That only works if you aren’t defining marriage as “a union between one man and one woman, recognized by God & church, and occasionally government.” Which Sarah certainly is.

Er, I don’t follow that there’s a meaningful difference (except possibly in how you precisely define “marriage”—and I’ll admit my stab at a definition is weak).

I assume that the “betrothed” distinction has to do with “we are in the process of planning the elaborate, capitalist-indulgence of a ceremony that will mark our life-long commitment and, hey, these things take time” as opposed to meaning, “we’ll talk about marriage to see if I come to my senses.”

Divorced is an important distinction because it can signal a whole host of attitudinal differences that one might hold. When combined with “Do you have children,” type questions, the importance of knowing whether the person has never been married for broader social analysis becomes apparent.

Your last two paragraphs don’t jibe. You say widowed could be lumped in with single, but according to your last statement, it couldn’t. i.e. Someone who is widowed in fact HAS promised to spend the rest of their life with that person and did not renege.

Of course, I only care insofar as this is keeping me from having to work on my annual report.

I think single, married, divorced and widowed are all acceptable.

Committed relationship is just window dressing.

Divorce is relevant because it tells whether the person was married before and hints that maybe there are “issues” involved.

Widowed is relevant because it tells that the person stuck by their commitment “to death do us part” and also there may be some “issues” involved.

Committed relationship is the “marriage” of people who aren’t allowed to get “married”, like gays, I think. Unless you are allowing that all persons who seek to live together for an extended relationship are married regardless of “legal status”. I which case, your definitions are okay.
But I’m willing to be money that Sarah, being a self-admitted conservative Christian, excludes people who can’t legally wed from her list.

I think Sarah was talking about monogamous heterosexual relationships, in which “committed relationship” is something on the order of cohabitation without an engagement ring. I’d expect a term like “life partner” would more accurately reflect the gay population’s equivalent of marriage (at least, those who don’t consider themselves married).

I’d probably lump the latter (and equivalents, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions) under “marriage.” But I’m not at all convinced that betrothed/engaged is really a separate category—I could see the arguments for widowed and divorced (as Scott and Bryan point out), at least from a social scientific point of view, since they are indicators of various life stages, although as a relationship status I’m not sure they’re as useful.