Miss Kelly

Two Parents Are Better Than One - Honest

Here's a blogpost at the Psychology Today Blog about children of single parents, saying out loud what conservatives have been saying for about three decades, and what religious people have been saying for several thousand years: children are better off with two parents. 

"Not too long ago, it was fashionable and politically correct to assert that it was perfectly fine for parents to get a divorce and that children raised by single parents turned out fine. The stigma of illegitimate birth, which had haunted the lives of so-called bastards for centuries, was mostly erased."

"More recently, however, increasing numbers of experts are saying that it is better for a child to have two parents, and they point to a growing list of studies indicating that children turn out better if they were raised by two married parents than if they were raised by a single parent. I have yet to see a study that showed children of single parents performing better than those who were raised by a married couple, even though one might speculate that having fewer parents should contribute to greater demands for maturity and other competencies."

The blog post quickly turns into a discussion of whether American companies will discriminate against children of single parents, which seems an odd road to go down. 

Not only are children with two parents better off emotionally, financially, medically, etc., than children of single parents, children of married parents fare better than children of unmarried parents living together.  Ladies, if you want the best for your children, marry the father.  It's been true for thousands of years.  It still is.

New Books on Marriage, and Sexuality and Spirituality

These two new books look pretty good:

Sex and the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance, and Religion on America's College Campuses, by Donna Freitas.   Freitas, a BU religion professor, had an op-ed at the WSJ yesterday on the disconnect between college students' thinking about sexuality and their practices.  Freitas conducted a survey of 2,500 college students on dating, romance and sex:

"Interestingly, most of the study respondents do identify with religious traditions that have rules about sexuality. But, with the exception of evangelicals, American college students see almost no connection between their religious beliefs and their sexual behavior. This radical separation of religion and sex tells us important things not only about the power of the college hookup culture but also about the weakness of religious traditions in the face of it. Perhaps the various church leaders would be interested to know that their young people are longing for the kinds of guidelines and rituals for dating that religion can offer. It might make them more willing to actually explain church teachings on sex and engage the students in honest discussions about how to foster healthy, fulfilling romantic relationships."

I saw this at Instapundit yesterday, Marriage: The Dream That Refuses to Die, by Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. 

"Nearly everywhere and at all times, marriage has enjoyed a privileged status as the primary social unit—the essential bond that created alliances between families and a bridge between the sexes. In joining a man and woman, marriage attempted to hold men to collective social standards, including responsibility for the women they impregnated and the children they fathered, while also stringently hedging in women’s sexuality. In short, marriage has always demanded that both men and women sacrifice a considerable measure of individual freedom. In marriage, 'I' becomes 'we,' and 'we' frequently extends beyond the couple to extended family, clan, and society. For these reasons, both political and religious authorities typically have taken great care to present marriage as an institution to which individual interests must be subordinated."

"At the time of her death in January 2007, the celebrated historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese was worried that these attitudes were in the process of being reversed. In this book, which she was in the midst of preparing for publication at the time of her passing, she argues that marriage is disintegrating under the rising demands that it serve not the good of the whole but the desires of the individual. A union that at one point was used to limit individual 'rights' is now claimed as one right among many. The sexual liberation movements of the last forty years have seriously undermined marriage, argues Fox-Genovese, so much so that the institution seems to face the threat of extinction."

The welfare society has also seriously undermined marriage, as it obviously doesn't require that men are responsible for the children they've fathered, or that women stop having babies from multiple fathers.  More children, more money, bigger apartment subsidy. Who cares who the fathers are?   Who cares about the next generation of deprived children?

Similarly, having children has also become the "right" of individuals, so that many single men and women feel it's their right to have children, whether by adoption or artificial insemination.  What about the right of a child to be raised by two parents in a stable household?

Forced Marriages in England

England apparently has a terrible problem of forced marriages  Hundreds and possible thousands of young women (mostly but not all Muslim) are taken out of high school and forced to marry - against their will - men from their country of origin.  Over 2,000 female students are "missing" in England.  These are registered students who aren't showing up for class and can't be located.  The government has "asked to speak to the British clearance officer based in Islamabad in Pakistan to see if any of the 2,000 children are listed as having arrived there." 

England is considering making forced marriages a criminal offense: 

"...ministers are holding a three-month consultation to decide whether to create a specific criminal offence of forcing someone to marry."

"The joint Home and Foreign Office forced marriage unit has dealt with 1,000 cases over the past four years."

"....The government would also want to be able to prosecute in the case of forced marriages that take place overseas, where the perpetrator and the victim are British citizens."

"BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett says hundreds, possibly thousands of Britons, come under this kind of pressure from within their communities."

"It is not only linked to so-called honour killings, where families take revenge on individuals who resist their wishes, but a high suicide rate among young Asian women."

Hmmm, how much of that goes on in the United States?  What recourse does a young women - some as young as 12 - have when faced with this horrible betrayal by her own parents? 

Marriage in the News and in the Courts

Marriage has been in the news and in the courts lately.  First, a decision from Maryland's high court:

"By 4-3, Maryland's high court today rejected a claim for same-sex marriage under the state constitution. The opinion is more than 100 pages long and is studded with more citations to cases, law reviews and books (including, notably, William Eskridge's Gaylaw), and sociological and scientific studies, than any case yet on the issue."

"The Maryland court rejected the argument that the ban on gay marriages is a form of sex discrimination, though it called that argument "beguiling." It rejected the argument that sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, citing gays' legislative success in the state as evidence the group is not "politically powerless" and thus needs no unusual judicial protection from the majority. It added that there is not yet a sufficient scientific consensus on whether sexual orientation is "immutable." The court also decided that there is no fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex. These conclusions all follow the majority trends in the state courts so far. "

Except for Massachusetts, that is. 

"SSM has lost in every state high court to consider the issue since the stunning success in Goodridge in Massachusetts in 2003. SSM legal advocates lost outright in Washington state and New York in 2006. New Jersey's high court also rejected an SSM claim in 2006, though it did order the recognition of civil unions and left open the possibility of a future pro-SSM ruling. A case is still pending in California's supreme court."

"When you consider that SSM legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are being created in the friendliest states, making pro-SSM rulings in other states even more unlikely in the near future."

Meanwhile, in Utah, the case against polygamist Warren Jeffs is underway:

"As polygamous church leader Warren Jeffs goes on trial this week on charges of being an accomplice to rape, more is at stake than a guilty or innocent verdict. The prophet's day in court could be a seminal event in law-enforcement efforts to deal with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and in the sect's battle for religious freedom."

"The trial comes after years of criminal investigation and civil lawsuits. Jeffs became one of the nation's most-wanted fugitives and was captured and jailed last year, which set off months of legal maneuvering.  For an estimated 8,000 FLDS members, the courtroom drama represents a culmination of efforts by authorities in Arizona and Utah to combat sexual abuse, fraud and familial interference in the isolated twin towns of Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah."

The testimony by the then 14-year old bride was creepy. Lots of background info and court docs here.

I don't know how many FLDS members support polygamy, but the ones who do need to adjust their thinking.  Fast. Polygamy is illegal here.  Western society does not support polygamy, which is an inherently unequal arrangement and disadvantageous for the women.  It creates unstable families for children, who live in competition with children from other mothers, wondering which children are most loved, who are the favored ones?

There's fairly widespread acceptance of polygamy in some ethnic communities in the U.S., such as West African immigrants living in the Bronx. The New York Times published an article last March about the practice of polgamy among immigrant communitiesin New York.  Islamic sharia law allows a man to marry up to four wives. Our country's state and federal laws say otherwise.  Under immigration law, polygamy is grounds for exclusion from the U.S. (I'm not sure if it's grounds for deportation.) Under NY state law, bigamy is punishable by up to four years in prison.  I'd like to see a court case against one of these guys who have two and three sets of families.  Let's set an example here, let it be known that we have laws against polygamy, and these laws apply to everybody. 

Starter Marriages for 20-Something Self-Actualizers

The Boston Globe had a somewhat disturbing article in the latest Sunday Magazine called Meet. Marry. Move On.  Although the term "starter marriages" was never used, that's what the article was about, twenty-somethings getting married, divorcing not long after, and remarrying. People are apparently having starter marriages the way some folks buy starter homes.  If your chosen spouse isn't doing it for you, if you two fall out of love, then cut your losses and move on!  Don't worry, there's no stigma to divorce anymore.  Why should there be?  Things just didn't work out.  As the article says:

"When you're looking for a soul mate, why let a spouse slow you down? There's a new emphasis in marriages on emotional togetherness, a standard some relationships just cannot meet. Good thing nobody bats an eye anymore when young, childless couples divorce."

Divorce may be commonplace, but it's not something to be happy or even blase about.  It's painful, regrettable and expensive.  It deeply hurts people.  The article is glib, long on anecdotes, short on statistics.  How much of a trend is this?  We have no way of knowing.  We are given the marriage and divorce stories of three self-absorbed young people: Peter, Arden and Kathyrn.   Both women remarried, the man is still waiting to find his perfect life partner.  In all three cases, the women intiated the divorce. The writer, Alison Lobron, adds a few anecdotes from her own experiences. The subjects' stories and quotes sound alike, it scarcely matters who to attribute any statement to:

"Oh, my God. What happened to me?"

"Any sense of my 'self,' which really hadn't had a chance to develop yet, was gone."

"It didn't go wrong all at once....It never went wrong. But I changed. I felt that I wasn't as connected to this man romantically and passionately."

"My romantic feelings were gone." 

"I didn't feel in love with him anymore."

"I felt I was starting a new decade of my life, and I wanted more for myself."

I, I, I, me, me, me!  These folks are no doubt committed to their personal self-actualization, but they seem not to have grasped the concept of marriage.  Clue: Us is more important than me.  Marriage as an institution was designed for a higher goal than your individual "emotional fulfillment,"  although many people experience much happiness from their marital commitment.  For me, marriage is something of a religious vocation, stemming from the belief that God created men and women to be companions for each other, to share a life together and - ideally - to raise families.  My emotional fulfillment is important to me, but it's not the be-all and end-all of my married life.  My husband's happiness is as important as my own (well, most of the time anyway....).  I don't expect that my husband is the only or even the primary source of my emotional well-being.  That's why we have girl friends, sisters, family, buddies.  Thinking that another person can magically provide you with your emotional happiness seems misguided and destined to disappoint.

It's sad, I think, that young people enter into marriage almost casually, as some sort of rite of passage or as a status symbol.  Not only have these folks missed a key concept, they display an enormous capacity for self-delusion.  Both women  remarried soon after their divorce.  I'm not sure how anyone could think "My romantic feelings were gone" in their first marriage, and then enter into marriage a second time, thinking that things will magically be different. How did these women convince themselves that they won't be facing a second divorce a few years down the road?  What was different in the second marriage or in the women's women's attitudes?  The article doesn't say.  One woman said:

"She says she believes she has found what a marriage should be: 'intimacy, partnership, passion, and attraction.' "

Good luck to them. 

P.S.   Sorry if I sound all high and might here, but there's something disturbing in the attitude of these twenty-somethings.  Bridget Jones, the hilariously obsessed main character in Helen Fielding's Bridget Jones's Diary, refers to married people as "smug marrieds."  Now we have a new group of people, the "smug divorced."  It doesn't occur to them their marriage didn't work because they got married for the wrong reasons or because they didn't contribute what a marriage needs to be successful.  Instead, they are fairly congratulating themselves for their cleverness.

This is how "adults" turn out in a child-centered society, where every child is told that he or she is special (regardless of achievements), where schools consider a child's self-esteem to be more important than any other else.  The self and the ego trump everything else.  Self-indulgent adults? How could they be anything else?

More on Father's Day

Father's Day approaches, and I hope everyone whose father is still alive can celebrate that day with him.  My father is still with us, and even with fairly advanced Alzheimer's disease, he still recognizes us.  He was and still is a very wonderful man, caring and humorous, an upstanding man.  My siblings and I credit him with teaching us faith, a sense of duty, loyalty, honor, accountability, not quitting, and staying strong in the face of adversity.  He also taught us bucketloads of useful things too, like how to paint, handle an axe, start a campfire, how to whistle and waltz and swim. He was an amazing combination of strength and compassion.  My father is among the very best.  

I found two more articles on Father's Day to share with you, about this day which celebrates the unique contributions that a man brings to his children, in a way that a mother cannot.  First, Kay Hymowitz writes at the City Journal, Father's Day Without Fathers, about the increasing number of children who don't have a father, and hence don't have much to celebrate tomorrow:

"The breakdown of marriage—specifically, the dramatic rise in divorce and nonmarital births—over the past 40 years has not been very kind to fatherhood. Fifty percent of American children—a disproportionate number of them low income and/or black—will spend time without their fathers in the house, and despite the expectations of many experts who had assumed otherwise, out-of-house fathers tend to disappoint. And yes, a lot of kids get mad about that."

"...At the most basic level, fathers who’re divorced from their children’s mother, or who never married them in the first place, simply aren’t around much. According to most surveys, though about one-third of nonresident fathers visit with their kids on a weekly basis, a majority of them see them once a month, or less. And as the years go by, they tend to fade from the family picture even more."

"About four decades ago, when Americans began to imagine that they could separate marriage and childbearing, they didn’t think too hard about how men could be fathers without being husbands. As a result, this Sunday, many families won’t have much to celebrate."

On a happier note, Deacon Mike Iwanowicz wrote about Father's day in last week's Walpole Times, including this information on when this holiday began:

Marriage - Have We Reached the Tipping Point?

There's been lots of reaction to the NY Times article last week that claims:

"For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results."

"In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.  Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits."

Evergreen State College professor Stephanie Coontz, says:

“This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,” said Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “Most of these women will marry, or have married. But on average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage.”

Ms. Coontz may think this is an "inexorable sign," but I don't.  I think marriage as an institution will survive the assaults on it, as will the traditional family unit (married mother and father and their children).   If anything, social science data is demonstrating that the traditional family arrangements offers an array of benefits over "alternative" families - better health, better finances, greater educational opportunites, and more emotional support.  Kay Hymowitz has written extensively about this, and the growing economic gap between the folks in the U.S. who get married and those who don't.   

Back the the NY Times article. James Lileks wrote a funny, scathing column about the article (naturally for Lileks). He notes that the article is heavy on quotes from the older women who have divorced their dull husbands, and are thrilled by their new-found "independence."   

"It’s a consequence of the triumph or Romantic Love, I suppose; if you don’t mesh at the elemental level, something’s wrong. The notion of simply inhabiting the same road as you move towards the horizon isn’t enough; you must both be fascinated by the same things. I prefer the model where one person is interested in the flowers that grow by the road, and the other discourses on the history of pavement, and you both speculate on the birds in the boughs above. But that’s just me. (Or rather us.) I’m sure marriages built around interests intensely shared work just as well. It all depends on what you put it into it, to state the obvious. It’s like a fireplace: you can let it go out, or you can add wood. Ahem."

"Anyway. Since the story’s methodology is fubar, what’s the point? Lay some snark on marriage, add another questionable statistic to the pool of Things Smart People Know To Be So, give aid and comfort to the readers who see the prospects of marriage slipping away for good, and erode, ever so gently, the stature of a venerable but quaintly outdated institution. I imagine the tone of the piece would be different if a majority of men divorced their lives to throw some hose in the trophy-babe pool, and pronounced their new freedom from responsibility and duty a great revelation."

Jeff Jacoby commented on the NYT article in today's Boston Globe (1-21-07), noting some questionable statistics.  Of 117 million women in the U.S., 57.5 million (49%) are living with a husband, and 59.9 million (51%) are single or their husbands were not living at home when the survey was taken in 2005. The category of women "living without a husband" includes more than 2 million women whose "husbands are working out of town, are in the military, or are institutionalized."  It also includes the ten million young women aged 15 to 19 who are single.  I believe it's illegal for 15-year olds to be married in most American states, so why was that age group included? 

Jacoby states the obvious:

If society is to flourish and perpetuate itself, it must uphold marriage as a social ideal -- it must raise boys and girls in a culture that encourages them to marry eventually a partner of the opposite sex, make stable and loving homes together, and have children who will one day form successful marriages of their own."

Jacoby says that don't put marriage on the Endangered Species list just yet:

"Marriage advocates often grumble that everything is getting worse, writes scholar David Blankenhorn in his forthcoming book, "The Future of Marriage," but it's time to acknowledge that some things are getting better: Divorce rates are declining modestly. Teen pregnancy rates are dramatically lower. Rates of reported marital happiness, after a long slide, appear to be rising. And a substantial majority of American children, 67 percent, are being raised by married parents. By even wider margins, young Americans look forward to being married..."

"The '60s, the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, the rise of single motherhood -- there is no question that marriage has been through a wringer. Yet our most important social insitution remains a social ideal. Boys and girls still aspire to become husbands and wives."

Michael Medved calls it "journalistic malpractice." Medved concludes:

"Despite the journalistic malpractice by Sam Roberts and the New York Times, the real front page news isn’t about marriage’s disappearance; it’s about the institution’s unexpected and encouraging durability."

Questions to Ask Before You Marry

Jill over at The Business of Life has a great collection of questions to ask before you get married, as well as advice for how to treat your spouse after the marriage.  My faves:

• "Each criticism has to be balanced by five compliments.  This after tests on thousands of individuals by Professor Bierhoff in Germany. Four compliments just won't do."
• "Love is not a feeling.  Love is a doing." 

What you're feeling isn't nearly as important as what you're doing.

Canadian Mother Must Give Up Kids to Lebanese Father

This is quite a dramatic and sad story.  A Canadian woman will have to give up her two children to her estranged Lebanese husband, or face kidnapping charges in Lebanon:

"A former Saskatoon woman can leave Lebanon without facing criminal charges if she leaves her two daughters behind with her estranged husband, a lawyer for the husband said Wednesday. ''We are ready to drop all the cases against her, and everyone involved with her, if the children are returned,'' Tony Tebchrany, the father's lawyer, told Nahlah Ayed of CBC News during an interview."

"Melissa Hawach's daughters, Hannah, 6, and Cedar, 3, were taken to Lebanon in July by their father, Joe Hawach, in violation of a Canadian order granting Melissa full custody of the girls. She pursued various legal options in Canada, in the couple's former home of Australia and in Lebanon  -  all without success."

"But she took the girls back in a daring rescue operation just before Christmas, allegedly helped by ex-soldiers from Australia and New Zealand. Two men  -  Australian Brian Corrigan and New Zealander David Bruce Pemberton -  were arrested and sit in a Lebanese prison on child-abduction charges..... They now face up to three years' hard labour on charges of abducting and/or aiding the abduction of minors."

"Meanwhile, Melissa and the girls, as well as Melissa's father, Jim Engdahl of Saskatoon, remain in hiding.  An in-camera court hearing was held Wednesday to determine what, if any, charges should be brought against Melissa, according to the CBC. Under Lebanese law, the father is favoured in custody disputes. Joe Hawach has been charged with abducting the girls from Canada, but Lebanon doesn't have an extradition treaty with Canada."

What a nightmare for the mother and the children, who were abducted lin July 2006.  Joe Hawach (aided by his mother Gladys) took his two young daughers to Lebanon at the peak of the war between Israel and Lebanon-based militants.  Both parents are Christians (I'm assuming by their names).  Canadian divorce law favors keeping children with the mother, Lebanese divorce law favors the father. What a tragedy, can you imagine being in hiding with two young children?

   

Update on MA Ballot Initiative to Ban Same-Sex Marriage

I've been remiss lately on some things, including covering the ballot initiative in Massachusetts to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, which is HUGE.  Massachusetts is the only state which has legalized same-sex marriage (Vermont, Hawaii and New Jersey allow same-sex civil unions).  This came about from a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision (4 for, 3 against) in 2003.  The vote of one justice changed the definition of marriage in Massachusetts overnight. Already, this had led to lawsuits in other states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. 

The story in Massachusetts has had LOTS of twists and turns.  A ballot initiative was created in 2006 to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. 170,000 signatures were collected.  Twice during the 2006 Massachusetts legislative session, lawmakers refused to consider the ballot question (just putting it on the ballot so voters can decide, not approving the question itself), which would have effectively killed it.  These actions were completely against the MA constitution and the will of the people. 

"Opponents of same-sex marriage collected a record 170,000 signatures in December 2005 for a referendum on the issue. Lawmakers avoided a vote in November by recessing a special session on constitutional ballot questions until today."

In December 2006, Governor Mitt Romney and others petitoned the Masachusetts Supreme Court (the same folks who brought us same-sex marriage in the first place) about the legislature's inaction, and the Court responded:

"The court chided lawmakers for their maneuvers to avoid a vote on the amendment, saying the legislature had demonstrated “indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties.” The court said it was not empowered to order the legislature to vote on the amendment, which petitioners, including Gov. Mitt Romeny had asked it to do. But the court’s criticism appeared to be enough to make some lawmakers, including some supporters of same-sex marriage, decide to allow a vote."

On January 2, Massachusetts lawmakers did approve the ballot measure.  The measure was approved by 62 lawmakers (it needed 50 to pass). The Legislature needs to approve the measure again in its 2007 session for it to be put before voters in November 2008.  Governor Deval Patrick lobbied legislators on Tuesday to defeat the ballot measure.  Harry at Squaring the Boston Globe has had terrific coverage of this issue, inclduing Deval Patrick's statements to "reject the proposed marriage amendment, even if they had to defy the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to do so" (italics mine).  Patrick had urged legislators to "let the measure die without a vote."  Even a gay rights activists acknowlged that he didn't "advocate ignoring the rules just because we wouldn’t like the outcome."   

Two things:

1) This is huge, it's quite a setback to the same-sex marriage proponents, who thought this was a done deal.  This will energize the opposition, who strongly believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. 

2) This issue could become as contentious as the abortion issue, another case where we woke up one morning and a Supreme Court had decided to insert itself and create public policy (instead of interpreting the law) in Roe Vs. Wade.  Opposition to easy access to abortion - which at that time was legal in 26 states- has done nothing but increase since the Roe vs. Wade case.  I think we're going to see the same thing here, there will be a growing resistance to same-sex marriage, in large part because the democratic process was thwarted.  Let the people vote! 

The majority of American people do not approve of same-sex marriage (myself included), not because we are homophobic, hate-filled people.  Rather, we think that you don't mess around with a basic building block of society, the family in which a mother and a father raise the children that they brought into the world.  I would not stop any person from loving and living with whatever partner he or she wants (short of polygamy, incest, underage, etc).  But I don't recognize these other cohabitations as being deserving of especial societal support.  The potential for further erosion to our society is too great.   

We don't seem to recognize anymore what are the very pillars that hold up our society.  We grew up in them, they are part of the air we breathe, but we no longer recognize them as essential structural supports.  These pillars include the rule of law, education, the family, and the church. Something we all knew just a generation or two ago, but we think we're so "evolved" that we don't need them anymore.  What self-importance and arrogance to throw out the traditions of hundreds of generations of people over thousands of years, and not think that dismantling these traditions could harm us.   

UPDATE: After spending too much time trying to explain the history of the same-sex marriage issue in Mass, I found an excellent synposis by John Kinsellagh here. 

Polygamy in the News

It drives the gay rights activists crazy when one talks about the slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.  Yet once marriage has been redefined from the union of one man to one woman to a union between any two adults, what's to prevent any other redefinition?  Why not two women and one man, as has already happened in the Netherlands?  There are definitely groups here in the U.S. who will- sooner or later- use the current legality of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts to claim that polygamy is a "constitutional right" as well.  The break-away Mormon sect in Utah and radical Muslims come to mind.  So I bet it's a matter of time before we grapple with this issue in the U.S. courts. Two recent articles about polygamy caught my eye. The first was an AP article about the first comprehensive survey of polygamy:

"Opponents of polygamy in Muslim-majority Malaysia said Thursday they will conduct a rare survey in an attempt to prove the practice throws families into emotional and economic turmoil. Researchers hope to interview 6,000 members of polygamous households over the next 10 months in what could be the most comprehensive survey ever conducted on polygamy in a Muslim society, said Zainah Anwar, director of Sisters In Islam, a Malaysian women's rights group."

"The practice of polygamy has sparked debate in Malaysia, where nearly 60 percent of the nation's 26 million people are Muslim, because activists say some polygamous husbands neglect their responsibilities to wives and children."

"According to government statistics, there were about 13,500 polygamous marriages in Malaysia between 1995 and 2004, or about 1.4 percent of all Muslim marriages, said Norani Othman, a sociologist at the National University of Malaysia.  However, anti-polygamy activists believe the true number is higher because many men fail to report their second or third marriages in order to keep them a secret from their primary families."

Go Sisters! That's one way to fight acceptance of polygamy, with quantitative data about the psychological and economic impact to the children and mothers. The second article was about Gymnastiar, Indonesia's charismatic Muslim "televangelist," who recently took a second wife:

"Abdullah Gymnastiar, commonly referred to as Aa Gym, a hugely popular preacher and holy man, has shocked the nation, particularly its women, by choosing to exercise his right to take more than one wife. Not satisfied with long-term spouse Teteh Nini Gym, three months ago he married a former model from Bandung, Alfarini Eridani, or Rini, 37 years old, who is divorced with three children and currently works at the sharia banking section of Bank Panin in Bandung."

That the boyish-faced televangelist took a second wife was generally not well-received in Indonesia:

"Aa Gym’s polygamous marriage, and the sour reaction to it from many, has caused the government to toughen its anti-polygamy stance.  The, for many, bizarre scenes shown on television screens ad nauseum recently of Aa Gym's s two wives strolling about in consort with their husband, first wife Teteh Nini (Ninih Muthmainah Muhsin) by his side, second wife Alfarini Eridani dutifully trailing behind, have seemingly been too much for some and the negative feelings aroused by them have not been ignored by the president, and his wife."

He had his supporters though:

"....alleged Jemaah Islamiah spiritual leader Abu Bakar Bashir (the Bali bombing cleric) has weighed in, defending polygamy. "Polygamy is sharia. Whoever rejects it becomes an infidel," he said, adding that husbands must treat each wife fairly — to the extent of allocating them an equal number of minutes."

Response from Aa Gym: "Those who criticise polygamy, he says, should remember that it is God’s law." 

Why are Marriage Rates So Low for Black People?

A Boston Globe article on August 9 covered the attitudes of some Black teens in Boston on marriage.  The article, "Younger Blacks Absorb a Wariness of Marriage," painted a depressing picture.  Here's what teenagers had to say:

"I don't think we [people in general] should be married, because I see how other marriages ended up in my family and on television. It's always a disaster." (Nakeeda, 17, daughter of single mom)

``I don't know anyone who's married, or anybody who is married and stayed married." (Marshall, 15)

The article wasn't as bleak as the article in the Washington Post some months back, "Marriage is for White People," but it's not a good sign.   Marriage provides many benefits for the married couple and is especially beneficial for the children, as Kay Hymowitz has amply demonstrated here.  Hymowitz sees the "marriage gap" as "America's chief source of inequality."  No other family unit provides as many psychological, economic, medical and social benefits.  Why don't these teens know this?   The Globe article looks into historical trends:

"Their disillusionment mirrors a growing resistance to marriage among African-Americans. In the post-Civil War era, when African-Americans had the option to marry legally for the first time, many did. The 1890 Census showed that 80 percent of African-American families were headed by two parents....But in 1970, census figures show ed that only 57 percent of black men and 54 percent of black women were married."

In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43 percent of black men and 42 percent of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27 percent and 22 percent respectively for whites. A Black child was more likely to grow up living with both parents during slavery days than he or she is today.  Blacks now have the lowest rate of marrige of any ethnic group in the U.S.  The Globe article quotes a Harvard professor on the issue:

"Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard University, believes that African-Americans' views of marriage reflect the lingering effects of slavery. The system emasculated black men, who had no real power over themselves, the women they loved, or their children, who could be sold, raped, or violently beaten. It upended the traditional male and female roles in a family unit. The idea that this history could result in a stable, two-parent lifestyle for African-Americans today ``is utterly absurd," says Patterson."

Utterly absurd? Really? Then what explains the stable, two-parent lifestyles that predominated in Black families 100 years ago?  Why did it take 100 years for these "lingering effects of slavery" to manifest themselves?  (Why do leftist academics cling so tightly to being victims?  Where's that gonna get you, Professor Patterson? Where's that gonna get Boston's teens?) His explanation makes no sense, but reporter Vanessa Jones doesn't notice.  A letter to the Editor in today's Globe notes another more likely explanation for the precipitous drop in marriage rates of Blacks since the 1960's:

"But wasn't that also at the start of the Great Society's welfare programs that all too often created ``economically independent" women -- black, brown, and white -- at the expense of requiring that fathers and husbands leave the home? ..... Jones leaves open the question of whether it was the lingering effects of long-ago slavery or the much more recent welfare programs that undermined the black family."

No kidding!   The rise in single motherhood - and all the social ills that accompany that - looks to be a direct result of liberal welfare policies enacted in the 1960's.  I don't think you need to go back to slavery times to explain why people are no longer getting married.   Welfare programs will support you more if you don't marry, put you in subsidized housing, and pay additional money for having more children (even though you're not able to support yourself or one child). 

I hope that these teens encounter successfully married adults who model an alternative to being single moms and part-time daddies.  This is a tough trend to turn around.  Maybe the notions of commitment, working together, partnership, give and take, sharing ups and downs, and having a companion for life's journey will seem attractive and desirable again.   It would mean a better future for these teens and their children. 

UPDATE: Shay at Booker Rising has plenty to say about Professor Patterson's "lingering effects of slavery" conclusion:

"Professor Patterson is talking crazy here. If today's low marriage rates are due to the "lingering effects of slavery" - as he claims - then why was our marriage rate far higher just years after slavery? How is it that my great-great-great grandparents - who were born dirt poor into slavery, and later had to deal with Jim Crow - were able to maintain a family unit but today's coloreds cannot?! And my grandparents were married for 62 years (up until my grandfather's death). Negro, puhleeze! Ain't buyin' this mess. Let's stop making boneheaded excuses."

Gay Marriage Debate Continues

There were a few skirmishes in the gay marriage front of the culture wars last week, with another battle this week:

"The state Supreme Court reinstated Georgia's constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday, just hours after New York's highest court upheld that state's gay-marriage ban.  The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. Seventy-six percent of Georgia voters approved the ban when it was on the ballot in 2004."

Georgia's two-year-old ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by Judge Constance Russell on procedural grounds, because the ballot had two subjects (marriage and civil unions), not just one.  This latest ruling overturned that decision.  However, to her credit, Judge Russell did observe that:

"People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place — although not marriage."

At least she noticed!   Indeed, marriage is the very foundation of our society and our civilization, and it deserves a unique and privileged place (IMO). Meanwhile, in the Empire state:

"New York's highest court ruled Thursday that state law does not permit gay couples to get married there and that such a restriction does not violate New York's constitution......In writing the majority opinion, Judge Robert Smith offered a rejoinder. "We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives." "

Special note to Massachusetts voters! This Tuesday, July 12, the Massachuetts legislature will hold a constitutional convention to decide on including a ballot question in 2008 about amending the constitution to define marriage. This is the first of two required votes before the question can be put to ballot.  Last fall, 170,000 voters signed a petition in favor of the Protection of Marriage Amendment.  Whether you are for or against gay marriage, the best way to effect social change is through the legislative process.  Let the people speak!  Please contact your state rep and senator and let them know how you feel.  Vote On Marriage has more info, including an explanation of the process.

Matt of Hub Politics dissected an ad he read in the Boston Globe by The Freedom To Marry Foundation.

Gay Marriage Coming Soon to Ireland?

Look like gay marriage could soon be coming to Ireland:

"Ireland's laws could be in breach of international human rights because they do not recognise same-sex unions, it was claimed today.  The State may even face an international law suit for discriminating against same sex couples, a Human Rights Commission study found. The report states Ireland gives more rights to married couples than to unmarried heterosexual or gay couples, particularly in cases of a relationship breakdown.  The report, entitled The Rights of De Facto Couples, also found Ireland could even be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement by not legally recognising gay couples."

Under the Good Friday Agreement (ironic, eh?) of 1998, there’s a requirement to achieve an equivalence in human rights standards between the North and the South.  Northern Ireland received civil partnerships along with the UK in 2005. Did Ireland see that one coming when they joined the EU?

An Irish lesbian couple who were legally married in Canada in 2003 recently sued the Irish Taxation Service.  They want recognition of their Canadian marriage and they're seeking damages. Currently,  Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands allow full gay marriage, although some other countries offer legal recognition for lesbian and gay couples. 

Things are zooming right along, aren't they?  Back in the 70's and early 80's, marriage was considered by lesbian feminists to be an oppressive patriarchal institution.  It was inconceivable then that lesbians would want to get married.  In a relatively short time, nothing short of full marriage is acceptable to gay advocacy groups.  Homosexuals still jokingly refer to heterosexuals as "breeders."  Now not only do gays want to adopt children, but Catholic adoption agencies that would place children only with a mother and a father are illegal in Masschusetts.  No middle ground, no compromise.

I understand that gay people (1 or 2% of the population) want certain legal rights and some want to raise families.  But why should society make these arrangements the model or standard?  As Camille Paglia said in 2001, "What gay ideologues....can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm." I don't see that society should turn its basic family structure upside-down in order to accomodate a loud minority.  The heterosexual couple and family unit has served it well for thousands of years.  My problem with the gay rights movement sweeping the Western world right now is that they don't just want to expand rights for themselves, the radical element of that movement also seeks to deny rights (freedom of speech and religion) for anyone who sees things differently. 

Cathy Seipp on Gay Marriage

Cathy Seipp has an op-ed over at IWF on Rosie O'Donnell's gay family cruises, adoption by gays, and gay marriage. Libertarians come down on both sides of the gay marriage debate, but Cathy is on the less-state-involvement-is-better side.  I'm in pretty close agreement with her opinions on gay marriage: 

"Declining to legally recognize gay marriage may be mistaken, but I don't see that it takes rights away from gays, despite all the increasingly hysterical arguments to the contrary. You can't take away something that has never, in the history of the human race, existed in the first place."

In 2001, Vermont was the first state to allow gay civil unions, which was considered revolutionary and a tremendous victory for the gay rights organizations. Now, a mere five years later, civil unions are not good enough, nothing short of full marriage "rights" will do.

"Gay marriage advocates correctly point out that general heterosexual libertinism has a far worse and longer history of undermining traditional marriage than the current movement to officially sanction homosexual partnerships. But why put yet another straw on the back of an already overloaded camel? This isn't to say that gays shouldn't have the right to live together in whatever domestic arrangements they choose, or register at Barney's and invite their friends and family over for a ceremony and call it marriage. That's their business. I just don't see why taxpayers should have to subsidize it."

Agreed. I don't see that society needs to sanction or provide legal benefits of marriage for gay couples.  There are plenty of existing mechanisms to obtain legal rights and protections outside of marriage.  Families with a married mother and a father are still the cornerstone of our society, and the state has a strong interest in protecting and encouraging this family unit. 

Link Between Altruism and Marriage

A recent study finds a link between altruism and marital happiness.  It's not clear if altruism leads to happier marriages, or if marriage makes people more altruistic.  But the link is there, according to Tom Smith of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.  Higher levels of altruism are found in married people than in co-habitating couples. 

Smith also analyzed empathy, feelings of concern for the less fortunate, and lists these findings:

• Women have a greater feeling of empathy than men.
• Children from two-parent homes are more empathetic.
• Girls raised by a single father are the least likely to develop empathy.
• Financial status bears little on altruism or empathy.
• People who vote are more empathetic and altruistic.
• Empathy is higher among those who fear crime.
• Empathy is higher among those who support increased spending on social programs.

Methinks that marriage is more far important to creating a cohesive, functioning society we give it credit for.  The data also suggests that the current societal acceptance of single-parenting is a big mistake for the kids (especially girls) and for the greater society.  The trend of single moms by choice was the subject of a NY Times article last October.  Can our society really afford to get more selfish?  Do we want to be creating more insecure and less altruistic citizens?

Marriage is for White People??

Joy Jones wrote an op-ed in last week's Washington Post titled "Marriage is for White People." That's what a sixth grade boy told her when she was teaching a career exploration class in a DC elementary school.  The 12-year old boys agreed that fatherhood was a very important goal for them, but marriage was not.  Jones examines the shift in values that have made marriage seem unnecessary for many Black Americans, and she presents the numbers: 

"The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States. In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43.3 percent of black men and 41.9 percent of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27.4 percent and 20.7 percent respectively for whites. African American women are the least likely in our society to marry."

"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."

Jones discusses the various social/cultural factors hehind the decline in marriage among Black Americans.  She appears to be ambivalent about this trend, and relates her own decistion not to marry five years ago:

"As I reviewed the situation, I realized that all the things I expected marriage to confer -- male companionship, close family ties, a house -- I already had, or were within reach, and with exponentially less drama. I can do bad by myself, I used to say as I exited a relationship. But the truth is, I can do pretty good by myself, too."

It seems odd to me that people often think of marriage in terms of "what I can get out of it?" instead of thinking "what can I bring to it?"  The notion of a partnership that requires some self-sacrifice of the part of two individuals to create a greater good for both seems to be lacking. 

It does not bode well for America's Black kids that many of their parents think that marriage is for chumps.  The advantages that marriage confers to children (economic, health, education, etc.) are well documented.  The health benefit for adults are well documented too.

Jones speculates that White America will follow suit and increasingly decide against marriage too.  But Hymowitz's article notes that the majority of White Americans who opt for single parenthood are from the lower end of the economic spectrum, not from the middle and upper classes. 

I don't know how to change the trend that Jones has documented, for either race, but I'm hoping that the pendulum swings back real soon.   Discussions on this are going on at Booker Rising here and at LaShawn Barber here.

The Marriage Gap

Fascinating article by Kay Hymowitz in City Journal, Marriage and Caste, posits that a key determinant in the US's economic class divide is whether women get married before having children. She connects the growing inequlity between our society's "haves" and the "have nots" to the collapse of the nuclear family.  The majority of women with college degrees continue to get married before having children, and then raise these children in a two-parent family.  Children raised by married parents enjoy many advantages: stability, greater financial resources, more emotional support, and higher expectations. Women with less than a high school education are increasingly becoming single mothers.  Their children are far more likely to be raised in poverty, with fewer resources, and lower expectations of college and a career.  It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

"Educated women still believe in marriage as an institution for raising children... What is missing in all the ocean of research related to the Marriage Gap is any recognition that this assumption is itself an invaluable piece of cultural and psychological capital—and not just because it makes it more likely that children will grow up with a dad in the house. As society’s bulwark social institution, traditional marriage—that is, childbearing within marriage—orders social life in ways that we only dimly understand....when Americans made marriage optional, low-income women lost a culture that told them the truth about what was best for their children."

Read the whole thing.  There appears to be an increasing body of evidence that children are FAR better off in an intact, two-parent (married) family.  The million dollar question is how one reverses the trends of single parent families.