Trouble And Strife; Magin McKenna explains why the secret of a long

DESPITE gloomy divorce statistics that say they should know better, David Mackey and Aileen Gemmell can't contain their enthusiasm for their upcoming nuptials.

The pair, who have been living together for two-and-a-half years, see marriage as a natural progression of their relationship.

"Marriage is the best option for us," says Gemmell, 25. "We really love each other. We know without a doubt that marriage is naturally the next step."

Since they met three years ago at a club in Greenock, the Inverkip- based couple have been inseparable. Last March, they got engaged during a weekend trip to Ireland.

"We are very excited," says 30-year-old Mackey. "We really love each other and know without a doubt that we are meant to be together."

But how do they know? "We just do," Gemmell laughs.

The truth is, however, that neither Gemmell nor Mackey can be sure what their future may bring. Yet Mackey is unwilling to countenance any thoughts of failure.

"I haven't thought about the divorce statistics or anything like that," he says. "They don't worry me."

Gemmell also has few worries. And, although she believes honesty and mutual respect are vital, she adds: "But I think romance is really important, too."

Happy marriages, however, are becoming increasingly rare as today almost half end in divorce.

What is making marriages across the West flounder? According to US research (conducted by a Scot) communication difficulties are the most likely source of contention.

Sit a newlywed couple in front of University of Washington professor, John Murray, and the Moffat-born mathematician will tell you with 94% accuracy whether the union is destined to culminate in marital bliss, or rip apart in the divorce court.

According to Murray - a former Oxford University professor who has worked out a mathematical formula to predict the likelihood of divorce - the state of the union depends not on how well partners cope with combustible topics such as wilting passion, money, career or family ambitions, but how well they converse.

Murray observed the convers-ations of newlyweds. He suggested topics ranging from the fragmented Middle East peace process, to the likelihood of rain. Couples could discuss blockbuster movies or retirement plans. If a husband turns and looks out of the window, bored and preoccupied while his wife struggles to lure him back to the conversation, Murray would predict that they face a long and bitter road.

If the wife leans in to disagree, while her husband drones on about a flammable topic that has previously provoked an argument, Murray would say they stood a solid chance of staying together.

According to his mathematical theory, arguments don't make or break a relationship. The real problem facing modern marriage is how well a couple communicates - ground-breaking advice that sounds like something your mother could have told you. "It's common sense," says Murray. "It's about communication and being more positive than negative. If, during a conversation, a wife rolls her eyes and says 'Oh, that's stupid,' that is not a stable marriage."

Murray's research is the culmination of a 10-year study that was released at a Dundee conference this summer. It could prove crucial in piecing together the puzzle of modern marriage, a picture that is becoming increasingly murky as divorce rates escalate.

It was communication failure that led to the breakdown in Kate Hall's 28-year marriage. Having divorced five years ago, Hall says she can't pinpoint exactly when she knew her marriage was failing. Since there was no abuse or infidelity, there was no clear moment when she realised what was going wrong.

In retrospect, it was what most would consider "little things" that led to the breakdown. For years, she and her husband had been able to speak "about anything". But once their children left the nest, Hall realised they had less and less to talk about.

"I changed a lot and we did not grow together," she says. "Towards the end, we hardly talked at all. When communication breaks, everything else goes with it."

Hall's experience is typical. Since the birth of the feminist movement, the institution of marriage has found itself in a downward spiral. Considered by some to be oppressive, it became something of a dirty word to a wave of financially and emotionally independent women.

These days, fewer women are trapped in souring marriages because they can't afford to live on their own. Women are also less likely to feel compelled to marry for social status, or to start a family.

"We're living through a period of major social, economic and political change for women," says Professor John Gottman, one of America's foremost marriage therapists and researchers. "Even though the impact of divorce is a negative one, it's been lessening with every progressive decade. The social stigma is declining. We know that kids are better off just being with a single mum than with a pair of parents who are screaming at each other, or hitting each other."

It is a new millennium reality that has many in Scotland and across Europe calling for "marriage" as a word, and - perhaps more importantly - as a legal institution, to be redefined by politicians.

Glasgow Green MSP Patrick Harvie made national headlines last September when the Executive ruled that his private member's bill to recognise civil partnerships for unmarried same-sex and heterosexual unions was a matter for the UK parliament.

Yet Westminster intends only to deal with same-sex unions, even though Harvie's bill - which covers areas such as inheritance and pension rights - would benefit all unmarried couples.

As Harvie points out, 8% of adults living together in Scotland are unmarried, while one in 10 UK children live in a family with cohabiting adults. He believes the law should be rewritten for these re-defined relationships. "Marriage works for some," he says. "But we know it's not for everybody."

For heterosexual unions, Harvie is continuing to push his bill to the Scottish parliament. As well as ensuring that unmarried couples enjoy all the same rights as married ones, his proposals also deal with legally recognising the substantial shift in society's attitudes towards the religious and legal union of marriage. Dryly, he asks: "If we're in the business of ranking people's relationships gold, silver and bronze, who's in the judge's seat?

"If we are going to do it, it should be on basis of care people give to one another and the happiness they provide."

Perhaps the most persausive force driving Harvie's legislation will be the number of voters who find themselves in non-married partnerships.

Certainly, the numbers are growing in his favour. "There is," he argues, "an increasing belief that marriage doesn't reflect the views of a modern secular society.

"Subsequently, more and more people don't see a reason to get married."

There will, however, always be couples who don't follow that train of thought. With their big day set for December 6, Gemmell and Mackey count themselves among a lucky - if shrinking - pool of soon-to-be newlyweds.

Copyright 2003 SMG Sunday Newspapers Ltd.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.