Posts

We Have Forgotten God

It’s a cliché to say that this is the most important election in our lifetime. But I really feel strongly that this is the most important election in our lifetime.

There is so much at stake. Above all is the question of whether we will continue as one nation under God. Will we embrace America as founded or will we completely jettison all pretense of our national motto—In God we Trust?

I think our problems can be traced back to this simple truth: We have forgotten God. That’s why all these bad things are happening to us.

Founding father Patrick Henry warned, “It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains.”

The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was the great chronicler of what President Ronald Reagan rightfully called, “The Evil Empire,” i.e., the failed Soviet Union. The Nobel-prize winning author spent about a decade of his life in the Soviet Gulags (for a veiled criticism of Stalin in a private letter).

Solzhenitsyn said, “While I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

As simple as those peasants’ statements were, the great novelist noted that no one diagnosed the problem better than they did. He continued: “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

Why is America seemingly sinking into the abyss? We have forgotten God. And the results of this rejection we can see on the streets of America:

  • We have strangers shooting strangers because they disagree politically.
  • We have daily riots and looting, with criminals immediately let back on the streets, thanks in many cases to George Soros money.
  • We have mobs chanting, “F*** your Jesus.”
  • We have liberal governors shutting down churches as “non-essential” during the COVID-19 crisis, while encouraging rioting, with or without social distancing or masks.

In America today people have forgotten God, and we’re living out the descent of man, as seen in Romans chapter 1. When people reject God and His righteousness and refuse to thank Him, He turns them over to their own devices.

Dennis Prager of PragerU once told me in a TV interview: “The Supreme Court changed America with the 1962 decision that prayer in school was unconstitutional. That was the decision that began the end of America as we knew it.”

The prayer ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was this: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.”

Prager continued: “It’s as universal a prayer and non-denominational as you could have. And as I often point out, within one generation, kids went from blessing their teachers to cursing their teachers.” [Emphasis added]

Many of our presidents throughout history have called on God and have called on Americans to set aside a time (usually a day) of prayer. For example, FDR, in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack, called for January 2, 1942 to be, “a Day of Prayer, of asking forgiveness for our shortcomings of the past, of consecration to the tasks of the present, of asking God’s help in days to come.”

Today, how much more are we in need of “asking forgiveness for our shortcomings”?

President Harry Truman even systematized the National Day of Prayer as an annual event. Truman declared in his proclamation (June 17, 1952): “From the earliest days of our history our people have been accustomed to turn to Almighty God for help and guidance.”

When there is no God to whom we must give an account, then the state can become god. That is certainly true in the minds of many a totalitarian dictator.

If we continue down this godless path, we will not remain free. How we vote will not change our national make-up. But it will make a difference in pushing away tyranny or rushing toward it.

Reagan once noted, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

©Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

Family Breakdown and the Rise of Identity Politics

With months of race riots continuing in the United States, identity politics is a phrase all too familiar to us in 2020.

Often credited to French philosopher Michel Foucault, identity politics is a window on the world that sees all social relationships as a power struggle. Black versus white, male versus female, gay versus straight, and on the list goes. Each group, according to this worldview, is battling it out to advance their particular political agenda.

With humour and precision, Michael Bird, a lecturer at Ridley College, explains that in the new social pyramid:

Your authority derives not so much from achievement or ability, but from your minority status and experiences of victimisation. So, that means in an argument, a white woman trumps a white man; a black woman trumps a white woman, a disabled woman trumps a black woman, and a disabled black transgendered Muslim refugee trumps pretty much everybody.

Late last year, Australians watching Q&A encountered a rather confronting example of this new creed. One of the visiting guests was Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy, whose writings have appeared in The Washington Post, the New York Times and beyond.

To viewers’ surprise, Eltahawy labelled Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison a “white supremacist” and a “patriarchal authoritarian”. She went on to explain that, “for me, as a feminist, the most important thing is to destroy patriarchy.” At one point, Eltahawy bypassed the panel to address the audience directly:

How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us, and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill — not by the state, because I disagree with the death penalty… until men stop raping us?

Behind her biting words, of course, Eltahawy had some genuine grievances. Domestic violence, for instance, affects women especially, and it’s an issue dealt with by police every two minutes in Australia. Sexual abuse remains a serious problem in our societies, and one that predominantly affects women, too.

There are many social ills in the modern world, and they should concern us all. But Eltahawy’s biting tone was unnerving, and it is becoming more commonplace.

Westerners are finding it increasingly difficult to sift social concerns from heated ideas like identity politics. The pressure is on now, not just to provide care to the disadvantaged, but to prove your sincerity by embracing politicised viewpoints. Resentment, victimhood and grievance are the new currency.

In the interests of equality, we are learning to assume the best about some people and the worst about others, even if we haven’t met them. This hardly feels like progress. How did it all come to this?

Essayist and author Mary Eberstadt recently addressed this question in her book Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics. It’s a title worth the price of entry.

Until the 1960s, Western sexual ethics were more or less Christian sexual ethics: a man married a woman; sex was reserved for that covenant; children were a natural result; and the family unit was the safe place for children to be raised.

The Sexual Revolution changed all that. As faith waned and morals loosened after the wars, personal happiness was one pursuit we could all agree on. Sexual fulfilment played a crucial role in this. Consequently, rates of infidelity, divorce, teenage sex and unmarried pregnancy began to soar from the 60s, and they have stayed high ever since.

Other forces were at play. Abortion and the pill turned sex into a childless exchange. This made marriage optional. IVF therapies took this a step further by enabling children to be born in the absence of either a father or a mother. So what the family unit looks like now is limited only to the imagination.

Many consider all of these benign trends of the modern world, but Eberstadt disagrees. Having researched and published widely in this field, Eberstadt credits the Sexual Revolution and its impact on the family unit with a “sharp rise in psychiatric trouble among the young… the explosion of loneliness on a scale never before recorded [and] the rise in so-called ‘deaths of despair’ that are plainly related to loss of love.”

She explains how the weakening of family ties and identity has led to a ‘longing for belonging’ among many in the West. She quotes Arthur Schlesinger Jr, who reasoned that:

“the more people feel themselves adrift in a vast, impersonal, anonymous sea, the more desperately they swim toward any familiar, intelligible, protective life-raft; the more they crave a politics of identity.”

In other words, says Eberstadt, the breakdown of loving, stable homes in the West has prompted us to look for family and loyalty elsewhere.

Enter identity politics.

Mary Eberstadt’s thesis is a compelling one — that the erosion of the family unit has led us to find our identity in fragmented groups. Whether or not hers is the best explanation for the social splintering we now see in the West, it is a trend that shows no signs of slowing down.

Having taken individualism to an extreme and tasted the loneliness it can cause, we now face a new kind of tribal warfare — a postmodern caste system. We are losing the ability to see each other as individuals, and instead as mere symbols of rival groups.

This is not progress. We will need something greater than the sum of our parts to pull us back together. Perhaps we can begin with the wise words of C.S. Lewis, who said:

We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

COLUMN BY

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a teacher, freelance writer, and the Features Editor of the Canberra Declaration. He contributes regularly at the Spectator Australia, Caldron Pool and The Good Sauce. He hosts his own… .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Children’s ‘mental health’ problems may be spiritual

Can societies abandon religion and continue to prosper?

A huge increase in the childless elderly signals a crisis in social care

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Personhood Florida’s Pro-life PAC Endorses Over 65 Candidates for the 2020 Primary and General Election

Personhood Florida’s Pro-Life PAC has endorsed the following 65 Pro-life Candidates for the 2020 Primary and General Election:

2020 Federal ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
US Representative – District 19 REP Dane Eagle

2020 State ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
State Representative – Dist 27 REP Zenaida Denizac
State Representative – Dist 42 REP Fred Hawkins
State Representative – Dist 84 REP Eileen Vargas

2020 Brevard County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
City of Palm Bay Mayor NP Rob Medina
Republican State Committeewoman REP Kim Adkinson

2020 Citrus County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Property Appraiser REP David Gregory
Superintendent of Schools REP Paul John Reinhardt
Supervisor of Elections REP Maureen “Mo” Baird

2020 Clay County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Clerk of the Court REP David Coughlin
School Board District 2 NP Beth Clark
Superintendent of Schools REP Charlie Van Zant

2020 Flagler County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Sheriff REP Rick Staly

2020 Indian River County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Board of County Commissioners – Dist 3 REP Tim Zorc
School Board – Dist 3 NP Laura Zorc
School Board – Dist 5 NP Alla Kramer
Sheriff REP Charles Kirby

2020 Jackson County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Superintendent of Schools REP Dallas Ellis

2020 Lake County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Commission District 1 REP Tim Sullivan
County Commission District 3 REP Kirby Smith
County Commission District 5 REP Josh Blake
North Lake Co. Hospital Board NE Seat 3 REP Ralph Smith
North Lake Co. Hospital Board NW Seat 5 REP Anita Swan
School Board Member District 2 NP Patricia Nave
School Board Member District 4 NP Betsy Farner
School Board Member District 4 NP Sandy Gamble

2020 Lee County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
COUNTY COMMISSIONER 1 REP MICHAEL J DREIKORN
PROPERTY APPRAISER REP MATT CALDWELL
SCHOOL BOARD 2 NON MELISA GIOVANNELLI
SCHOOL BOARD 3 NON BRIAN DIGRAZIO
SHERIFF NPA CARMEN MCKINNEY
SHERIFF REP JAMES A LEAVENS

2020 Manatee County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Linda Ivell REP Republican State Committeewoman

2020 Marion County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
COUNTY COMMISSIONER – DIST 1 REP Mike Behar
COUNTY COMMISSIONER – 3 REP Bobby D. Dobkowski
COUNTY COMMISSIONER – 3 REP Jeff Gold
PROPERTY APPRAISER REP David Moore
PROPERTY APPRAISER REP Neil Nick Nikkinen
REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE COMMITTEEMAN REP John H. Townsend IV
REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE COMMITTEEMAN REP Randy Osborne
REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE COMMITTEEMAN REP William Richhart
SCHOOL BOARD – 1 NP Allison B. Campbell

2020 Martin County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Property Appraiser REP Kelli Glass Leighton

2020 Okaloosa County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Commissioner, Dist. 1 REP Wayne Richard Harris
County Commissioner, Dist. 5 REP Richard Scott Johnson
County Commissioner, Dist. 5 REP Mel Ponder
Superintendent of Schools REP Ray Sansom

2020 Palm Beach County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Republican State Committeewoman REP Cindy Falco-DiCorrado

2020 Pasco County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Commissioner – Dist 4 REP Gabriel (Gabe) Papadopoulos

2020 Santa Rosa County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Commissioner – Dist 1 REP Geoff Ross

2020 Sarasota County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Sarasoto County Hospital Bd., At Large Seat 1 REP AUDIE ELIZABETH BOCK

2020 St. Lucie County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
City of Fort Pierce Commission, District 1 NP Kenneth Robinson
City of Fort Pierce, Mayor NP Donna Diehl Benton
City of Port St. Lucie, City Council District 2 NP David H. Pickett, Jr.
City of Port St. Lucie, City Council District 2 NP John Francis Haugh
County Commissioner, District 1 REP Betty Jo Starke
County Commissioner, District 5 DEM Fritz Masson Alexandre
School Board, District 4 NP Jason William Palm
School Board, District 4 NP Jennifer Anne Richardson
Sheriff REP Richard Williams, Jr.

2020 Volusia County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Council Member, District 3 NP Johan D’Hondt
County Council Member, District 4 NP Heather Post
Daytona Beach Commissioner Zone 4 NP Stacy Cantu
Edgewater Council District 4 NP Eric Rainbird
South Daytona Council Seat 4 NP Theodor Eric Sander
State Committeeman REP Santiago Avila, Jr.
State Committeewoman REP Debbie Phillips
State Committeewoman REP Maria Trent

2020 Walton County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
School Board – Dist 4 NP Jeri Michie
School Board – Dist 4 NP Marsha Winegarner

©All rights reserved.

What Marriage Was Like before Bureaucracy Marriage by Sarah Skwire

Marriage is not what it once was.

FEE contributor Steve Horwitz’s new book, Hayek’s Modern Family, reminds us all that “the use of ‘traditional’ as an adjective for either marriage or the family more generally is … ahistorical.” Marriage and the family, he argues, have always been changing and evolving institutions, and we are mistaken when we take the practices of one period and valorize them, and them alone, as “traditional.”

What is true for the institutions of marriage and the family is also true for the institutions of betrothal and weddings. By now, we all surely know that traditions like the white wedding dress and the diamond engagement ring are late innovations. The white dress came about after Queen Victoria set the fashion when she married Prince Albert. And while rings had been a popular wedding token for a long time, the diamond engagement ring became all the rage only after a successful campaign by DeBeers in the 1930s. But it is not merely the decorative furbelows that are modern innovations. Nearly everything we think of as defining a betrothal and a wedding used to be up for debate.

The Arnolfini Marriage PortraitI spent some time recently looking at and discussing Jan van Eyck’s famous painting The Arnolfini Portrait. The painting is probably most often called The Arnolfini Marriage Portrait, though scholars have debated for decades over whether it depicts a wedding, a betrothal, or some other legal ceremony. Others have felt it might simply be a portrait of a married couple, or even a memorial for a wife who died young. We’re not entirely sure.

But in the discussion I was involved in, we thought of the painting as a wedding portrait. Because of that, several of the folks involved were a little startled to see the woman looking decidedly pregnant. (In much the same way that we don’t really know the occasion for the portrait, we don’t really know that the woman is pregnant. The style of her dress may just make her appear to be. But to a modern eye, she looks at least seven months along.) Was van Eyck making a moral judgment on the sexual morality of this couple — depicting them as newly married, but with a pregnancy that far advanced? Or is her pregnancy an argument against the notion that this is a wedding portrait, since 15th century morality would not have allowed for premarital sex and pregnancy? What kind of wedding portrait was this, exactly?

I’ll leave the arguments about the accuracy of our thinking about The Arnolfini Portrait to the art historians. What I want to talk about is the accuracy of our thinking about what weddings used to look like.

As the historian Lawrence Stone points out in his book The Family, Sex, and Marriage,

Before 1754 there were still numerous ways of entering into [marriage]. For persons of property it involved a series of distinct steps. The first was a written legal contract between the parents concerning the financial arrangements. The second was the spousals (also called a contract), the formal exchange, usually before witnesses, of oral promises. The third step was the public proclamation of banns in church, three times, the purpose of which was to allow claims of pre-contract to be heard.… The fourth step was the wedding in church, in which mutual consent was publicly verified, and the union received the formal blessing of the Church. The fifth and final step was the sexual consummation.

While parts of the process Stone describes are a little antiquated, they don’t seem completely unfamiliar. And the whole thing sounds remarkably orderly — though it is worth noting that wealthier couples found ways to evade the more tedious parts of the process, such as the triple proclamation of banns, by buying a special license. But the apparent orderliness and familiarity of the process falls apart rapidly when we look just a little more closely.

Stone continues, “But it cannot be emphasized too strongly that according to ecclesiastical law the spousals was as legally binding a contract as the church wedding.… Any sort of exchange of promises before witnesses which was followed by cohabitation was regarded in law as a valid marriage.”

Marriage required no certification by the church or the state. Two individuals merely promised to marry one another in front of witnesses, and then lived together. That was sufficient. And sex and pregnancy in the months between the spousals and a church wedding, if one ever got around to having a church wedding, were routine and accepted.

This sounds like an ideal situation from a libertarian perspective. It’s certainly how I’d prefer that marriages take place. But things soon got even more complicated.

After the Reformation, the Catholic Church required the presence of a priest for a wedding to be valid. The Anglicans did not, though a church wedding came to be expected. However, lawyers still recognized the spousals as valid. And they distinguished between two kinds of spousals — one was not followed by consummation and could be broken. The other was followed by consummation and was binding for life.

Stone reminds us of a few other complexities.

The canons of 1604 stipulated that a church wedding must take place between the hours of 8 am and noon in the church at the place of residence of one of the pair, after the banns had been read for three weeks running. Marriages performed at night, in secular places like inns or private houses, or in towns or villages remote from the place of residence … were now declared illegal [but] they were nonetheless valid and binding for life. This was a paradox the laity found hard to understand.

It could be hard to tell, in other words, if you were married or not. It could be hard to tell, in other words, whether one was engaging in legal married sex or illicit and illegal fornication.

This problem is a key part of Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure, which begins with the arrest of Claudio for fornication with Juliette. Claudio is shocked to be accused of the crime, because, as he says:

… she is fast my wife
Save that we do the denunciation lack
Of outward order.

But with the exacting Angelo now in charge of the city, the more rigorous definition of a legal marriage is being enforced, and Claudio is in trouble.

The attempt to codify and enforce a well-understood and long-standing traditional practice made that practice so complicated that it was incomprehensible and often made criminals out of well-intentioned and honest individuals. (Those who are thinking about the mess that is the discussion of bathroom laws in North Carolina may find that problem familiar.)

There’s little doubt now about who is married and who is not married. The United States has spent years in a painful debate over that question, but we finally do have legal clarity. But as two dear friends of mine head down the aisle this month and I listen to the complications and fees they are facing over the licensing of their marriage and their officiant, I do wonder if we’ve solved anything since the days of spousals contracted in front of witnesses or if we’ve just piled on unnecessary layers of legal complications, forms, and fees.

Sarah SkwireSarah Skwire

Sarah Skwire is the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network. Email

Social Science and the Nuclear Family by Steven Horwitz

The question of the importance of family structure, specifically marriage, is back in the limelight. Conservatives are promoting three papers that provide some strong evidence that children raised by married parents do better along a number of dimensions than those raised in other household forms.

For many commentators, this makes for a strong case against those who appear to claim that family structure has either a minimal effect or doesn’t matter at all. As someone who might well fall into that group, or at least appear to, I think there are several responses to these new studies, all of which can acknowledge the empirical evidence that being raised by two loving parents is better for kids than alternative family structures.

One side note: conservatives might wish to not use the term “family structure denialists” as Wilcox does in the link above.

Comparing a legitimate disagreement over empirical evidence and public policy to those who would deny the overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust is an unacceptable rhetorical move whether it comes from leftists speaking of “climate change deniers” or conservatives speaking of “family structure deniers.” The disagreements in both case are legitimate objects of intellectual discussion and the language of “denier” indicates a refusal to engage in good faith debate.

On the substance of this issue, the conservatives cheering these recent studies don’t always note that there are differences among single-parent households formed through: 1) the choice to have and raise a child by oneself; 2) death of a spouse; and 3) divorce. Each of these presents a different set of circumstances and tradeoffs that we might wish to consider when we think about the role of family structure.

The conservative defenders of the superiority of the two-parent family (and it’s presumably not just “two parents” but two parents of the opposite sex, which raises a whole other set of questions), might wish to disentangle the multiple reasons such a family structure might not be present. For example, the children of widows do better than those of women who choose not to marry the fathers of their children, and the children of widows have outcomes that look more like those of kids from two-parent families.

The empirical evidence under discussion has to be understood with an “all else equal” condition. A healthy marriage will indeed produce better outcomes than, say, single motherhood. But there is equally strong social scientific evidence about the harm done to children who are raised in high-conflict households. Those children may well be better off if their parents get divorced and they are raised in two single-parent households with less conflict.

When parents in high-conflict marriages split up, the reduction in their stress levels, especially for women, leads to improved relationships with their children and better outcomes for the kids. In general, comparisons of different types of family structures must avoid the “Nirvana Fallacy” by not comparing an idealized vision of married parenthood with a more realistic perspective on single parenthood. The choices facing couples in the real world are always about comparing imperfect alternatives.

In addition, to say that married parents create “better” outcomes for kids does not mean that other family forms don’t produce “acceptable” outcomes for kids. It’s not as if every child raised by a single mother, whether through divorce, widowhood, or simply not marrying the father, is condemned to poverty or a life of crime.

Averages are averages. Though these three recent studies do continue to confirm the existing literature’s consensus that marriage is “better” for kids, there is still much debate over how much better those outcomes are, and especially whether other family structures are or are not sufficient to raise functional adults.

And this leads to the next point, which is that parents matter too.

The focus of the “family structure matters” crowd is almost exclusively on the outcomes for kids. That parents matter too is most obvious with divorce, where leaving a bad marriage may be extremely valuable for mom and/or dad, even if it leads to worse outcomes for the kids. The evidence from Stevenson and Wolfers that no-fault divorce has led to a decline in intimate partner violence, as well as suicides of married women, makes the importance of this point clear.

We can acknowledge that higher divorce rates have not been good for kids, but we can’t do single-entry moral bookkeeping. We have to include the effects of divorce on the married couple, because adults matter too. When we add this to the idea that conflict in marriage is bad for kids, the increased ease with which adults can get out of marriages, and the resulting single parenthood, is not so clearly a net problem when we consider the well-being of both children and adults.

These calculations are complicated and idiosyncratic, which seems to suggest that they should be left to those with the best knowledge of the situation and not artificially encouraged or discouraged by public policy.

This last point raises the final question, which is what do these studies mean for public policy?

If two-parent families are better than the alternatives, what does this imply? Are conservatives suggesting that we subsidize couples who have kids? Should that apply to only biological parents and not adoptive ones? Isn’t this a case for same-sex marriage? Should we make divorce more difficult, and if so, what about the probable result that doing so would reduce the number of marriages by increasing the cost of exit?

I would certainly agree that we should stop subsidizing single-parenthood through various government programs, but I’d make the same argument about two-parent families as well. In any case, what’s not clear is what the conservatives trumpeting these studies think they mean for public policy.

Perhaps, though, they think the solutions are cultural. If conservatives wish to argue that these studies mean that we should use moral suasion and intermediary institutions such as houses of worship to encourage people to marry and stay married if they wish to have kids, or that we should encourage young people to use contraception and think more carefully about when and with whom they have sex, that’s fine. And in fact, teen pregnancies are down.

But if intermediary institutions can do all of that, then they can also play a key role in helping single parents who make the difficult decision to divorce or continue a pregnancy in the complicated circumstances of their lives. Such institutions will also likely do that more effectively than can the state.

So if we are genuinely concerned about single parenthood, we should be asking what are the best ways to deal with it. Libertarians like me might well agree with such conservatives if they think the solutions are cultural or should rest in the hands of such intermediate institutions. But if they think there are public policy solutions, particularly ones that limit or penalize the choices facing couples, I wish they would spell them out explicitly in the context of their discussions of these studies.

One last thought: It ill-serves libertarians to deny the results of good science and social science, whether it’s climate change from the left or family structure from the right. We should, of course, critically interrogate that work to make sure that it is, in fact, good. But if it is good, we should welcome it as we should first be concerned with the truth and not our ideological priors.

The next questions we should ask, however, are about the implications. In the case of these recent studies on family structure, it is incumbent upon us to assess both the quality of the work and its implications, and we should pay particular attention to what is not being seen and what questions are not being asked.

Just because one family structure is better for children all else equal means neither that other family structures aren’t good enough for kids, nor that all else is always equal, nor that we shouldn’t consider the well-being of adults when we discuss the consequences of alternative family structures.

This post first appeared at the excellent philosophy blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

What if there were “Straight Guys Pride Parades and Festivals” nationwide on Fathers Day 2016?

Father’s Day falls on Sunday, June 19th, 2016. What would happen if fathers and straight guys across America held “Straight Guys Festivals” or “Straight Pride Parades” in every city, town and community in America?

What if personalities like Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Mark Wahlberg, Robert DeNiro, Tom Selleck and Arnold “the Terminator” Schwarzenegger appeared leading the parades and giving speeches about the importance of being a straight man and father.

What if they called “being straight” a civil right? What if they demanded special treatment under the law for being straight? What if they called those who oppose men being men “straightophobic”? What if they demanded that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman? What if there was a million straight man march on Washington, D.C.

Check out this YouTube video from Broke Straight Boys. This is what is happening across America. Which is better, this behavior (boys selling sex to the same sex for money), or being straight, married and with a traditional family? You decided after watching this revealing video of the Denver Gay Pride Parade (WARNING: This video contains graphic material and language and is not suitable for children):

Why those who are not straight would come out fighting mad as they did in Columbus, Ohio.

straight white guy poster

For a larger view click on the poster.

According to Sean Brown from Mad World News:

” It’s often said that the same people who promote ‘gay pride’ parades and other such events that promote a certain race or lifestyle would get upset should heterosexual or white people hold similar gatherings, even though they claim to be for equality. A series of joke flyers that were placed around an Ohio town has proven what many of us have known to be true. A spoof flyer was posted around the Columbus area advertising the Straight White Guy Festival to be held at Goodale Park, which is home to the annual Gay Pride Parade. They claim the festival will be held in September, according to [WBNS Channel] 10 TV.”

The flyer reads: “Come help us celebrate our enjoyment of being straight white and male.”

Brown notes, “This was obviously done as a joke to mock the left’s hypocrisy in their promotion of minority groups at the expense of others. The head of an organization that pushes same-sex marriage saw the flyers and expressed his discontent in the creator’s humor, even though the fake flyer said ‘everyone welcome.'” 

“This kind of thing implies there’s some kind of struggle going on for being a straight white person in Ohio. Straight white people are doing just fine,” said Michael Premo.

But are straight white guys “doing just fine”? Isn’t there a struggle going on in the U.S. to denigrate, if not eliminate, the straight guy?

When President Obama uses an Executive Order giving hiring preferences to homosexuals on federal contracts some might call this “discrimination against straight guys.” Or when Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who offhandedly came up with seventy-one categories for non-straight men and women.

As a straight guy I understand the pressures from the President, his political allies and certain media outlets to get in touch with my “feminine side.” LOL!

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘True Blood’ actor Nelsan Ellis: Former star quit because he did not want to portray a gay vampire – DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

Pope Francis: “The Enigma” – The Real Mystery of Faith

Hope all is well on this “Feast Day of the Blessed Trinity” as we all know that explaining the mystery of the “3 Persons in One” to any other Catholic is tough – let alone, trying to explain it to a non-believer…All the Homilies in our beloved churches tried to do that today on this special Feast Day as Father Mark Mlay at St. Peter Church did a nice job with his assignment. Even some of our most astute priests in our diocese have a tough time explaining this phenomena. Father Brian King does a very good job with it.

Let’s see, the Immaculate Conception is another tough one. The Resurrection…The Transfiguration…I can go on and on. Oh, and we also have the “4 Mysteries of the Holy Rosary” which adds that much more mystery to our beloved Catholic Faith…

But, the biggest mystery the majority of you who are reading this e-mail have come across the past “2 years, 2 months and 12 days” is the “Mystery of Pope Francis” – which I refer to as “The Enigma – The Real Mystery of Faith”…There is no better word or description that I can use to describe what our 266th pontiff has accomplished and laid out in his short pontificate thus far. Like the majority of you (some of whom have written Pope Francis off the day after he uttered those famous 5 words “Who am I to Judge”?) – I am confused, perplexed, frustrated, upset and bewildered by quite a few of the comments that our beloved pope has made and what direction he appears to be taking the 1.2 billion Catholics in this world in…The jury is still out and I do not like jury duty…

Friends: When Pope Francis was elected back in 2013, I was ecstatic! I shared my excitement with our own Bishop Barbarito, who also loves St. Francis of Assisi. The first South American pope ever! A pope that spoke my Spanish language. Just the mere fact that he took the name of my all-time favorite saint of the church – the first to ever bear the Stigmata…Simplicity and humility. I absolutely loved the pope’s initial approach, coming out of the gate. But, these past 16 months has been a lot more complicated and misleading and when you throw in the fiasco of Obama and Castro with Cuba in one of his more questionable moves, it does not sit well with many people – including the beloved Cuban exiles who live in this America. And, many of the upper hierarchy church leaders the pope has assigned over the past year, scare me to death…(Take a look at the first article below, which lists the more controversial figures the pope has asked to lead our church in 2015)…Beyond scary…All while we said our good-byes to the late Cardinal Francis George, as our beloved Cardinal Raymond Burke watches it all from a remote island called Malta…

Once again, I respect our pope, pray for our pope and listen to our pope (in English and Spanish) – but, I just don’t know where he is going with this misleading “progressive” agenda of his – and neither do many of the 70 million Catholics in this country…Let’s be honest, folks. I am not the only one…The majority of you echo my sentiments, but may prefer to keep them to yourselves or at least not put it out publicly because you may be afraid of being criticized or attacked…That is what I am called to do by the Holy Spirit. I am a Catholic activist. I act for a living. I also write for a living, then, put all my writing into action so I am not afraid to write what I feel when I know that I am telling the Truth about our Church…It is easier to walk the talk when you only write about the Truth…

Saint John Paul II, in his beyond-amazing 27 years as our Holy Father, taught me one thing for sure – “BE NOT AFRAID” – and I take my all-time favorite pope’s advice to heart in everything that I do. One cannot be an activist and an evangelist and make a difference in this world if he does not have the courage to put his life on the line for his faith every day of the year by walking that talk… And, if one can’t take the heat – stay away from the fires of hell…That’s my goal…

In that same P.B. Post interview over two years ago, I told the writer that “I think the pope is holding a “Global Open House” – inviting every single walk of life to the banquet table in the Vatican – atheists, liberals, abortionists, murderers, democrats, ruthless sinners and even our favorite – the homosexuals – as it appears that the pope has embraced them more than any other group, as of late. Then, when he has everybody’s undivided attention – he will sit them down and teach the entire world what the Catholic Church is all about”…That was my prediction about 26 months ago, and I am still holding my breath. I have terrific lung capacity – I happen to be a professional Harmonica player…

But, until Pope Francis boldly comes out and specifically tells the ever-anxious and confused 1.2 billion Catholics in the world that the immoral act of SODOMY is not part of Catholic Church teachings – that two men being married and having sex with each other – IS NOT PART OF WHAT THE CATECHISM TEACHES – then, those who don’t know better, will all simply continue to follow in the pope’s footsteps, take the 5th and continue to say “Who am I to Judge?” It’s the easy way out. It’s time the pope comes clean and tells the world that the Catholic Church and the Holy Bible deem homosexuality to be an abomination and it has never been part of the Catholic Church teachings – and never will be. Period! There is no re-defining here, folks. If the pope does not clear the air with this simple issue and tell the world in black and white what the Catholic Church teaches about the immoral and appalling act of Sodomy, then, we are all going to be in a world of hurt – and those 9 liberal attorneys in black robes who seem to rule the country, are salivating and licking their chops right about now, thinking that the Catholic Church is not even putting up a fight…Roll over, Catholic Church. USCCB and Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, where are you??? Cardinal DiNardo, hello, is anybody home??? Don’t even bother with that other cardinal from New York…

Now is the time for the pope to make a bold statement loud and clear – before it is too late, when come, late June – the Supreme Court Injustices rule in favor of the Gays. Now is the time he has to not re-define marriage – but, re-define what he truly meant when he uttered those “famous five words” on that infamous plane ride back from World Youth Day in Rio. What good is it to have a Family Synod in September when the Rule of the Land has already been declared in late June and Gay Marriage is legal in all 50 states? (I pray that I am wrong). Why on earth is the USCCB holding our “4th Fortnight for Freedom” from June 21st-July 4th when the Justices will already have redefined the Sacrament of Matrimony? What the hell are we thinking, people? Why did we not hold this Fortnight months ago? Why would Pope Francis come to Philadelphia to discuss the importance of Traditional Family & Traditional Marriage with 200 bishops and cardinals while those liberal judges are voting on redefining marriage right now as we speak and coming out with an answer in June? Are you with me? Where’s the horse? Where’s the buggy? Am I the only one who is scratching his head? Folks, the horse has already been out of the barn – been to the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness and heading to the Belmont Stakes next Saturday – and the Catholic Church is just sitting back and watching it all unfold. Are they taking bets? I thought we got rid of the ruthless Egyptian Pharoah centuries ago. Now the American Pharoah is here to haunt us and probably win the Triple Crown…I am NOT horsing around here and I pray that this does not go over some of your heads…

Wake up, Catholics!! Be Pro-Active – Pope Francis, cardinals and bishops! History has taught us that being re-active will get us nowhere…Ask the 57 million aborted babies in our country who wished to GOD that the Catholic Church would have been Pro-active & Pro-Life back in 1973…

The 5th Commandment took the 5th Amendment…

Once again, the last time I checked, Sodomy was NOT part of GOD’s Plan – it is unnatural and unGODly – and it is only the beautiful union of a Man and a Woman in the Blessed Sacrament of Holy Matrimony who can “Pro-create”. Two men or two women can only “Rec-create”! And, if Pope Francis does not come out now in June, while the Supreme Court is going through their liberal sessions and way before the Family Synod in “The City of Brotherly Love” in September and proclaim to the entire world – to the United States – to the Catholic Faithful – that Sodomy is a Mortal Sin, that Gay Marriage will NOT be accepted in the Holy Catholic Church – then, that entire 4-day conference becomes a total farce and Philadelphia can just simply change its jovial slogan to “The City of Homosexual Love”…

It’s that simple, folks. I, for one, am not enthusiastic at all about this already-rocky, Family Synod (which I have referred to as “Rocky VI”…Yes, it’s in Philadelphia) – because it will be obsolete when it takes place – 3 months behind the 8 ball. Maybe it’s because I know a little too much about what is taking place behind the scenes. Maybe it’s because I have read too many terrific articles and interviews from some of my Catholic heroes like Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Cordileone, the late Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop Paproki, Bishop Jenky – and my own spiritual director, Father James Molgano – to name a few who Tell the Truth and refuse to “water down our beloved Catholic Faith”. While so many other liberal cardinals and leaders of the Church have blasphemed and embarrassed the Catholic Church and are fighting the good, wholesome cardinals – I refuse to pay attention to MAN anymore when it comes to my Faith, my evangelization and my salvation. My faith and hope lie entirely in Jesus…

JESUS, I TRUST IN YOU!!!

The day that I put my faith & hope in the men who Pope Francis has selected to help run the Catholic Church is the day that I will make the same mistake that so many others have made – drink that “Church of Nice Kool-aid” – and totally forget about what Jesus commanded Peter to do upon that solid rock over 2,000 years ago. I come from the old school and that is the foundation on which I put my total faith into, but unfortunately, today, that rock is on quick sand, sinking fast, and until Pope Francis steps up and begins to make the Catholic Church teachings more clearer and has it in him to Tell the Absolute Black & White Truth about our beloved Faith – and not lead the Catholic Faithful into a confused state of nebulous opinions, thoughts and hypothesis – then, and only then – are we ever going to be on the same page and same book – the Holy Bible…

As a former NCAA Basketball Official (with the SEC, the Atlantic Ten, the OVC, etc.), my job as a referee was to “judge” every play that came my way. I could not afford to “take the 5th” and tell the ever-irate coaches “Who am I to Judge?”…Hell, that was my job! I had a split-second decision to make that call and millions of people watched it on ESPN. And, it is only appropriate that the game of college basketball has “3” referees in each game – similar to the Holy Trinity (which we are celebrating today). Like the Holy Trinity, all 3 referees are of equal significance, with none of us being more important the the other. We had to work “Two-gether” as a TEAM. Our job was to get the play right, be fair to both sides and maintain a level playing field. Tough to do with the speed the game is played at today and with the athletic ability these players have…and, with what is at stake in today’s collegiate game – MONEY, people’s jobs and livelihoods, recruiters, boosters, etc.

And, to this day the toughest call in the game of basketball is the “Block/Charge” call. I taught the hundreds of referees who came to my Annual Referee Camp to “referee the defense” – to make sure that the defensive player had established a “legal guarding position”. And, as many times as we saw that play over and over again – we still found it so difficult to get it right. Sure, the instant replays showed it in slow motion, but, the block/charge call cannot be reviewed in the instant replay. We did not have that luxury and we had to live and die with that gutsy call…

What I am getting at with all of this is that as an NCAA basketball referee, there is NO grey area when making a call – it is either black or white. True or False. Right or Wrong. NO COMPROMISING! It is either a Block or a Charge! You have to have the guts and integrity to make the right call – regardless of the outcome! We could not afford to call a “Blarge”! That is when one ref calls a Block and the other calls a Charge…Total chaos! What in GOD’s name do you do now? Confusing, perplexing, frustrating, bewildering…All hell would break loose and it threw everybody off – including the players, the coaches, the fans, the commentators… Mass confusion…

And, speaking of Mass Confusion (that is when the Catholic Faithful attend Mass and walk out all confused about the Homily) – now you know how the millions of Catholics in this world feel about some of the more radical comments that Pope Francis has made over the past two plus years and the direction he seems to be heading in. His comments on the homosexuals is difficult to decipher, hard to get a real feel for. Not sure where he truly stands with this issue – confusing the Catholic Faithful and all of his clergy even more – allowing each cardinal, bishop and priest to interpret it how he sees fit. Again, no definite interpretation here. This is what I refer to as that “Blarge” call I eluded to above. With this particular, sensitive issue, the pope is not providing the Catholic Faithful with a clear call – with a True or False explanation – with a concise, perfectly clear Black or White call. He has only provided us with very nebulous, confusing and misleading calls. No Block. No Charge. Just a “Blarge” – which, once again – leads to chaos, confusion, frustration and people losing faith and trust in our own Holy Father.

And, the more our beloved pope leaves the Catholic Faithful “guessing” and not coming with explicit and concise Truths & Facts about our beloved church teachings – the more Catholics will be leaving the church and trying to find the Truth elsewhere. And, with the elections of 2016 lurking around the corner and with the majority of the 70 million Catholics in this country still trying to figure out which church leader, cardinal or bishop is correct when it comes to Gay Marriage, the atrocity of abortion, the fate of divorced couples and other religious freedom issues – while the pope allows it all to get even cloudier and murkier – the Family Synod in Chilly Philly in September may just be the last straw that broke the camel’s back…And, is that a one hump-camel? Is it a two-hump camel? Is it a dromedary? Is it a Bactrian Camel? A Hybrid?

WHO AM I TO JUDGE? Let’s just try to get over this hump for right now…

Sex Education Today

In the 1940s and 50s, what passed for sex education was literally about the birds and bees as metaphors for inception and child birth. The emphasis was on waiting until marriage to engage in sex. There were instructional books with a mostly medical orientation to the information they provided but whether they could be found in the schools is anyone’s guess.

Somehow that generation (and earlier ones) managed to learn enough about sex to engage in it within the context of a society that regarded sex outside of marriage as sinful. By the 1960s, the generation fathered in the wake of World War Two told everyone not to trust anyone over thirty and that sex, drugs and rock’n roll were the only things that really mattered in life.

In 1979, with Jimmy Carter’s blessing, the federal government took control of the nation’s educational system via the Department of Education, but the real takeover began much earlier. It has been in serious decline ever since with huge dropout rates and failures to learn reading and math that put us well behind when compared to other nations. Traditional American values have often been abandoned.

Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the United States, recently emailed members and those who follow the organization’s issues about “a little first grade boy (who) asked his mother if he was ‘transgender,’ and if he could be ‘a girl in love with a girl.’”

His school, Mitchell Primary School in Maine was teaching about the “transgender” lifestyle. His mother was upset to learn about this, but as is frequently the case, parents are the last to learn about sexual information and attitudes being taught. In this case, isn’t first grade just too damn early for transgenderism to be a part of the curriculum?

Delgaudio is largely focused on “the radical Homosexual Lobby and their allies in the education system (that) routinely refuse to give parents any options that threaten their anti-Family agenda. And, fearing retaliation…the school administrators and superintendent ignored the parents’ outrage.”

The pro-family MassResistance recently informed members and those who follow their issues about “unbelievable surveys given to children in Massachusetts and schools across America” in public middle schools and high schools during school hours. The surveys are “officially” anonymous and voluntary, but are administered in the classroom with pressure to participate.

The major survey is “Youth Risk Behavior Survey” put together every two years by the National Centers for Disease Control. State and local education departments can modify it if they wish. These surveys are now ubiquitous.

Among the questions students must answer was whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or “not sure.”

“Have you ever had sexual intercourse (oral, anal, vaginal?)”

“How old were you when you had sexual intercourse (oral, anal, vaginal) for the first time?”

“During your life, with how many people have you had sexual intercourse (oral, anal, vaginal)?”

There were nine pages of the questions and answers to be provided. I was astounded at how personal and intrusive the survey was. And I seriously wonder whether such information would have any impact or influence regarding the behaviors involved. Indeed, the survey went far beyond the topic of sex.

I don’t like having the government involved in such intimate areas of student’s lives. These are questions and issues parents should address with their children, determining the right time to do so and providing whatever information they deem appropriate.

Having said that, it would be naïve to suggest that today’s youth from a very early age cannot access tons of information about sex from the Internet. A 2010 study of 177 sexual health websites by the Journal of Adolescent Health concluded that 40% of those addressing contraception and 35% of those addressing abortion contained inaccurate information.

In early April, Cosmopolitan posted “11 Facts About Sex Ed in the U.S. That Might Surprise You.”

“While teen pregnancies are on a decline,” said the article, “teens are having more sex—and contracting more STIs (sexually transmitted illnesses) than ever before. The problem, according to a new report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is that sex education isn’t happening early enough.”

Cosmopolitan noted that only 22 states and the District of Columbia require that public schools teach sex education. In addition, 33 states also mandate HIV/AIDS education, and 35 states let parents opt out on behalf of their child.

Does it surprise anyone to learn that the 1981 Adolescent Family Life Act which promoted “chastity and self-discipline” was ended by the Obama administration in 2010? We have all being living with an administration which dismissed enforcement of the Marriage Defense Act and is the most pro-homosexual administration in the history of the nation.

We are a sex-drenched nation in terms of popular entertainment. It is experienced from the earliest years of any child’s life. This means parents have to be pro-active to ensure their children get the education they need to avoid the STIs and more importantly not to impregnate or get pregnant.

In the meantime, there is no knowing what they are learning, for good or ill, in school.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

As the Family Goes So Goes the Nation

My Dad used to tell me that a nation (particularly the United States) is only as strong as her families. He began telling me that when I was just a little boy attending kindergarten. Our Cleveland neighborhood where I grew up was at that time an ideal leafy enclave of close knit families and neighbors. It was comprised of a mixture of racial and ethnic backgrounds, where folks got along and crime was a non-issue.

None of us were wealthy monetarily. There were educators, (back then they were called teachers) dentists, postal workers, small business owners, nurses etc. One of my favorite neighbors were the Rebisses. They were an Italian family who lived one house over from ours. It was sometimes rather difficult to decide which I enjoyed more, hanging out with my buddy Mark or enjoying Mrs. Rebisses great Italian cooking whenever I was invited, or the times I invited myself. Ours was a neighborhood of many patriots who often flew their American flags, especially between Memorial Day and Thanksgiving.

One of my most pleasant memories of those wonder years was how many of our neighbors were actually close friends who enjoyed each others company throughout the year. A most cherished memory of the old neighborhood was how many families would connect their Christmas lights in archways over their driveways. It was a spectacular sight to see many of the homes joined through beautiful lights in the spirit of Christmas.

Even our Jewish neighbors would drop by and enjoy our Christmas gatherings. Likewise they would make sure we joined them for Seder dinners. Very moving. Our neighborhood was not physically spectacular. But it was clean, comfortable, safe and stable. My belief at the time was that was how the majority of Americans lived. Turns out I was right. At that time, the bulk of American fathers, both black and white were in the home. Dads and moms both ruled the home with principles with Christian underpinning. We children were taught to respect our elders and other symbols of authority like the police, appreciate our country and were expected to achieve our best in school and in life in general.

Were we perfect? No, but because we were taught to aim high morally, ethically, and spiritually. The spiritual part kicked in later. (smile)

But as time progressed something happened and what seemed good at first has turned out to not so good after all. In fact, many things occurred that brought about a series of horrendous shifts in the ongoing function of out republic. One of the major developments was the civil rights, or what my Dad called the bastardized rights movement across America.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. began his quest for the unalienable rights of all Americans to be to recognized and honored. He firmly believed in the completed family that included both Dad, Mom and the children. I have a sneaking suspicion the Dr. King would also be firmly against the ongoing slaughter of the most innocent amongst us, unborn babies. Unfortunately, the ideals Martin Luther King espoused were gradually refocused away from unalienable rights which came from God, toward civil or bastardized right that are granted by government. It was special interest groups, not sovereign individuals that to this day most benefit most from that arrangement. When you have civil or (as my Dad said) bastardized rights, then include America’s transition from a constitutionally limited republic into a mob rule democracy things are destined for decline. Mob rule democracy places the government granted rights of the mob above the unalienable rights from God.

Dad was concerned that the corrupted civil or bastardized rights movement would help open the door to overthrowing all of the factors that had helped maintain family and national stability. So gradually, activities that were once considered immoral or wrong were gradually granted special rights status under the civil rights genre. Abortion quickly comes to mind for example. Now, groups of Americans are pitted against one another and the rights of individuals. You had Blacks against the police, homosexuals against the teachings of God the church, women against men.

Many of these groups had been brainwashed into thinking they were a collection of victims.

Combine that with several decades of government school indoctrination of American students against all that is good especially concerning the United States of America and what eventually brewed was a Caldron of madness. In more recent times in cities across America, mobs of blacks have been either fighting one another or starting riots in places like Ferguson, Missouri. And Baltimore. On St. Patrick’s Day 2015 in Cleveland after the huge annual parade, a group of black males and females converged and started beating up white citizens and out of town visitors alike. To them it was entertainment. The obvious lack of regard for civility stems from the purposeful breakdown of the black family and disregard for fathers. Also there was a taught hatred of America and possibly God himself.

My fellow Americans, let us pray for the restoration of our One Nation under God and constitutional law. We can either choose life or choose death for America. I would that we choose life.

God Bless America and May America Bless god.

Liberated Women and the Traditional Family

Photo from Best of Feminist Memes.

My generation, born in the late 1930s and the 1940s, has witnessed a dramatic change in the role and the rights of women in America. A significant result of the women’s liberation movement is a change in the role of traditional marriage that was reported in early September.

If you count a generation as spanning 20 years,” wrote Terence P. Jeffery, an editor of CNSNews.com, “then approximately 36 percent of the American generation born from 1993 through 2012—which has begun turning 21 this year and will continue turning 21 through 2033—were born to unmarried mothers.”

By comparison, Jeffrey noted that “Back in 1940, only 3.8 percent of American babies were born to unmarried mothers. By 1960, it was still only 5.3 percent.” There was a time when being a single mother was regarded as a reflection of the woman’s moral values. How a society deals with issues affecting the family as its single most important factor reflects its attitudes regarding marriage.

“It is a statistical fact that the institution of the family,” wrote Jeffrey, “has been collapsing in American over the past 45 years.”

Another statistic has significance as well. Today 51% of the U.S. population is single. A new generation of Americans, men and women, have decided that a committed relationship holds little allure.

The call for women’s rights has a long history. In 1794, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Women.” She would have felt at home in today’s society. After affairs with two men, giving birth to a daughter by one of them, she married William Godwin, one of the forefathers of the anarchist movement. She died ten days after giving birth to a daughter, Mary Shelley, who grew up to be the author of “Frankenstein.”

Militant political action in Britain began with the formation of the Woman’s Social and Political Union in 1903. Following World War I when women participated in the war industries and support services, they were granted the right to vote in 1918, but it would take until 1928 for the age to be lowered to 21. In the United States in 1848 Elizabeth Cady Stanton led a Women’s Rights Convention followed in 1863 of the Women’s National Loyal League by Susan B. Anthony who wrote and submitted a proposed right-to-vote amendment in 1878. It would take until 1920 for it to be ratified as the 19th Amendment.

feminist-meme23

Photo courtesy of Best of Feminist Memes.

The women’s rights movement as we know it gained momentum in the 1960s. It was led by a feminist, fellow writer and friend, Betty Friedan, who was also a committed Leftist and, in 1966, she would help create the National Organization for Women (NOW). In 1971, the National Women’s Political Caucus emerged, led by Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, and Gloria Steinem. Other groups were created as well. The effort to secure an Equal Rights Amendment, however, failed.

Aside from political rights, the issue that most concerned feminists was reproductive rights with the repeal of laws against abortion being the priority. The issue was decided, not by Congress or the states, but by a 1973 decision of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, that ruled 7-2 that the 14th Amendment extended a right of privacy and by extension the right of a woman to opt for an abortion.

That decision freed women both within and outside of marriage to abort an unwanted child. Unforeseen by the Court, was the rise of single-parent families led primarily by women.

As Jeffery noted “In the latest annual report to Congress on “Welfare Indicators and High Risk Factors,” the Department of health and Human Services pointed to the high rate of births to unmarried mothers, saying ‘data on non-marital births are important since historically a high proportion of welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage.’”

We have reached a point in just over a few decades in which the government, through bad economic policies and a myriad number of programs, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and others, has produced 109,631,000 people receiving benefits. They represent 35.4 percent of the overall population.

That’s a long way from the traditional family and it means that half of the working population is providing the funds for those who are unemployed or have stopped looking for work thanks to a stagnate economy.

The single-parent family led by women has denied generations of the young men they are raising the male role models they need to understand that being a father is as great a responsibility as being a mother.

Men have become dispensable except as sperm donors.

Male values of courage, comradeship, and leadership have to be learned from sources outside the single-mother unit.

Then, too, the feminist goal of being in the workplace also frequently means that pre-school children’s early formative years are handed over to strangers in childcare centers whether they come from one or two-parent families. The economy has required that both parents have to work—if work can be found in a society where more than 92 million Americans are unemployed or have, as noted above, ceased looking for a job.

This is not a screed against women’s rights. It is a look at the consequences of the goals feminists have fought to achieve over the past decades.

It’s not about their right to vote or to secure an education to achieve success in the business sector.

It’s about generations of young men and women growing up in a society where a “father” is not an integral part of the “family” and the price our society pays for that.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Traditional families are still best

The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop

Carly Fiorina is redefining feminism

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from the Best Feminist Memes.

BREAKING NEWS: Huge victory for pro-family citizens in deep blue Massachusetts

As deadline passes, ALL radical bills in Massachusetts Legislature stopped cold — after heavy lobbying by both sides. This is what hard-hitting pro-family activism looks like!

At the close of the day on Thursday, July 31, the Massachusetts Legislature –- arguably the “bluest” in the country –- finished its formal sessions. All week the House and Senate were meeting and passing bills to beat the deadline.

The Mass. Legislature met all week to pass bills before the Thursday night deadline.

Right up until the end, the homosexual/transgender movement and Planned Parenthood were lobbying hard to push their contentious, radical legislation still pending. Some bills were in a committee and could have been brought to the floor at any time; others were in a “study” but could have been lifted and brought to the floor if the leadership so decided.

MassResistance was fighting till the end to make sure all of those bills stayed off of the House floor. It’s been a rough week! A lot of people -– from all around the country-– got involved.

(We know what that “last-minute” fight to pass a bill is like! Back in 1995, despite the homosexual lobby’s efforts, we got our Parental Notification Law passed on the final day -– July 31 -– thanks to fierce lobbying from parents.)

We’re happy to say that we were 100% successful! All the radical bills got stopped.

Here are the top bills that (thankfully) didn’t make it:

(1) H3907 – Would have banned therapy for youth on homosexual issues

Result: Stopped in Ways and Means Committee

Passing this was the major goal of the homosexual movement in Massachusetts for this year.  MassResistance lobbied hard against it. This was a terrible bill that the national homosexual movement has been attempting to pass around the country.  It would have banned counseling for youth under 18 concerning sexual-orientation or sexual-identity issues. This could have caused horrific problems for innocent, vulnerable youth — many of whom were molested or experienced some sort of sexual trauma and who need professional help to heal and properly cope. Children and teenagers who desperately want and need counseling would have beed denied it if this had become law.

MassResistance had temporarily derailed the bill back in June. But last week the Ways and Means Committee announced the bill was back in play. So we immediately got back to work on it.

More about the bill and MassResistance’s effort to temporarily derail it.

Major “gay” figures converged at bill’s well-orchestrated public hearing.


Well organized. Homosexual and transgender activists filled the room at the public hearing last August. At right is Arline Isaacson, lesbian lobbyist and organizer of the testimony. Waiting to testify, at left is Dr. Norman Spack, who runs a “gender-change” clinic for children at Boston Children’s Hospital. [MassResistance photo]

(2) H3793 – Planned Parenthood’s bill that would have forced homosexuality and abortion “education” into schools

Result: Stopped in Ways and Means Committee

Getting this passed was Planned Parenthood’s major goal for the year. MassResistance lobbied hard against it. Planned Parenthood called it “An act relative to healthy youth.” It was just the opposite.

Planned Parenthood was determined to push this through and set up a special web page to help their people lobby for it.

This bill would have forced all schools to teach sexuality, birth control, abortion issues, homosexual and transgender issues, and similar subjects, in grades K-12, according to the “Massachusetts comprehensive health framework” – a document written by radical activists for the Department of Education.  Right now, using that document is only voluntary for schools. This law would have made it mandatory.

Even worse, this bill also re-wrote – and watered down — the current Parental Notification Law, which we worked so hard to pass back in 1995!


Planned Parenthood was VERY serious about this. They had a special
table at the Boston Gay Pride Parade Festival just to sign up volunteers to lobby for this bill. Their sign-up sheets were labeled “Sex Ed Matters.” [MassResistance photos]

(3) H1589 – Update to “transgender rights” bill to include public accommodations

Result: Stopped in Judiciary Committee – sent to “study”

This bill was the #1 goal of the transgender movement in Massachusetts this session. MassResistance lobbied hard against it. It would have extended the outrageous mandates and harsh punishments of the current “transgender rights and hate crimes” law to include restaurants, stores, health clubs, rest rooms, amusement centers, and all other places of “public accommodation.” For example, restaurants would have been forced to let men wearing dresses be “waitresses”, health clubs would have been forced to allow men to use the female locker rooms and showers, etc.

Big push for transgender bill at public hearing.

This man came to the public hearing for bill H1589 — to give his support to force the “transgender rights law” provisions to extend to public accommodations.
[MassResistance photo]

Other bills stopped:

 (4) H547 – Require all elder care workers to go through thorough homosexual and transgender diversity training

Result: Stopped in House Ways and Means Committee

Titled “An Act relative to LGBT awareness training for aging services providers”, it would have mandated that all elder care workers in the state to undergo diversity training in “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender” as a requirement for state certification.

This was yet another part of the latest LGBT efforts across the country to force everyone to accept their behaviors or be denied employment.

(5) H135 – State funding for housing for (alleged) “homeless youth”

Result: Stopped in House Ways and Means Committee

Titled, “An Act providing housing and support services to unaccompanied homeless youth,” this bill sounded innocuous enough. But it was being heavily lobbied for by homosexual groups — because it was actually a front for something much more devious:

If a middle school or high school youth decided to “come out” as a homosexual (or transgender) and his parents didn’t approve, radical activists planned to place him in alternative housing (with other homosexuals) paid for by the state, and legally take him from his parents’ home.

(6) H1592 – Repeal of the so-called “sodomy laws” and laws regarding “lewd and lascivious acts”

Result: Stopped in Judiciary Committee – sent to “study”

Current Massachusetts law describes homosexuality as “the abominable and detestable crime against nature.” Of course, that really angers certain special interests.  But we don’t think it’s a conversation most legislators wanted to engage in, and we weren’t going to let it go without a fight. The activists will have to try again next year.

Pro-family citizens can make a difference!

All this shows that pro-family citizens can make a difference. As you can see, some of these bills would have been devastating if passed. But many legislators simply follow the lead of the radical lobbies, and others just don’t pay attention. It’s absolutely necessary that pro-family people (1) educate the politicians, and (2) pressure them relentlessly. It’s quite amazing what that combination can accomplish. And it’s often horrible what happens when we don’t do it.

We won’t always win in the State House, of course, especially if enormous amounts of money,  political power, and/or a flood of media pressure are brought to bear. Examples of that are the new buffer zone law and also the transgender rights law, which we had stopped for three sessions in a row until the homosexual lobby brought in overwhelming political force.

But we’re getting better at this. And with your help our movement is making more and more of a difference.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio gives defining pro-family, pro-straight and pro-American speech

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has taken on social issues in a major speech given at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Senator Rubio is taking the high ground on issues that are important to the majority of Americans.

In “Strong Values for a Strong America” Rubio states, “A strong America is not possible without strong Americans – a people formed by the values necessary for success, the values of education and hard work, strong marriages and empowered parents. These are values that made us the greatest nation ever, and these are the values that will lead us to a future even better than our past.”

Rubio notes, “No one is born with the values crucial to the success sequence. They have to be taught to us and they have to be reinforced. Strong families are the primary and most effective teachers of these values. As the social philosopher Michael Novak once said, the family is the original and best department of health, education and welfare. It is crucial in developing the character of the young. And those efforts can be reinforced in our schools, religious institutions, civic groups and our society.”

Rubio comes out strong as the pro-family, pro-straight and pro-American candidate for President in 2016. Immediately after his speech Rubio was attacked for the following statement:

Now, I know that given the current cultural debates in our country, many expect that a speech on values would necessarily touch upon issues like same sex marriage and abortion. These are important issues and they relate to deeply held beliefs and deeply divisive ideas.

We should acknowledge that our history is marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians. There was once a time when the federal government not only banned the hiring of gay employees, it required private contractors to identify and fire them. Some laws prohibited gays from being served in bars and restaurants. And many cities carried out law enforcement efforts targeting gay Americans.

Fortunately, we have come a long way since then. But many committed gay and lesbian couples feel humiliated by the law’s failure to recognize their relationship as a marriage. And supporters of same sex marriage argue that laws banning same sex marriage are discrimination.

I respect their arguments. And I would concede that they pose a legitimate question for lawmakers and for society.

But there is another side of debate. Thousands of years of human history have shown that the ideal setting for children to grow up is with a mother and a father committed to one another, living together, and sharing the responsibility of raising their children. And since traditional marriage has such an extraordinary record of success at raising children into strong and successful adults, states in our country have long elevated this institution and set it apart in our laws.

That is the definition of marriage that I personally support – not because I seek to discriminate against people who love someone of the same sex, but because I believe that the union of one man and one woman is a special relationship that has proven to be of great benefit to our society, our nation and our people, and therefore deserves to be elevated in our laws.

Watch the YouTube video of Rubio’s speech:

Read the full text of Rubio’s speech here.

In Florida 1 million Christians either did not register or did not vote in the 2010 general election. Obama won Florida by less than 80,000 votes. Perhaps Rubio is on to something?

When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to at best religious intolerance and at its worst social suicide. Rubio has taken the moral high ground.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Straight White Guy’ Festival Outrages Same-Sex Marriage Supporters

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of  M.Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO.

REPORT: Child Obesity Caused by Single Parent Households

In 2010 Michele Obama made it her mission to address the “child obesity epidemic”. The goal of Mrs. Obama is to reduce child obesity from the current 20% of all children to 5% by 2030. WebMD reports, “To accomplish this, the plan makes 70 recommendations for early childhood, for parents and caregivers, for school meals and nutrition education, for access to healthy food, and for increasing physical activity.”

According to WebMD, “Obesity is an excess proportion of total body fat. A person is considered obese when his or her weight is 20% or more above normal weight. The most common measure of obesity is the body mass index or BMI.”

“U.S. kids haven’t always been obese. Only one in 20 children ages 2 to 19 was obese in the 1970s. But around 1980 child obesity began to rocket to today’s stratospheric level: Nearly one in three kids is overweight or obese, and nearly one in five is frankly obese,” notes WebMD.

What is the cause of this stratospheric increase in child obesity? ANSWER: Single parent households.

In July 2010 the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) reported, “Prevalence of childhood obesity and its complications have increased world-wide. Parental status may be associated with children’s health outcomes including their eating habits, body weight and blood cholesterol.” [My emphasis]

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 1988–1994 provided a unique opportunity for matching parents to children enabling analyses of joint demographics, racial differences and health indicators. Specifically, the NHANES III data, 1988–1994, of 219 households with single-parents and 780 dual-parent households were analyzed as predictors for primary outcome variables of children’s Body Mass Index (BMI), dietary nutrient intakes and blood cholesterol.

The NHANES survey found:

  • Children of single-parent households were significantly more overweight than children of dual-parent households.
  • Total calorie and saturated fatty acid intakes were higher among children of single-parent households than dual-parent households.
  • On average, Black children were more overweight than children of other races.

The study results implied a strong relationship between single-parent status and excess weight in children. The NHANES survey states, “Parental involvement in the development of school- and community-based obesity prevention programs are suggested for effective health initiatives. Economic constraints and cultural preferences may be communicated directly by family involvement in these much needed public health programs.”

Mark Mather from the Population Reference Bureau reports, “In the United States, the number of children in single-mother families has risen dramatically over the past four decades, causing considerable concern among policymakers and the public. Researchers have identified the rise in single-parent families (especially mother-child families) as a major factor driving the long-term increase in child poverty in the United States.” To read the full report click here.

Data from the Sarasota County School Board shows that since President Obama took office the number of children who are classified as obese is Sarasota public schools has risen as the children progress from Grade 1 – to Grade 3 – to Grade 6. The cohort obesity numbers go down at Grade 9. For example, 15.7% of students in Grade 1 in the 2008/2009 school year were obese. In 2011/2012 school year 18.8% of students in Grade 3 were obese. An increase of 3.1% of students in grade during school year 2008/2009 18.8% were obese. In Grade 6 that cohort increased to 20.1%. The Grade 6 cohort in 2008/2009 data was 21.5% and in 2011/12 dropped to 17.6%.

Public schools do not keep data on obese children who live in single parent households. 

Many are questioning whether the First Lady is addressing the root cause of child obesity – single parent households. Some see this health initiative as expanding government control of parents and children. Setting caloric standards is the first step in setting eating limits. Limits lead to control of food sources, leading to the redistribution of calories. Should not we be focused on the rising number of single parent households?

Perhaps it would be better for the First Lady to focus on increasing the number of traditional two parent families? After all, she has a traditional family and her husband and children all have normal weights according to the BMI calculator.

JUST FOR FUN:

As an aside, Watchdog Wire looked at some well known public figures and calculated their BMI scores.

Using the BMI calculator we determined that New York Jets quarterback Tim Tebow, who is 6′ 3″ tall and weights 236 pounds, is overweight. If Tebow gains 5 pounds he will be categorized as “Obese Class 1”. In fact the entire New York Jets offensive and defensive lines are obese.

Muscle Chemistry lists the height and weight of actors. Those in Hollywood who are overweight according to the BMI calculator include: Whoppi Goldberg, Al Pacino, Oprah Winfrey, Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Sylvester Stallone is rated as Obese Class 1.