The Engage Family Blog

Official Blog of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Posts Tagged ‘divorce

The Social, Economic, and Logical Sense Traditional Marriage Makes

with 2 comments

By Nathan A. Cherry

Martinsburg, WV – “From instilling the rules of cooperation, to modeling the relation between the sexes, to nurturing human and social capital, to helping adults and children think long-term, to solving the universal problem of dependency, marriage does what no other social institution can do. Because it predates society and the state, wedlock actually creates, builds, and renews society. Same-sex marriage — a construct that depends on the state for its very existence — can never duplicate these functions… Given how a rejection of the marriage ideal would make the U.S. look like Europe, the stakes could not be higher.”

 The above quote was taken from a recent article by Robert. W. Patterson called “Marriage: What Matters,” found at Nationalreview.com.  

 Mr. Patterson highlights the enormous stakes, not just to the institution of marriage, but to the overall quality of life in every sector – from social, to cultural, to economic – if the definition of marriage in the United States is permanently changed.

 Patterson points to Europe, where in some countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway, traditional marriage is nearly extinct. In these countries cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbirth rates are at ridiculous highs, some at 60%.

 Patterson further points out some of the detrimental philosophies of these countries by stating that many in European countries don’t believe it is necessary to marry in order to have children, and that divorce is the “best solution to marital problems.” This only serves to raise children without teaching them to work through relationship issues, and that commitment is overrated and outdated. All this serves to undermine the foundation of society that has been established and helped America to thrive for so long.

 But don’t miss a very telling statement in the above quote; “Same-sex marriage – a construct that depends on the state for its very existence…” Perhaps the reason so many liberals are jumping on the same-sex bandwagon is that it furthers their personal agenda of a government that has its hands in every aspect of life, both public and private. There are those who actually desire to see a Marxist socialism succeed in America. Remove personal freedom, personal opinion, and personal diversity and replace it with a government sanctioned opinion.

 This is the only logical conclusion considering the facts. Facts such as over 60% of Americans support marriage between one man and one woman; according to a recent article by Maggie Gallagher in Nationalreview.com. Facts such as only an estimated 1.5% of people in the United States are self-identified as strictly homosexual (Click here for census numbers).

 So with marriage pulling such strong numbers and homosexuals being such a large minority in this country it stands to reason that proponents have another agenda in mind. Perhaps they see this as the issue that will usher in socialism. Perhaps the enemies of America see this as the issue that will bring America, freedom, and capitalism down. Whatever the reason, Robert W. Patterson’s words ring true, “the stakes could not be higher.”

Further Food for Thought: Report: Aids Cases Up in Gay Men
Gay, Bisexual Men 50 Times More LIkely to Have HIV

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Advertisements

Marriage: Some Facts You May Not Find Elsewhere

with 2 comments

By Nathan A. Cherry

 It’s always been an interesting thing to read the data coming from the supposedly unbiased studies conducted on various topics. Everything from teen pregnancy, drug use, and the “effects” of pornography, divorce, and abortion come flying out of news venues at seemingly unfathomable paces. And every study seems to say that these things are not harmful and no one is in immediate danger of anything.

 Of particular interest to me are the “facts” and “data” concerning marriage that comes from the Obama media machine. Our president has said of course that he does not support same-sex marriage, but yet has also said he would sign legislation legalizing same –sex marriage; is that what we call hypocrisy?

 If you only read studies from these sources one would think that same-sex marriage and raising children in a single parent, or single gender household is no big deal and that “everyone is doing it.” But the facts are much more interesting than the liberal lawmakers want you to know.

 Let’s start with divorce. A recent study by the General Social Surveys says,

“Adults who grew up living with both biological parents are less likely ever to be divorced or separated than those who did not.”

The key word is “biological.” Yes it does matter to the overall, long-term health and well-being of a child to have their biological mom AND dad present and helping to rear them.

Let’s now move on to the same-sex marriage debate. Many have said that same-sex marriage is wildly popular and so overwhelming are the numbers that there is no choice but to legalize same-sex marriage in order to bring freedom to this large group of people. But, recently an ABC News story was quoted saying,

“Just under one percent of all couples in the U.S. — or 594,391 people — identify themselves as gay, lesbian or transgender.”

That’s right, just under one percent of all couples in the U.S. claim to be homosexual. And yet our government is pushing to have this group specially protected under hate crimes legislation and wants to redefine marriage just for them. Will the government push just as hard for every minority group in America? What about the polygamists? How about those in poly-amorous relationships? Or consider persons in incestuous relationships. Where will the government stop, and how will they justify denying those groups if the homosexual minority are given their “rights.”

Staying on the redefinition of marriage, we are told that there is overwhelming support for this across the United States. Let’s just suppose someone was not paying attention in the last election when three states, Arizona, Florida, and California all voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and would actually believe such a farcical statement. Consider this recent news out of Maine where their legislators, not the people themselves voted to allow same-sex marriage;

“The Stand for Marriage Coalition in Maine is asking for a question on the November ballot that would restore the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.  To that end, they have turned in 100,000 petition signatures.  They only needed 55,000 signatures to qualify. ‘As we’ve known for years, when this matter is made plain to the public there is huge resistance to it and opposition to it.’”

 This seems to be the case almost absolutely across the board. Whenever people are given the chance to define marriage for themselves, they define it as one man and one woman. Perhaps this is why lawmakers are taking the vote out of the people’s hands; and shame on them for doing so.

 This thinking is not confined to pastors, or ultra-conservatives. Even college professors that approach the study with an unbiased mind seem to come to the same conclusion, as in the case of a recent Princeton Law Professor that defended traditional marriage in the Wall Street Journal.

Robert George recently said, “Because marriage has already been deeply wounded, some say that redefining it will do not additional harm.  I disagree.  We should strengthen, not redefine, marriage.  But whatever one’s view, surely it is the people, not the courts, who should debate and decide.”

And we here at the Family Policy Council whole-heartedly agree with Mr. George’s statement. This is the time to strengthen marriage, not redefine it. This is the time when the people, not legislatures and lawmakers, should be given the right, which is ultimately theirs under the Constitution, to decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is to be.

Written by Nathan Cherry

August 4, 2009 at 2:21 pm

FPC Media Blitz: LGBT Ordinance Challenged, Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer, Sex-Change Inmate Wants New Prison

with 2 comments

By Nathan A. Cherry

 Below you will find some of the top stories making headlines in our country today. Click on any of the titles for the full story.

 “Abstinence Funds Dropped from Another Bill” Apparently those pesky liberal lawmakers have not learned anything from the conclusive studies showing the effectiveness of abstinence education on the mental, social, and academic well-being of teenagers. Someone’s flunking out.

 “Kalamazoo LGBT Ordinance Challenged” We are spoon-fed the lie that “everyone” wants to see sexual orientation and gender identity protected because it is the same as race or other classes. Here is a perfect example of reality; people challenging a city ordinance because they DO NOT believe these are equal.

 “What God has Joined Together” Data showing how faith can play a big part in the married life of adults. Thos who attend church as adolescents are less likely to divorce. So, contrary to minority opinion/belief, faith plays a big part in the life of a person. Maybe we should think about protecting freedom of religion more than freedom of “I don’t want to be a man; I want to be a woman today.”

 “Women With Abortions have Significantly Increased Risk of Breast Cancer” I guess no one told our U.S. lawmakers that abortion really does hurt women because they keep pushing abortion and abortion funding on all of us; despite overwhelming opposition against abortion. Wait a minute that could be because of all the campaign funding abortion (death) merchants provide. I get it now; money in the pocket is more valuable than women’s lives.

 “Serial Bigamist Allowed to Walk Free” Here is the next step if same-sex “marriage” is legalized. We will find ourselves paying tax dollars so courts can deal with ridiculous cases such as this. All while people claim defenses of “personality disorder” for why they were married five times. Don’t mess with marriage.

 “Sex Change Inmate Seeks Prison Move” What happens when “gender identity” is protected? An already difficult-to-deal-with prison system gets further complicated when the guy in the next cell that is living as a woman wants transferred to a women’s prison. Why? Because he thinks it will be easier to escape with all the women around? Or because of all the women around. I bet he is tired of looking at the guys in his cell block and would enjoy looking at some women for a change. How silly can we get? Next thing you know every man in San Quentin will want a transfer because he feels like a woman today.

 Stay up to date on what is happening in your country and world by reading the Family Policy Council’s blog: Engage.

 Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Time Ponders Marriage, Sociologists, Feminists Weigh In

with 2 comments

By Nathan A. Cherry

I came across this story recently by Caitlin Flanagan, “Is There Hope for the American Marriage,” and highly recommend that you take a few minutes to read it. Ms. Flanagan did an outstanding job of showing the vital merits marriage contains for families, and especially children.

 The article ends by pondering what children will grow up to be like in a world where they observe adults jump in and out of casual flings one right after the other, or just never take the time to get married and live together for years and years while periodically taking part in their kids life. What hope of character development is there for kids who see little to no character in the adult influences in their lives?

 And yet it is these principal adults in the lives of children that make all the difference in the world. The article states that,

 “On every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration — if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.”

 Yes you did read that correctly. Sociology has repeatedly concluded that children from two-parent, intact homes outperform children from other home structures. You would think that if science continually concludes a particular outcome, and if society bears the proof of that outcome, that people, especially lawmakers, would get a clue and start backing the evidence.

 But let’s not stop there; let’s move on a little farther in the article to a section that will surely anger feminists and homosexuals alike. Sociologist and author, and most notably feminist, Mariah Kefalas responded to the need for having a father at home:

 “As a feminist, I didn’t want to believe it. Women always tell me, ‘I can be a mother and a father to a child,’ but it’s not true. Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child. The mom may not need that man but her children still do.”

 Just a bit later in the article is a fact that a traditionalist such as myself is keenly aware of, but that others are not convinced of. A Princeton sociologist and single mother, Sara McLanahan, concluded her study of the long-tem effects a single parent home has on children by saying:

 “Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background.”

 So at what point do we say “Damn the overwhelming amount of evidence because we want to do it our way regardless of the consequences!”? That is exactly what a person is saying when they declare that a same-sex marriage or single parent home can provide the same things as a traditional two-parent home. The evidence absolutely does not support that outcome. No, the evidence says that families, especially kids thrive and succeed far better when mom AND dad are both present and committed to making the home what it was intended to be.

 Say what you like, but evidence is evidence. The overwhelming body of evidence that exists to support the traditional two-parent home as the best environment for children is so large that only a truly narrow-minded person would dare ignore it.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

NC: Judge Tells Mom What School to Put Kids In:

with one comment

At this point in time it is safe to say that the American judicial system is completely out of control and many judges are no longer upholding the Constitution, they are rewriting it according to their own opinions.

 

This is certainly true concerning the case of Vanessa Mills and her three children in North Carolina.

 

Recently Ms. Mills and her husband divorced. As part of the divorce Judge Ned Mangum ordered Ms. Mills to place her children in public school though all three are thriving under her teaching in home school.

 

As if that is not enough to make the blood boil Judge Mangum also took it upon himself to criticize Ms. Mills’s choice of church after hearing arguments from non-church members who also disagree with the church. But he did not acknowledge any of the rebuttal affidavits submitted by current church leaders and members.

 

I can’t even begin to count the ways that Judge Mangum has overstepped his bounds and infringed on the freedoms of Ms. Mills and her children. Obviously if the children are thriving in their home school setting it is reflective of a stable, secure home environment. If this is the case then there is no justifiable reason for them to be removed.

 

But upon further reading of this story the judge’s true intentions become crystal clear. Judge Mangum has said that one of the reasons he ordered them into public school was because “It will do them a great benefit to be in the public schools, and they will challenge some of the ideas that you’ve taught them…”

 

Allow me to translate that for you. Judge Mangum wants them in public school so they can be indoctrinated with evolution, free sex, homosexual sensitivity and appreciation, and many very liberal views that I am sure go against everything Ms. Mills has taught her children thus far.

 

The judge knows that if the children stay in home-schooling they will be grounded in conservative and religious views which go against everything HE believes, and the only way to avoid that is by placing them in a school system which teaches kids how to be media-fed, government controlled robots. Unlike the current education they are getting which grounds them in faith, family, and critical thinking.

 

Frankly I agree with Alan Keyes when he said, “If his idea of socialization includes the need to challenge the Christian ideas their mother has taught them, then he not only interferes with her natural right to raise up her children, he tramples on one of the most important elements of the free exercise of religion.”

 

The very idea that a judge would infringe on the freedom of a mother to choose where and how she educates her children should outrage every citizen. Where does it end? Will judges now begin picking schools for our kids? Telling us where we can and cannot go to church? Deciding our professions for us?

 

More and more it seems we are leaning toward socialism. We have a current presidential administration that wants a big government with its hand in every facet of our lives. This is not the time to get complacent. The moment we decide to stop caring is the moment we wake up and realize we’ve lost our freedoms.

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

 

Written by Nathan Cherry

March 18, 2009 at 2:03 pm