As I read the Washington Times article that began with my talk at the recent TANF conference in D.C., I was struck with the effect of a journalist or headline writer adding one ambiguous and potentially misleading adjective. In this case, it was the word "traditional" before the word "marriage" as something I was calling for. In fact, I never use the term "traditional marriage" because I don't know what it means and I fear that for others it means a certain gender arrangement with mothers at home and fathers in the workforce. Like many others, I see a marriage renaissance coming, a movement towards something new that I hope will have elements of the past (in particular, commitment and stability) but also new features of marriage (such as gender equality and greater intentionality) that were not strengths of marriages of our forebearers. The Washington Times got 99 percent of my talk right,but the addition of the word "traditional" may create confusion about my meaning and provide fodder for those who believe that the marriage movement's covert goal is to recreate the Ozzie and Harriet family.

The critic Northrop Frye, in his classic "Anatomy of Criticism," showed that comedy typically follows certain rules. Think of the Shakespearean model: by the comedy's end, the playfulness of the countryside gives way to the order of the city; the mismatched couples are properly paired; the authority that opposed happiness is undermined and restored. Marriage is the result.

But Mr. Cavell argues that in American comedies of the 1930's and 40's the genre changed. The couple begins by being married and then splits up -- or fails to recognize their affinity -- until they are properly reunited in marital friendship. These comedies tend to end in the country rather than the city, and authority tends to remain unacknowledged. Mr. Cavell calls these films "remarriage comedies." He also describes a countergenre: melodramas in which marriage is seen as implausible, impossible or disruptive (as in "Now, Voyager" or "Stella Dallas").

Mr. Cavell attends to how characters -- "thoughtful, mature people" -- learn about their relationships and the society that looms over them. These are films of moral education.

Princeton University sociology professor Sara S. McLanahan estimated that a third of the 3,600 young unwed parents in the national "fragile families" study are ready to advance to marriage and would "immediately benefit" from pro-marriage programs.
Another third of the couples also seem to be good candidates for marriage programs, but need additional services in education, job training or mental health.
The final third of the couples aren't good marriage candidates, she said, since they have either ended their romantic involvements or are caught up in destructive lifestyles. Still, all the couples would benefit if "a change in norms were there" about marriage, Ms. McLanahan told the conference.