eHarmony apologizes for "Navigating the One Night Stand"
Last week in its e-newsletter, eHarmony published an article promoting high-risk promiscuous behavior and "one night stands." Over the weekend, my wife and I wrote an op-ed published by Worldnetdaily.com responding to "Navigating the One Night Stand." We have received many supportive emails from other eHarmony couples hoping that eHarmony would issue an apology.
After posting the Worldnetdaily.com op-ed, I did more research on Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony. I found that he has made past statements opposing sex outside of marriage. An article from the May 18, 2005 edition of USA Today noted Dr. Warren's opposition to premarital sex because it "clouds decisions" in dating relationships. I believe that eHarmony can continue to expand its market and maintain its brand name reputation by holding firm to the values that have made it so successful.
eHarmony's members would further benefit by a conversation about why this behavior is "inconsistent" with the company's mission statement. For example, Dr. Warren could explain his opposition to sex outside of marriage and engage in a dialogue with his readers about the dangers associated with pre-marital sex and cohabitation. Cohabitation has been a stealth killer of marriage on two levels. Cohabitation is a cancer at the front end by diverting tens of millions of people from getting married at all. There were 21 million never married Americans in 1970 but three times as many in 2006. Those who cohabit are 50% more likely to divorce than those who never live together. The "Navigating the One Night Stand" article encourages this pattern. However, thorough marriage preparation with an inventory test and mentorship by an older couple can provide an amazing 97% track record of success. Mike and Harriet McManus are a couple leading the way to reverse these troubling statistics. Mike and Harriet are founders of Marriage Savers and authors of the new book Living Together: Myths, Risks, and Answers. They would make excellent contributors to the eHarmony advice website.
Some of eHarmony's readers may not agree with Dr. Warren's stance on premarital sex - but I think they would appreciate and respect eHarmony for remaining grounded in its determination to fulfill its mission to "help couples achieve stronger, healthier and happier marriages." Premarital sex does exactly the opposite by undermining - and yes - "clouding decisions." Promoting the healthiest and most beneficial outcome which is abstinence until marriage would help eHarmony make great strides toward achieving the goals of their mission statement.
However, most importantly, I thank eHarmony for recognizing its mistake and making it clear that they wish to remain in the values-matching service business.
The Institute for American Values just released a groundbreaking report this week called "The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing" [PDF]. Using very conservative calculations, the study estimates that fragmented families cost the American taxpayer at least $112 billion a year. Put another way, over the last five years American taxpayers have spent $500 billion on the war in Iraq and $560 billion on broken families.
Last night former Australian Prime Minister John Howard gave the Irving Kristol Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner. PM Howard is well known as a relentless foe of radical Islam and an indefatigable supporter of Australia's special relationship with the United States, so the conservative views he expressed on the War on Terror and Geopolitics were to be expected. What was surprising, however, was his treatment of marriage and family as the foundation of any flourishing society. He said:
It remains a reality in Western societies that two of the greatest contributors to poverty are joblessness and family breakdown.
We should maintain a cultural bias in favour of traditional families. That doesn't mean discriminating against single parents but it does mean ceaselessly propounding the advantages for a child of being raised by both a mother and father.
Marriage is a bedrock social institution - with an unmistakable meaning and resonance. It should be kept as such.
He only goes on from there to lay out strong family policy he introduced-the entire speech is worth checking out. What can one say but, "Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi!"
[Note: On Wednesday, February 27 at 11:00 a.m., FRC will be welcoming David Blankenhorn for a lecture on his book, The Future of Marriage (Encounter Books, 2007). The lecture will also be available via live webcast at www.frc.org.]
In 1995, David Blankenhorn made one of the most important contributions to the debates over family structure with his book Fatherless America. In it, he compiled the overwhelming social science evidence in support of the common-sense truth that children need fathers as well as mothers.
Now, after years as what he calls a “Morally Anguished Fence Sitter” on the issue of so-called same-sex “marriage,” Blankenhorn has finally followed his earlier findings to their logical conclusion by declaring that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. His new book, The Future of Marriage, lays out in a thorough, scholarly, yet accessible way exactly why marriage exists as a social institution, why the male-female union is intrinsic to it, and how redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would damage it.
Blankenhorn takes the reader on a fascinating tour across time and cultures, noting that “the origins of marriage appear to coincide with the origins of civilization.” Blankenhorn describes how in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia, older cultures which practiced temple prostitution and sex for its own sake came to be replaced by ones (like that of the Hebrews) that recognized marriage and the social importance of fatherhood.
In contrast to such patriarchal societies are ones like the Trobriand Islands in the Pacific, which emphasize a child’s descent through her mother’s line. Yet even here, marriage and fathers are considered crucial for the raising of children. These two illustrations—as well as quotes from numerous anthropologists—prove that marriage has some features that are virtually universal, and that bridging the male-female divide is one such feature.
The Right of the Child to the Marriage of His Parents
The Vermont Marriage Advisory Council recently sponsored a forum at the University of Vermont, entitled, “Does Traditional Marriage Matter?” FRC Senior Fellow Dr. Pat Fagan, Director for Marriage and Religion, presented a host of data from the social sciences which deal directly with the institution of marriage and the implications of genderless marriage.
Out of the 36 topics, the average teen was lying to his parents about twelve of them. The teens lied about what they spent their allowances on, and whether they’d started dating, and what clothes they put on away from the house. They lied about what movie they went to, and whom they went with. They lied about alcohol and drug use, and they lied about whether they were hanging out with friends their parents disapproved of. They lied about how they spent their afternoons while their parents were at work. They lied about whether chaperones were in attendance at a party or whether they rode in cars driven by drunken teens….
For two decades, parents have rated “honesty” as the trait they most wanted in their children. Other traits, such as confidence or good judgment, don’t even come close. On paper, the kids are getting this message. In surveys, 98 percent said that trust and honesty were essential in a personal relationship. Depending on their ages, 96 to 98 percent said lying is morally wrong.
So when do the 98 percent who think lying is wrong become the 98 percent who lie?
Bronson's article contains a number of revealing tidbits, including:
1. Lying is related to intelligence. The smarter the kid, the better they are at lying.
2. On average, a 4-year-old will lie once every two hours, while a 6-year-old will lie about once every hour and a half.
3. Scholars have found that kids who live in threat of consistent punishment don’t lie less. Instead, they become better liars, at an earlier age—learning to get caught less often.
4. Children lie because they see their parents lie, and learn to imitate them. Adults inadvertently teach children that honesty only creates conflict, and dishonesty is an easy way to avoid conflict.
5. Permissive parents don’t actually learn more about their children’s lives.
6. Most rules-heavy parents don’t actually enforce them since its too much work.
7. Parents view arguing with their teenager as destructive to their relationship, while teens see it as strengthening their bond.
Coontz misstates the historical record to give the impression that marriage has typically not been a province of law and only became such in an effort to preserve the narrow interests of certain powerful sects of society: wealthy parents in requiring parental consent, Catholic authoritarians in proscribing divorce, and Southern racists in preventing miscegenation. This could not be further from the truth. As a rule, the more marriage was enshrined in law, the more freedom under the law was given to men and women who sought marriage. This was often the case in the ancient world, and emphatically the case in the medieval world.
NEW DELHI, November 30 (Compass Direct News) – Ending a long era of absence of adoption rights for non-Hindus, the government has cleared the way for all religious communities in all Indian states to adopt legally.
The government of the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance on October 26 gave notice of new rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act or JJA of 2006, making room for all communities to adopt, reported national daily The Times of India on November 17.
“This has ended a long wait by the Christian community, which for many years has been urging the government to grant them the right to adopt,” a representative of the Christian Legal Association (CLA) told Compass.
Christians from almost all denominations are happy with the government’s move.
Hopefully, the increased availability of adoptive parents will be good news for survival chances of Indian girls.
Jennifer Marshall is the Director of Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Marshall formerly worked at Family Research Council as the Senior Director of Family Studies. She has authored numerous studies of marriage, family, education, and civil society.
The FRC Action Values Voter Straw Poll has been making lots of news, but one of the poll questions that hasn't yet gained as much attention was question #3, which asked participants to rank the order of importance among a set of issues. Here are the results:
Here's the statistical breakdown:
ISSUE
VOTES
PERCENTAGE
Abortion
2398
41.52%
Same-sex "Marriage"
1141
19.76%
Tax Cuts
626
10.84%
Permanent tax relief for families
563
9.75%
Federal "hate crimes" legislation
331
5.73%
No vote on this question
181
3.13%
Taxpayer funding for abortions
151
2.61%
Prayer in schools
93
1.61%
Reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine"
88
1.52%
Public display of the Ten Commandments
57
0.99%
Enforced obscenity laws
54
0.94%
Embryonic stem cell experiments
48
0.83%
Voluntary, student-led prayer in schools
44
0.76%
Total
5,775
100%
Now that you've got the numbers, feel free to crunch away.
The Washington Post recently launched a new Discussion Groups section where readers can join WP staffer and others in talking about politics, culture and other topics. Our friend Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for National Review, is the moderator for Right Matters, a section devoted to "Talking About the Future of Conservatism."
Today's discussion is on a ruling by Judge Robert Hanson's ruling that declared Iowa's marriage laws unconstitutional, and ordered the county recorder in Des Moines to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Judge Hanson is utterly dismissive of the concerns of opponents of same-sex marriage, which he treats as irrational and illegitimate.
The decision is a gross act of judicial activism. Advocates of same-sex marriage make a serious case: but that case should be made to voters and legislators, not to judges. When the people of Iowa adopted their constitution, they surely did not mean to embrace principles that would lead to same-sex marriage. If they want to do so now, they can; but courts should not pretend that they already have.
If judges can rewrite our most fundamental laws, are we still a self-governing country?
This is a great forum for conservatives to explain our rational and legitimate reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, so drop by and present our case.
FRC's Vice President for Policy, Peter Sprigg, pens an op-ed in today's edition of USA Today on the benefits of marriage to society. Here's an excerpt:
The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement for every citizen regardless of lifestyle. They give an incentive to enter into the socially beneficial relationship of authentic marriage and give protection to the social institution of marriage.
Awarding such benefits to the unmarried makes no more sense than giving veterans' benefits to people who never served in the military.
Jae Ran Kim applied a "social worker’s perspective to the wholesome characters in popular Disney movies" and asked, "How many of these beloved characters live in a married, two-parent (hetero) household?"
Aladdin (Aladdin) – orphaned and homeless; petty crimes for food and shelter
Annie (Annie) – orphan adopted by rich single dad
Ariel (The Little Mermaid) – dead mother, rebellious teen who runs away to be with a man
Aristocats – Marie, Berlioz and Toulouse – three kittens raised by a single mother
Bambi (Bambi) – raised by single mother who is murdered, has never met his absent father
Belle (Beauty and the Beast) – dead mother, raised by single father
Cinderella (Cinderella) – dead mother, raised by abusive Stepmother and neglectful, absent father
Dumbo (Dumbo)– raised by a stigmatized, depressed single mother
Elliot (Pete’s Dragon) – orphaned, runaway from abusive foster parents, adopted by single mother
Hercules (Hurcules) – son of gods transracially adopted by humans
Lilo (Lilo and Stitch)– orphaned, raised by older sister
Mowgli (The Jungle Book)– orphaned, raised by 2-male heads of household (bear and panther)
Mulan (Mulan) – cross-dressing teen girl with intact, multi-generational family unit
Nemo (Finding Nemo) – dead mother, raised by single overprotective father
Oliver (Oliver & Company) – orphaned kitten transracially adopted by rich girl
Peter Pan (Peter Pan) – orphaned, troublemaker and gang leader of Lost Boys
Penny (The Rescuers) – orphaned girl kidnapped from orphanage
Pinocchio (Pinocchio) – wooden toy adopted by aged creator Gepetto
Pochahontas (Pocahontas) – dead mother, raised by single father
Quasimoto (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) – physically disabled male adopted by evil church minister Frollo
Simba (The Lion King) – father murdered by uncle, raised by 2-male heads of household (meerkat and warthog)
Many urban Chinese kids are discovering for the first time the meaning of sibling rivalry--and the government is taking notice. Since the late 70s, China's family planning policy has dictated a one-child policy for city-dwellers (two children for rural citizens), with fines for those who do not comply. The BBC reports, however, that due to China's rising wealth, many couples are opting to pay the fines and proceed with more children:
[China] is keen to curb its population growth, and the controversial family planning policy, implemented in the late 1970s, is meant to limit urban couples to one child and rural families to two.
But rising incomes mean that some newly rich couples in urban areas can easily afford to break the rules and pay the resulting fines.
In fact, last month, a survey by the National Population and Family Planning Commission found that the number of rich people and celebrities having more than one child was on a rapid increase, and nearly 10% of people in this category had three children.
The story also brings to light a fact of which I was previously unaware: the Chinese government prohibits early marriages. In the United States, the oldest marriageable date without parental permission is 19 (Nebraska). In China, men are permitted to marry at 22, and women can tie the knot at 20.
But according to [a spokesman for the PRC's National Population and Family Planning Commission], "early marriages are still prevailing in some parts of the country, especially in rural areas, which goes against the family planning policy".
Part of the reason why rural families refuse to comply is because of the traditional preference for sons.
Experts say this preference has led to the under-reporting of female births, as well as abortion of female foetuses and female infanticide.
As we have writtenherebefore, when mixed with a cultural preference for sons, a maximum child policy can be lethal. Now that the Chinese government has seen that its systems of fines is failing as the economy grows, it will face some tough decisions. While we don't know whether or not the government will stiffen or loosen its penalties, it is good to see that some families see that no matter what the fine, the value of life and marriage is priceless.
Kay Hymowitz has an excellent article on the "Marriage Gap" in America:
We are becoming a nation of separate and unequal families that threatens to last into the foreseeable future. On the one hand, well-educated women make more money. They get married, only then have their children, and raise them with their husbands. Those children are more likely to grow up to be well-adjusted, to do well in school, to go to college, to marry and only then have children. On the other hand, we have low-income women raising children alone who are more likely to be low-income, to drop out of school or, if they do make it to college, go to a less elite college, and to become single parents themselves.
Marriage, I think you can argue when you look at the numbers, now poses an even larger social divide than race.
For years, stay-at-home parents have been trivialized by feminists who wrongly believe that a mother or father's care is replaceable. However, a new study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at NIH proves the feminist ideology wrong. The most expansive research of its kind, the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development found that putting a child in day care for a year or more increases the chances that the child will become disruptive in class--a trend that persists through the sixth grade.
Perhaps most telling is the fact that these tendencies were evident despite the child's sex, family income, and even the quality of the day care center in question. The news will be particularly disappointing to day care advocates who have insisted that any negative effects are entirely contingent, on the "quality" of the care. In the U.S., experts estimate that 2.3 million kids under the age of 5 are in day care, while 4.8 million are in the care of a relative or nanny, and 3.3 million are at home with their parents. Despite the large number of stay-at-home parents, the government is often lopsided in its support of families who choose out-of-the-home care for their kids. Research shows that most parents would prefer to tend for their kids themselves. If that's the case, why do government policies undercut parental choice and care?
There is no substitute for the contributions that at-home parents make to the development of their children, often at financial sacrifice. In light of the obvious benefits to kids, we urge Congress to pass Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) and Rep. Lee Terry's (R-Nebr.) Parents' Tax Relief Act. Through the bill's equalized tax treatment of stay-at-home parents, families would have the freedom to care for their own children.
Yesterday, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) announced that he wants to end state funding for abstinence education, a move that would eliminate about a half million dollars' worth of positive programs. Strickland said, "Over the long term, there's no data that show they prevent, in a statistical sense, sexual activity outside of marriage." However, stacks of peer-reviewed research are showing the direct impact of abstinence education, including a peer-reviewed study on America's largest and oldest abstinence program, Best Friends.
In Adolescent and Family Health, Dr. Robert Lerner's analysis of urban D.C. participants found that, "Despite the fact that [these students come from schools that]... are located in Wards that have higher rates of out-of-wedlock births, girls who attended the program are substantially less likely to...have sex than a comparable sample... The relative odds of 120 to 1 of a [high school] Diamond Girl abstaining from sex is a result so strong that it is unheard of in practically any empirical research."
Elsewhere, a U.S. District Judge has decided to strike down a 1998 law, supported by FRC, that protects children from online pornography. Judge Lowell Reed, Jr. suggests that parents invest in software filters because they are "far more effective than the [Child Online Protection Act]." Following the judge's advice would be like dispensing with water treatment plants and asking every family just to filter their own drinking water.
As you fill out this year's IRS paperwork, enjoy your family tax breaks. If the new Senate leadership has its way, they may be among your last. This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) unveiled a resolution that calls for a balanced budget by 2012. While it seems like an insurmountable task, liberals have found an easy solution. They'll simply reverse every GOP tax cut and raise an extra $900 billion in revenue.
As part of the plan, Democrats would reinstate the tax penalty on married couples, causing the standard deduction for joint filers to shrink from 200 to 167 percent by 2011. Also, liberals recommend slashing the child tax credit in half, reducing it from $1,000 to $500. Although Congress has managed to whittle the death taxes down to nearly nothing under the current code, Democrats would resurrect them in four short years. Unfortunately, the tax rates would rise substantially in every bracket, even among low-income taxpayers who would be forced to pay Uncle Sam at a 15 percent rate. Under the measure, taxes on both dividends and capital gains would increase by January 2009.
Although painful, this would help erase the U.S. budget deficit, right? Wrong. Reid's legislation actually increases spending for health care, education, and transportation projects. Republicans are understandably frustrated by the proposal, which could lead to the biggest tax increase in history. Families, who were finally experiencing some tax relief under President Bush, would again be forced to shoulder a heavy financial burden--not to ease American debt--but to pay for Democrats' pet programs. As Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) said, "As we [start to debate] the budget... we shouldn't begin with a plan to grow an even more massive bureaucracy on the backs of the American taxpayer."
If you stand for marriage and family, you're likely to face a blind-side blitz. That's the message being sent by homosexual rights groups to Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy. Coach Dungy is scheduled to appear at a March 20 banquet where he will receive the Indiana Family Institute's "Friend of the Family" award.
The homosexual groups are attacking the Super Bowl-winning coach because the Institute supports an amendment to the state's constitution that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. One aghast gay activist told The Indianapolis Star, "Dungy appears to be an upstanding guy, but the coach's willingness to appear at this banquet strikes him as tantamount to endorsing its opposition to gay marriage."
Such pressure even prompted the Colts to issue a statement that Coach Dungy speaks on his own and that his "feelings on the importance of marriage and family are well known." Coach Dungy should be applauded, not condemned, for his championship role for the family.
In a review of Kay Hymowitz's new book, Marriage and Caste in America, Lisa Schiffren notes how we have become jaded about out-of-wedlock births:
The U.S. government recently announced that 36.8 percent of the children born in America in 2005 were born out of wedlock. In other words, almost 4 of every 10 American newborns were placed into the arms of unmarried mothers with no real claims on the men who impregnated them. Very few of these parents will end up marrying each other, and very few of the fathers will be permanent presences in the lives of their children. The children themselves will have meaner and more marginal lives than their peers in two-parent families.
The number is staggering, and at least as much of a threat to our way of life as anything Osama bin Laden has cooked up. Yet it is met with a collective shrug. Indeed, we are now so inured to such statistics that we regard them as a fact of nature, about which little can be done. Because child-bearing outside of marriage is a subject wrapped up with the highly fraught issues of sex, race, and personal mores, politicians tend to avoid it. Academics often try to quantify it, but in ways that miss the human element of the problem.
The Washington Post reported yesterday on statistics which show that married couples have higher incomes than single people or cohabiting couples, and that children raised by married couples are less likely to live in poverty than children raised by single or cohabiting parents. This should come as no surprise.
FRC has been reporting on this "wealth" of data for years, in publications like The Family Portrait. What is surprising is how the Post chose to spin this story. Instead of praising marriage as a ticket to prosperity, it seemed to lament the greed of those who wed, saying that the institution is "becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent," a "luxury item" that is "helping to drive a well-documented increase in income inequality."
When the Post says that "the marriage gap appears to be driven primarily by education and income," the cart is pulling the horse. Economic prosperity and educational advancement (especially for children) are driven by the decision to marry (before having kids) and staying married--not the other way around. The cost of the marriage license is the best investment most couples ever make.
UNICEF's Incomplete Mirror on Families Reflects Poorly on U.S.
A new report by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) paints an unflattering picture of the United States and the United Kingdom. In "An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries," UNICEF claims that the two nations rank dead last in providing for young people's welfare. Citing the lack of government-sponsored day care and "economic inequality," a spokesman for UNICEF said, "They don't invest as much in children as continental European countries do." The U.S. should take some exception to this comment as money is not the only accurate measure of a child's well-being. Unlike most Europeans, Americans don't rely on a socialist system to provide for their families' needs. In this study, only government funds were measured. The money provided from other sources was ignored. Assessing factors such as health, safety, family relationships, risk behaviors, and education, the study did cite the overwhelming number of single parents in the U.S. as cause for concern. Coupled with the alarming rates of teen promiscuity and substance abuse, the breakdown of the family must be addressed. Having said that, the government is not most Americans' first choice when it comes to creating wealth, raising children, or making decisions about their health. As we've seen from the recent HPV vaccine mandates, Americans are not ready to let the government decide every issue for our children. If that's the benchmark for high grades from UNICEF, then the U.S. is far better off than this study suggests.
Elizabeth Marquardt at the always excellent Family Scholar’s Blog notes that people tend to associate negative connotations to the concept of “commuter marriages.” Marquardt believes that “many people think that somehow, at the very least, the physical presence of a couple together is what makes a marriage real.” She goes on to note that we take a quite different view when it comes to the children of divorce:
When it comes to children whose parents part, most people will concede that something sad has happened but these days many people will also add something like this: well, divorce happens a lot. Children of divorce know a lot of other kids growing up the same way. It’s not such a big deal nowadays. It’s normal.
In other words, when it comes to the parent-child relationship we don’t think much of the fact that for many children today even the simple physical presence of both parents in their daily lives cannot be taken for granted. Some who support widespread divorce might even argue that the daily presence of their parent is not all that critical to the parent-child relationship. The parent-child relationship is no less real simply because they don’t live together.
A commuter childhood is just another way of growing up these days. But a commuter marriage? Well, what adult wants to live in that?
Indeed, children of divorce are often expected to endure a situation that most adults would never willingly choose for themselves. Edith from Monastic Musings adds an insightful point:
When I was in the fifth grade, my teacher told my mother that my grades would improve if I only applied myself to my schoolwork. “Oh no, he’s applying himself,” mom would tell my exasperated teacher. “He’s just really that dumb.”
Mom believed that effort was more important than intelligence. And as Po Bronson writes in New York magazine, she might be right:
When parents praise their children’s intelligence, they believe they are providing the solution to this problem. According to a survey conducted by Columbia University, 85 percent of American parents think it’s important to tell their kids that they’re smart. In and around the New York area, according to my own (admittedly nonscientific) poll, the number is more like 100 percent. Everyone does it, habitually. The constant praise is meant to be an angel on the shoulder, ensuring that children do not sell their talents short.
But a growing body of research—and a new study from the trenches of the New York public-school system—strongly suggests it might be the other way around. Giving kids the label of “smart” does not prevent them from underperforming. It might actually be causing it.
According to the article, psychologist Carol Dweck says that those who think that innate intelligence is the key to success begin to discount the importance of effort. I am smart, the kids’ reasoning goes; I don’t need to put out effort.
According to World magazine's blog, "Defenders of same-sex marriage in Washington have filed an initiative that would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years of tying the knot -- or have their marriages annulled." NWCN.com, a Washington State news site, quotes the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) as saying:
“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."
For the moment, let's take this group seriously enough to examine the question, "Is marriage solely for the purpose of creation?" My tentative answer: Yes and no. I agree with natural law thinker Robert George, who says, "Here is the core of the traditional understanding: Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of person that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect..." He adds: "Although not all reproductive-type acts are marital, there can be no marital act that is not reproductive in type."
A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry--both gay and straight--must be willing and able to engage in "marital acts", acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.
According to a 2005 survey done by Adoptive Families, the average cost of adoption ranges from $20,000 to $25,000 – a significant amount of money for many working-class families wishing to adopt a child. To alleviate this problem, an adoption tax credit was first instated in 1994 and later renewed in 2001. Along with the renewal of the tax credit adoption in 2001, the tax credit benefits associated with adoption were expanded, providing up to $10,000 in qualified tax credits to adoptive families.
Unfortunately, the 2001 renewal of the adoption tax credit is scheduled to expire in 2010. In anticipation of this approaching expiration date Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) has introduced a new measure, H.R. 471, which will make the current $10,000 adoption tax credit permanent. Congressman Wilson is optimistic about the prospects for passage of the bill, especially given the co-sponsorship of Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat. If passed, the measure would provide adoptive families with a tax credit of up to $10,000 for expenses pertinent to both domestic and international adoptions. Further provisions of the measure also allow an employer to offer up to $10,000 in adoption expenses which will be excluded from income.
To emphasize the importance of H.R. 471, Wilson circulated a letter to his fellow representatives, saying, “While some aid is available, the financial strain adoptive families undergo cannot be overstated.” Along with Rep. Wilson, we lend our full support to this measure – a measure we believe will assist in helping loving families afford adoption. Write your Congressman and Senators and let them understand just how important H.R. 471 is to you.
A new study by Consumer Reports finds that most of the infant car seats tested "failed disastrously" in crashes at speeds as low as 35 mph. To be sold in the United States, an infant seat must perform adequately in tests performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In response to the report, NHTSA Administrator Nicole Nason issued a statement saying:
”We are always interested in making car seats better and safer but not more complicated and difficult for parents. ... We don't want consumers misled into thinking holding a child is better than putting it into a car seat."
C’mon, Ms. Nason, let’s be real. What sort of dumb parent would you have to be to find a car seat too “complicated and difficult”? And who would be so reckless that they would hold a child instead of putting them into a car seat? No parent is that incompetent.
A new report by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) paints an unflattering picture of the United States and the United Kingdom. In "An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries," UNICEF claims that the two nations rank dead last in providing for young people's welfare. Citing the lack of government-sponsored day care and "economic inequality," a spokesman for UNICEF said, "They don't invest as much in children as continental European countries do." The U.S. should take some exception to this comment as money is not the only accurate measure of a child's well-being. Unlike most Europeans, Americans don't rely on a socialist system to provide for their families' needs. In this study, only government funds were measured. The money provided from other sources was ignored. Assessing factors such as health, safety, family relationships, risk behaviors, and education, the study did cite the overwhelming number of single parents in the U.S. as cause for concern. Coupled with the alarming rates of teen promiscuity and substance abuse, the breakdown of the family must be addressed. Having said that, the government is not most Americans' first choice when it comes to creating wealth, raising children, or making decisions about their health. As we've seen from the recent HPV vaccine mandates, Americans are not ready to let the government decide every issue for our children. If that's the benchmark for high grades from UNICEF, then the U.S. is far better off than this study suggests.
