family network, endure.

Many modern women are so independent, so self-sufficient, so committed to the cause, to the church, to career-or their narrow concepts of same-that their entire personalities project an "I don't need a man" message. So they end up without one. An interested man may be attracted but he soon discovers that this sister makes very little space for him in her life.

Going to graduate school is a good goal and an option that previous generations of blacks have not had. But sometimes the achieving woman will place her boyfriend so low on her list of priorities that his interest wanes. Between work, school and homework, she's seldom "there" for him, for the preliminaries that might develop a commitment to a woman. She's too busy to prepare him a home-cooked meal or to be a listening ear for his concerns because she is so occupied with her own. Soon he uses her only for uncommitted sex since - to him -she appears unavailable for anything else. Blind to the part she's playing in the problem, she ends up thinking, "Men only want one thing." And she decides she's better off with the degree than the friendship. When she's 45, she may wish she'd set different priorities while she was younger.

Why the decline in marriage? It's not because couples are any more lacking today in interpersonal skills for healthy marriages than a generation ago. The big difference today is that a lot of men no longer represent particularly good economic deals, and women no longer have to marry to have economic security. Thirty years ago most men had stable jobs in a mass-production economy that earned them paychecks big enough to support families. And most women didn't have paid jobs, so they had to get married to have food on their tables and a roof over their heads.

Since then, stable mass-production jobs for men have dwindled, and their paychecks have shrunk. Meanwhile, women have streamed into the workforce. They're making more money than ever (but, sadly, still not as much as men doing the same job).

I'm not suggesting most unmarried women think about men and marriage in such a mercenary way. My point is only that in the new economy, such a calculation is entirely rational, and, consciously or unconsciously, a growing number of women seem to be making it.

It's not being single that causes women to be poor. It's being poor that makes it less likely they'll marry. Poor women generally don't have a bumper crop of marriage-worthy men to choose from. Most men available to them are either unemployed or employed part time, and they earn little when they do work. It's entirely rational for a poor woman to hedge her bets and tell a male companion he's welcome to stay only so long as he pulls in enough money and behaves well. (my emphasis)

Mothers see economic stability on the part of a prospective partner as a necessary precondition for marriage. Welfare-reliant and low-wage working mothers worry a great deal about money simply because they have to. The price for not balancing their budgets is high: the stability of the household and the well-being of their children. Though men frequently contribute to mothers' households, their employment situations are often unstable and their contributions vary. Mothers' consistent needs for supplemental income, combined with men's erratic employment and earnings, mean that couples often break up over money or fail to marry because of it.

Mothers aren't completely cold and calculating when they weigh the costs and benefits of keeping a man around. Many say they try to take into account the effort their men put into finding and keeping a job. But if the man quits or loses his job for reasons the woman views as his own fault, he often loses the right to co-reside in the household, share in family meals, or even to maintain any romantic relationship with her. Mothers whose boyfriends live with them almost always told us they impose a "pay and stay" rule—if the men are out of work and not contributing to household expenses, they eventually lose the right to co-reside. One Puerto Rican mother said,

"I didn't want to be mean or anything, [but when he didn't work], I didn't let him eat my food. I would tell him, 'If you can't put any food here, you can't eat here. These are your kids, and you should want to help your kids, so if you come here, you can't eat their food.' Finally, I told him he couldn't stay here either."

Since these men can seldom afford their own apartment and are not eligible for housing subsidies because they have no custodial children, they are often powerfully motivated to try and maintain a place in their girlfriend's household. Often, their only alternatives are to move back in with their own mother or to live on the streets. No low-income single mother we have spoken to has allowed a nonpaying male partner to sponge off her welfare or paycheck for any substantial length of time simply because neither welfare nor low-wage employment pay enough to make this an affordable option.