A Good Society Tells the Truth About Marriage

October 21st, 2011 by Randy Hicks
Share |

There is always quite a bit of discussion concerning the poor. That’s particularly true in difficult economic times like we’re experiencing now. But in the discussions about how to reduce poverty in Georgia, particularly as it relates to children, one solution almost never gets mentioned.

It’s marriage and it’s a major determining factor in whether a child will live in poverty.

In Georgia, more than a third of all single parent homes are living in poverty. On the other hand, only seven percent of married two-parent homes live in poverty. Factored out, single parent homes are five times more likely to be living in poverty than married ones.

It turns out that out-of-wedlock childbearing is a huge reason for the rise in child poverty here in Georgia, according to research by our friend Robert Rector at The Heritage Foundation.

Rector points out that the number of children born to single moms has skyrocketed since the 1960s. Today, the percentage of children born out-of-wedlock in Georgia is 45 percent. As a result, there are scores of single women who don’t benefit from the additional income of the father and who face bigger challenges getting more education to increase their odds of a higher paying job.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority (three quarters) of all poor families with children in Georgia are unmarried households.

The research also shows that the lower a woman’s level of education the more likely she is to give birth outside of marriage. Nearly 60 percent of all births to women with only a high school diploma are out-of-wedlock. However, the number drops dramatically to 11 percent among women with a college degree. As Rector puts it, “The women most likely to have a child without being married are those who have the least ability to support a child on their own.”

A comparison of married and single parent households with the same level of education is especially telling. At every level, whether high school dropouts or college graduates, married couples are much less likely to be living in poverty than their single parent peers. In fact, the poverty rate drops an average 79 percent among married families compared to single-parent families who have the same level of education.

These findings are just further confirmation of what social science research has shown us for years – marriage has measurable benefits to individual families and society at large.

We’ve known for a while that married people are more likely to be healthy, happy and financially prosperous than their single counterparts. Children in married households are more likely to do better in school, stay out of legal trouble and be emotionally and physically healthier than kids who aren’t. Certainly not every child from a single parent home will face these challenges, nor will a child from an intact family benefit in every way. But it’s clear that marriage makes a measurable difference.

I was recently asked by a reporter whether or not urging people to marry was imposing my values on others. I assured her that holding up a standard that is likely to improve their wellbeing is hardly an imposition; it’s what a responsible person does. And it’s what a responsible society does.

And it’s certainly not an imposition to encourage marriage when it’s something that 80 percent of adults in America will do. Most people want a good marriage, but timing matters. The order with which you choose to get married and have babies matters.

I’m not pushing for shotgun weddings or for people to marry no matter what. But I am saying that when we talk about improving lives and reducing poverty we shouldn’t ignore one of the best solutions.

A good society tells the truth about marriage. We should hold it up as a positive standard that has benefits for individuals and society.

Hope Worth Getting Excited About

September 8th, 2011 by Savannah Stroud
Share |

I had never heard of human trafficking before I started college three years ago. My parents had warned me that the world outside our home was big, bad place, but I had no idea that people were daily exploited for labor and sex.

Through participation in an anti-human trafficking organization at my college, I have since learned about trafficking networks around the world and the injustices that happen to vulnerable people.

This summer, I have been living in the Atlanta area, a major U.S. hub for sex trafficking. I wanted to use my time here to find out more about the conditions and causes of trafficking.

My chance to learn more came in August when I attended the “Building Bridges” summit hosted by the US Attorney’s office and the state of Georgia. This event was designed for people who are actively engaged in the fight against human trafficking.

There were law enforcement officers, non-profit employees and concerned citizens in attendance. I sat next to a retired nurse who was interested in learning about how the medical field could streamline their efforts to identify victims of sex trafficking.

We heard an update about tougher laws that give perpetrators more than a hand slap for using people for profit. Non-profit organizations shared how they are collaborating with government agencies to effectively protect and restore victims. Representatives from NBC and CNN showed us evidence of their coverage, which aids in exposing these hidden crimes.

By far, the most lasting memory I took from the summit was the testimony of real-life survivors. As three survivors and two representatives related their stories, I saw a glimpse of the suffering and anguish these people—mainly women—experienced.

The victims of human trafficking do not necessarily fit the stereotypes others have for them. One stereotype says that victims of trafficking are primarily illegal immigrants with no other place to go. Another stereotype says that the teens that get trapped in trafficking are “troubled” or have mental problems.

The victims-turned-survivors I saw that day did not fit these stereotypes. They were people who might live in my neighborhood or city.

One woman related how she had been an exemplary high school student who played basketball when she was lured into a “date” with a guy who raped her and then forced her to work for him by making money at strip clubs.

Another young lady shared how her trafficker had come to her house in her hometown and promised her love and marriage. He moved her to a larger city to work as a waitress, and then convinced her they needed to go to the U.S. He smuggled her across the border and placed her in the north metro Atlanta area, where she was forced to serve up to thirty men a night in a residential brothel.

I cried that day for the many unseen and unheard victims of human trafficking. But, I was glad to see the survivors who exemplified resilient bravery. They weren’t backing down even amidst daunting circumstances.

There is significant progress happening on behalf of victims. Had the same event been held fifteen years ago, there would only have been a handful of people present. Awareness is spreading and people are banding together to restore survivors and prevent others from being victimized.

Hope is being offered in previously hopeless situations. And that is something to get excited about.

Anchoring Kids Amidst the Clutter of Cultural Messages

August 9th, 2011 by Savannah Stroud
Share |

Today’s kids have some unusual challenges with their constant exposure to media. While they have loads of information and easy access to online social networking, kids are having a harder time distinguishing fact from fiction.

A UK study done in 2010 showed some alarming trends in kids’ perceptions of reality. It revealed that one in five kids believe that the first man to walk on the moon was Buzz Lightyear, rather than Neil Armstrong. A third of the students did not know that Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, instead guessing Charles Darwin or the host of the popular show Deal or No Deal.

Kids, however, were very knowledgeable about celebrity news. A whopping 65 percent of students knew that Britney Spears had shaved her head, and 55 percent knew that British model Katie Price had been married twice.

The driving force behind this trend is the media AND often the kids themselves. They want to be in-the-know about everything their friends watch and listen to, and in today’s online world they have unlimited access to content and each other.

This means parents have a doubly daunting task before them. They have to compete with the peer pressure their kids feel and figure out how to impress important realities on them. So, how can parents anchor kids amidst the clutter of pop culture’s trivial messages?

Despite, their insistent claims that they can “do it themselves,” kids need their parents’ help developing a framework by which to filter the media and related social pressure. However, this usually happens over time, rather than in a single discussion.

One of the most effective ways to teach kids is by applying guiding principles to the situations that arise. Maybe during a car ride parents can discuss the attitudes and behaviors displayed in their favorite television show. Did the character make good choices? Did they show the right attitude toward their friends or parents? Perhaps they can even talk about real-life examples of friends or relatives who have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

The best role model a child has is, of course, mom and dad. Kids constantly watch and make judgments about what’s important based on what their parents think is important.

In light of the dominating pop culture, it’s always helpful to remind kids that there’s a difference between what’s fun and entertaining and what attitudes and behaviors make us better people.

The Presence of My Dad

July 27th, 2011 by Joyce Whitted
Share |

When I was growing up, most would say (and did) that I was a daddy’s girl. I was also a tomboy. I climbed trees. I would help my dad fix the car. No matter who you were or when you asked him how he was doing, he would say “magnificent!” As I got older, I would talk to him about the guys I dated, after he met them. He would always give me such good advice from a man’s point of view. It was so valuable. Since he passed away 14 years ago, I truly miss those conversations.

Now I am 48 years old and I am working for Georgia Family Council, an organization that works to strengthen the family. We talk about how important it is for a father to be present in his child’s life. Statistic after statistic proves that children do better when raised in a home with their married mom and dad.

I cannot help but wonder if there are any statistics that explain a father’s influence when the child grows up to be an adult. I find that I am missing my dad just as much as I did before. As a child I had time to bond with my father. He was my guide and the reason for so much of who I am as an adult.

Today, it has been 14 years since he died from colon cancer.

Amazingly enough I still remember his laugh, the smell of his cologne and the repetition of all of his sayings. My favorite one being, “Joyce remember: a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” Yes, he had his ways, but my sisters and I grew to love those ways.

We grew up in New Jersey and when we got our driver’s license, it did not matter that the state of New Jersey said we passed our driving test. The test we had to pass was my dad’s! We had to know how to check and change the oil and we had to know how to change a tire. His theory was that with three girls and no boys, we were bound to be stranded at the same time and he would only be able to get to one of us. I know it’s strange but now as an adult I think of those things very fondly. He loved us and wanted us to be safe.

The presence of my dad in my life gave me confidence, security, a standard and most of all love. I miss him dearly and even though I had him in my life for what to me was a short time, his presence will be with me forever.

Personal Experiences Influence Moral Conclusions

July 11th, 2011 by Savannah Stroud
Share |

It may come as a surprise, but young adults between the ages of 13 and 30, referred to as Millennials, closely align themselves with their parents’ opinion about abortion, according to a new study by the Public Religious Research Institute. A majority in both age groups think it’s morally wrong, but also think it should be legal in most cases. Apparently many factors such as personal relationships, church attendance, and media interactions sway these pivotal decisions.

It turns out that people, especially teenagers and young adults are influenced by the abortion-related content they are exposed to. For example, young people who watched the popular MTV program 16 and Pregnant, a reality show chronicling the decisions and challenges facing a young pregnant mom trying to juggle school, parental expectations and boyfriend pressures, are more likely to favor abortion.

Shows like this highlight young teen moms who are entering parenthood with little financial, educational, and relational support. It’s no surprise that teens who are watching are less likely to supporting giving birth under these circumstances and are more likely to support abortion as a viable option.

On the flip side, people who recently viewed an ultrasound image of a friend or relative were less likely to support abortion. They were more likely to have a positive view of life as they connected the image to the reality of an emerging person.

So, as expected, our views about abortion are heavily influenced by others, including what we see on television or are exposed to through social media like Facebook – where so many of us, especially young people, are consuming information. We are watching our friends and favorite celebrities closely to see how they handle delicate issues such as an unexpected pregnancy and the value of unborn human life.

The number of young people who have seen a TV show or movie dealing with teenage pregnancy is high, 7-in-10 (71 percent), compared to just 31 percent of the 65 and older generation. This trend demonstrates how Millennials prefer media as their primary source of information, and how influential media sources are on forming their opinions.

It’s unclear whether support or opposition for abortion will win out among Millennials. Either way, technology will be a significant influence, whether through the enhanced images we see of unborn babies or the media depictions of the hardships of single parenting. For the sake of a generation of children yet unborn, I hope more of us are convinced that human life inside and outside the womb is precious and worth protecting.

“Shacking Up” Can Be Pricey

July 1st, 2011 by Randy Hicks
Share |

Even if unmarried cohabitation seems to make financial sense, the long term costs can be high.

The headline this week read “Shacking up without marriage looking better and better.”

It was one of several news stories about the Pew Research Center’s study that found unmarried college graduates who live together are as financially well off as college graduates who are married. On the other hand, their study found that people who haven’t graduated college, but cohabit are worse off financially than married couples or cohabiting graduates.

Taken at face value, the lesson from this study is that as long as you have a college degree, shacking up can have similar benefits to marriage.

Suppose Jason and Ashley are out of college, dating, and each have a career. It’s not hard to imagine them saying, after reading that news report, “Hey, we’re not doing too badly, but if we move in together, we could do better financially.”

But all of this warrants a closer look.

Should Jason and Ashley decide to get married some day, their likelihood of marital success would be undermined if they live together beforehand. Research has shown that cohabitation weakens the future stability of marriage; meaning couples who live together before marriage have a higher likelihood of divorce.

So even if living together appears to make financial sense in the short term, the long term costs could be much higher both emotionally and economically if they divorce. Ending a marriage doesn’t just mean heartache, it’s usually a financial blow too as household income and assets are divided, the family home is potentially lost, newly single parents must work harder to make ends meet and so on.

So much for the economic “advantages” of living together after college graduation.

In a previous column I wrote about the growing trend of unmarried couples buying a home together. It seems odd that romantic partners are willing to commit to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, but not to marriage.

The problem is that when you entangle yourself financially with someone you are involved with romantically, those financial obligations make it harder to objectively assess the true health of the relationship.

Sharing a mortgage, lease, bank account, pet or even children outside of marriage does not necessarily correlate to an increase in commitment or dedication to another, research has found. It only makes it harder to end the relationship. As a result, a couple who may not have otherwise gotten married is more likely to do so because it’s “easier” than breaking up.

Meandering into marriage because of external obligations is not a good recipe for lasting love and commitment.

Pew’s research may make it seem as though a college degree makes cohabitation a reasonable alternative to marriage, but the best way for couples to insure long-term economic wellbeing is to also ensure relational wellbeing that leads to a healthy marriage.

A marriage is much more likely to succeed if each partner entered the relationship having evaluated the object of their affection’s character and personality and their willingness to commit for life, instead of being bound by obligations that appeared to make momentary financially sense.

Since We’re All in Agreement

June 24th, 2011 by Randy Hicks
Share |

Why do we accept behaviors that undercut our belief that kids do best in a two-parent home?

It’s hard to get Americans to agree on much of anything.

This includes agreement on some very consequential stuff: Who should lead our country? Has the Iraq war been worth it? Is abortion wrong?

But while there are disparate opinions on many things, Americans are remarkably in sync on an issue that matters to individuals and families. It also has significant influence on the stability and wellbeing of our country.

An overwhelming 94 percent of Americans believe that it’s important for children to grow up in a home with both their parents. Among those, 77 percent believe it’s very important. A mere four percent of respondents to the new Rasmussen poll that reported these findings don’t think it’s important. Basically no one said it’s not important at all.

Amidst all the important things we’re divided over, it’s significant that we are practically unanimous in our agreement about this social issue. That’s right – a social issue, an area that seems to stir the greatest controversy.

On the one hand, these results aren’t surprising. Most of us know intuitively that children do best when raised in a home with both parents. Living with mom and dad provides advantages. Social science has backed this up time after time. Kids from two-parent homes are more likely to do well in school, avoid addictive substances and delinquent behavior, be better off physically and emotionally and thrive on many others measures.

Is every child born into a single-parent home destined for failure? Absolutely not. But most will face greater risks and challenges than their peers who live in a two-parent home.

On the other hand, the near unanimous agreement is surprising given how much more accepting Americans have become of behaviors that completely undermine this belief about the importance of kids growing up with in a home with mom and dad.

Today, a majority of Americans believe it is OK to have a baby outside of marriage – 54 percent according to a recent Gallup poll. Last year, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 41 percent of all births in America were to unwed mothers. That’s an all-time high. It’s worth noting that the birthrate among teenagers has actually gone down. This overall increase is being driven by births among older women, many of whom are choosing to have children later in life without a father present.

At the same time, 60 percent of Americans believe sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable. Yet it is extramarital sex that so often results in unwanted pregnancy and single-parent homes.

More than half of all couples live together before marriage. Yet research has shown that doing so actually undermines the likelihood of the marriage lasting. Meanwhile, more single parents are living together with an unmarried partner. Yet, these homes are much more unstable for children to grow up in.

So why do an overwhelming majority of Americans believe it’s best for kids to be raised in a home with their mom and dad while at the same time also accepting behavior that undercuts that belief?

Have we really considered the consequences of these social trends? Have we really considered the impact of our growing acceptance of sex outside the intimacy of marriage where children who may be conceived will be most likely to thrive?

The reality is we know what’s right and what’s best, but it’s our impulse to gravitate toward what is easy and pleasurable, regardless of how it affects others. This is particularly true in an individualistic society like ours.

But a maturing individual increasingly considers these things and their effects on others, especially the next generation.

It’s encouraging and significant that almost all of us believe that kids do best when they grow up in a home with both parents. We agree because it’s instinctive. It makes sense to us mentally and emotionally. And it should make us think carefully about the behaviors we accept and even endorse that can deprive children of the benefits of growing up with mom and dad together.

Is College Worth It?

June 14th, 2011 by Savannah Stroud
Share |

With a not-so-hopeful economy and rising tuition costs, people are asking “is college really worth it?” Do the benefits outweigh the risks of investing your time, money, and energy into a two or four-year college?

The answers vary depending upon who you ask.

Dale Stephens, founder and director of the social movement UnCollege, has a ready answer for those who entertain the question. He is encouraging people to opt out of college and join the “disruptive generation,” one that self-directs their education without the aid of an institution.

Others, however, differ.

Oglethorpe University professor Dr. Joseph Knippenberg, a frequent contributor to Georgia Family Council’s blog, labels Stephens “an impertinent young whippersnapper” who underestimates the value of the collegiate experience.

If we value the university merely for where it gets us, then, yes, it might be worth re-evaluating. If, on the other hand, we view it as a training ground for developing thought and discipline AND as a launching pad into a future career, then it retains its merits. As Knippenberg points out it is “an introduction to and induction into a great conversation.” The “conversation” includes learning what the great thinkers throughout history have discovered, and interacting with the material in the specific collegiate community you have chosen.

In spite of the more altruistic reasons for attending college, the high price tag remains an obstacle.

Fortunately, students are getting savvier about maneuvering the costs of university. Many students are choosing the more economical route by attending community colleges to meet the general education requirements and then transferring to the four-year university of their choice to specialize in their major.

College does not change a person as much as it develops and accentuates what is already there. If you goofed off in high school and floated through classes, then college will only frustrate and dismay you.

Personally, I don’t think college is a silver bullet for a successful future. College is not for everyone; there are plenty of vocations where it would be unnecessary to attend a four-year university. However, for those that want to develop a strong knowledge of the world with the guidance and accountability that higher institutions offer, then college is still worth it. The same principles of hard work, discipline, and flexibility are key to being successful in college and life, regardless of your post-high school direction.

Imperfect Parents, Imperfect Kids

June 6th, 2011 by Savannah Stroud
Share |

We’ve all seen it. Yes, the classic temper tantrum the kid throws at the grocery store as he walks past the candy aisle. Our eyes first land on the obvious spectacle of the red-faced child screaming over something he wants, but cannot have. Next, our eyes shift to the parent to gauge their reaction. Here’s the real test of the situation: “How will the parent respond?”

It’s fair to say that parents bear most of the responsibility for their younger kids’ behavior. They are, after all, the primary guide and shaper of the little one’s heart, mind, and actions. As kids get older, the balance shifts away from the parents. Parents, still bearing the responsibility of their children, often allow them to experience the consequence of their actions. As children progress into adulthood, the parents shift full responsibility to their now-grown children to enter into the world prepared to maneuver all the adventures and challenges that await them.

Of course that sounds easy, but what happens when things don’t turn out the way we planned? Life inevitably throws curve balls that make us want to throw up our hands.

How do you respond if your child struggles with a physiological challenge such as ADHD, autism or diabetes? The 10 Easy Steps the parenting book outlined don’t seem to work on your kid. Your child seems to push the limits on everything and doesn’t respond to the techniques that work for other kids.

The consequences escalate as the possibilities mount: what happens when your older child makes harmful social decisions such as hanging out with a bad crowd, engaging in premarital sex, or going to parties you know serve more than cookies and lemonade?

It doesn’t get easier. What about when your adult child makes lifestyle decisions you don’t agree with? What if they tell you they are now living with a boyfriend/girlfriend? That they’ve disowned the faith tradition of their childhood?

Here’s the deal: kids are always watching and observing their parents. They want to feel the boundaries and, at every age, are willing to push the limits to see if you still care enough to enforce them.

But, far greater than their behavior reveals, kids deeply desire to be in relationship with their parents. They want it more than any money or gifts you could give them. They want to know and be known by their primary and most lasting community: their family.

So, yes, the best thing for parents to do is be consistent in their practices, keep their word, and persevere through the hardships. For younger and older children, the most loving, forward-looking action you can take is to discipline them when they need correction and help them learn to make good choices.

For adult children who lose their way, the best thing to do is let them know that you love them, and that even though you disagree with their choices, you are going to keep the communication lines open.

The reality is that, while you are responsible for your kids, you can’t guarantee the results. Even the best parenting doesn’t ensure perfect kids, and good kids come out of bad parenting situations. As you continue your highly demanding job as parent, be encouraged and trust the results to God.

Leaving Marriage Unguarded

March 4th, 2011 by Randy Hicks
Share |

In 1996 Congress approved, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This law defines marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman and clarifies that no state can require another to recognize same-sex marriage. The bill passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 342 to 67 in the U.S. House and 85 to 14 in the U.S. Senate.

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would no longer defend the law in court, claiming that it violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

The President’s decision not to defend DOMA is hardly a surprise. Over the past two years, the Justice Department has been, shall we say, tepid in their defense of the law in court. In fact, they haven’t bothered to use the most compelling legal arguments in favor of the law that were made by the Bush administration. Basically, they’ve been throwing the cases.

What’s amazing is the administration’s conclusion that there aren’t any reasonable constitutional arguments to support the Defense of Marriage Act. The fact is there were several clear reasons why Congress passed DOMA in 1996: encouraging responsible procreation and child-bearing, defending and nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage, defending traditional notions of morality, and preserving scarce resources.

Instead of addressing each of these defenses to the law head on, Attorney General Holder is dismissive. He calls the unique contributions of married heterosexual couples to the health and well-being of their children an “unreasonable” basis for protecting the institution of marriage. All human experience and social science data to the contrary is thus rendered mute with a flippant phrase.

There isn’t the space in this column to tackle all the ways this law is rational (or why it should withstand any level of scrutiny applied by our courts), but it’s important to point out that there’s a reason why every society throughout human history has granted a special favor and status to the relationship between men and women who commit to each other for life. It’s because every society has seen the value of formalizing the tie between men and women who bear and raise children.

The reality is that the future of society depends on the well-being of children, and the well-being of children is largely determined by the relationship between those who have conceived and bore them. Elevating the lifelong commitment between men and women (what we call marriage), is not only rational, but essential. And protecting our country’s (and each state’s) ability to maintain this institution is well within our nation’s constitutional framework.

According to Attorney General Holder, any arguments in favor of DOMA are essentially moral ones and should render the law unconstitutional. In his letter explaining the administration’s decision, he wrote, “The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

So, according to the Attorney General, any expression of moral sentiment for or against a law – even where the law is demonstrably good or bad for society – should render the law unconstitutional. On such “reasoning” slavery would continue to be an institution in this country and the Civil Rights Movement would have never made legal gains since each was championed based upon moral arguments. Morality guides our thinking about how things ought to be, not merely in the abstract, but in the real world where outcomes for people prove its wisdom.

Distinguishing between marriage as defined in DOMA and all other relationships comports with the highest standards of rationality because it gives legal protection and validation to the singular institution that has allowed man to flourish throughout history. If it cannot withstand a constitutional challenge, frankly, it’s difficult to imagine a law that could.