|
||
|
|
||
|
Family Scholars Blog
Wednesday, October 08, 2026
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN CHINA: Autumn is always wedding season in China, but this week record numbers of couples have been marrying in cities like Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai, according to officials and news media reports. � Another article reports that the new streamlined divorce law is, at least for the time being, prompting a higher rate of divorces as well. Tuesday, October 07, 2026
STEPHANIE COONTZ'S STRAWMEN: From an ABC News article on marriage education: "There is a real tremendous problem with telling people that marriage is the answer to every issue that people face in this complex changing society of ours," said Stephanie Coontz, who chairs the Council on Contemporary Families.I don't think the problem is tremendous. Because I don't think the problem Coontz references is real. Can she name anyone who believes that "marriage is the answer to every issue that people face in this complex changing society of ours"? Coontz wants to frame the issue so that if marriage isn't the answer to every issue, it shouldn't be part of an answer to any issue. GAY MARRIAGE COVERAGE: In the USA Today article David describes below, I actually think Stephanie Coontz gives a fairly objective analysis. But the Coontz and Schwartz, both professors, are obviously in favor of same-sex marriage. Why do articles like this never quote professors or public intellectuals (not political/religious activists) who oppose s-s-m? UPDATE: Eugene Volokh points to some potential problems with the poll. NEW POLL ON SSM: The nation essentially is split in half over whether to accept gay and lesbian marriage, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. While 48% of those surveyed say allowing gay unions "will change our society for the worse," 50% say they would be an improvement or have no effect ... 67% of those ages 18 to 29 and 53% of those ages 30 to 49 say gay unions would have no harmful effect or might make society better.These numbers are interesting, but the article itself in my view is almost comically biased -- it comes pretty close to saying outright that people who go to church regularly are bigots who are part of the problem. For their "experts" on this subject, the USA Today reporter chose Stephanie Coontz and Pepper Schwartz. For example, Schwartz says: "Once you think marriage isn't God's work, it's about the human heart, you think why is (a homosexual person's) heart any less loving or needy than mine? If you pull away from the Bible as authority, the right to marry becomes a matter of conscience, fair play and the higher morality of love."Now, there's a fair-minded analysis, and a prescription for what ails us! Since the Bible is opposed to conscience, fair play, and the morality of love, and since it teaches that some human hearts aren't worth anything, we as a society need to "pull away" from that damn book. ARE YOU AN URBAN TRIBE-STER? In today�s USA Today Karen Peterson features a new book on �urban tribes,� large groups of young adult friends, often in urban areas, who rely on one another for friendship and support. Peterson writes, �The latest theory of young-adult development emphasizes the importance of delaying marriage until you know who you are.� Diane Sollee of Smart Marriages responds with great wisdom on her newslist: � This is the concept that drives me nuts. As if it's all about ME - if She also asks a question that I find quite intriguing: I wonder what the research would find if they followed these friendship bonds - all the friendship research I've seen shows that friendships last on average 7 years. FROM BRITAIN: A leading private school headteacher yesterday warned of the "disastrous impact" of marriage breakdown on children's education and emotional well-being, as he urged society to reverse its "selfish and self-indulgent attitudes". FATHERS RIGHTS (CONT.): At Men's News Daily, Tom Sylvester has been engaged in a debate about marriage and fathers rights. Here is his latest entry. I agree with Tom that the marriage movement should essentially steer clear of the fathers rights guys. They are too angry with their ex-wives and "the government" to be reasonable about anything; they tend to view the world in fantastic, conspiratorial terms that make them seem about half nuts to anyone but the initiated; they see themselves essentially as victims and demand that everyone else view them that way, too; they often reek of misogyny; and, most of all, their core agenda -- more "rights" for divorced fathers and thus, by clear implication, fewer "rights" for divorced mothers -- is an almost entirely misguided way of viewing the core problem, which is the weakening of marriage. In his contribution to this debate, Stephen Baskerville says: I must admit to being a little perplexed as to why anyone would perceive a conflict between those who advocate for marriage and those who advocate for fathers.Well, let's try to clear up that perplexity. First, Stephen Baskerville does not "advocate for fathers." He certainly doesn't advocate for me. He advocates for one specific group: divorced fathers who feel that they've gotten a raw deal from their ex-wives and from the courts. That's his group. And the primary conflicts between his group's goals and the marriage movement should be clear to anyone. The marriage movement mainly wants less divorce, more conciliation and equal regard between husbands and wives, and a strong focus on child well-being. His group mainly wants reformed divorce, a strong societal shift towards men's "rights," and therefore a focus less on either gender conciliation or what is good for children than on what angry divorced men believe to be good for ... angry divorced men. Does that help to clear it up? This is the first article I've seen discussing in any detail some of the political and social implications of the fact that African Americans are far more opposed to SSM than are whites. The Detroit Free Press on efforts to amend the state constitution to prevent SSM: "If Michigan legislators feel obliged to prove they are so "pro-marriage," they should encourage more people to join the institution rather than ostracize some who want to." Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argues for a federal marrige amendment. Monday, October 06, 2026
FROM OTTAWA: "Religious and family groups urged the country's highest court Monday to weigh whether traditional marriage is unconstitutional." Results from a preliminary report entitled, "The Costly Consequences of Divorce in Utah: The Impact on Couples, Community, and Government" conducted at Utah State University by researcher David Schramm, divorce and its direct and indirect economic consequences costs the United States $33.3 billion per year, or $312 per household. WHY THE ONGOING NEED TO DEFEND CLINTON? At TomPaine.com, Richard Blow says that what Arnold did should disqualify him from elective office, whereas what Clinton did was no big deal. His first sentence: "Just a few short years ago, they were lambasting Bill Clinton for his long-previous treatment of Paula Jones." ("They" being hypocritical conservatives who wanted to impeach Clinton but want now to give Arnold a clean bill of health.) And a bit later: "They [Arnold's gropes] were not consensual, like Bill Clinton's tryst with Monica Lewinsky." In the New York Times on Saturday, Katha Pollitt makes the same point, remiding us that "Ms. Lewinsky � unlike the the women in the Los Angeles Times article � volunteered herself." Well, I join Richard Blow and Katha Pollitt in condemning Schwarzenegger, but the last time I looked, Clinton had been accused by Juanita Broderick of raping her; had been accused by Kathleen Willey of, Schwarzenegger-like, groping and fondling her in the White House; had been accused by Paula Jones, an employee at the time, of making crude and unwelcome sexual advances toward her; and had, by all accounts, treated that dim-witted, little-more-than-a-kid Monica Lewinsky, half his age and an intern at his White House, for goodness sakes, as little more than a disposable sex toy. Now, all of this is old news, and none of it lessens my disgust at Schwarzenegger. But please, as Katha Pollitt, Richard Blow and other in their political camp finally rekindle their outrage over sexual harrassment in high places, can we just leave Clinton out of it? CUSTODY BATTLES (CONT.): When a small business owner goes through a divorce fight, it's often more than a personal ordeal. The company can become part of the battle. A difficult divorce can even put a business at risk if the owner is forced to pay a huge sum to a former spouse ... Violet Woodhouse, an attorney and financial planner in Newport Beach, Calif., has advised company owners going through divorce ... Sometimes when couples fight over a company, it's because they started the business together or both worked in it, and now each wants it. The fight becomes a custody battle, because few couples are able to work together after a breakup. Sunday, October 05, 2026
UNMARRIED WITH CHILDREN: From Caitlin Flanagan�s review of There Goes the Bride in November�s Atlantic magazine (not yet available online). The book is based on an informal survey of several dozen women whose weddings were called off at the last minute. Midway through the review, Flanagan writes: Consider the Almost Brides, an astonishing number of whom allude in their tales of woe to children: children they have borne to their fianc�s, or to other men, or children that their fianc�s have sired with previous wives or girlfriends. That these broken engagements (many of which ended in rage fests followed by what psychotherapists usually describe as �sexual acting out� on the part of the Almost Brides) may also have constituted periods of significant loss and grieving for these children � who suddenly had to bid good-bye to a person they had expected would be a parent � goes entirely and shamefully unmentioned in There Goes the Bride. Such is the lot of children in our culture: absent stigmas on divorce or single parenting or illegitimacy, with religion often a governing factor in people�s lives only to the extent that it is a boon rather than a constricting force, a child�s fate in life is entirely dependent on the sexual and romantic whims of his parents. And come wedding time, the child is considered merely a cast member, a cunning little ring bearer or flower girl or � worst-case scenario � sulking adolescent in a shiny new suit of clothes, rather than someone whose life is about to be profoundly (if perhaps temporarily) affected by the events at hand. MORE FROM THE LA TIMES: "Four More Women Go Public: In all, 15 women have now accused Schwarzenegger of grabbing or groping them." It seems obvious that there's a pattern here. And since his whole persona seems to suggest an utter narcissist who is all about the will to power, and nothing more, the pattern of humiliating and seeking to dominate people sexually seems to fit. The question is, will anyone care? I hope so, but as I've said, I doubt it, or at least not enough to make much of a difference. BLAMING THE VICTIM (REALLY!): At Mens' News Daily, a headline reads, "Feminists Pine for Clinton's Gropes as Arnold Bimbos Multiply." Now, as David pointed out below, there's the usual hypocrisy going on among the usual suspects on the right and the left. But how does being groped by a world-class jerk like Arnold Schwarzenegger make one a "bimbo"? What a disgusting headline. (Another MND article states that a misguided NFL policy to try to increase the number of black coaches "is as offensive and reactionary as making players stay in segregated hotels." Uh, no. It's not.) FATHERHOOD SUPPORT: A Bayh provision tucked in the Senate welfare bill would create a $20 million Challenge Grant program aimed at encouraging states and communities to get donated airtime from broadcasters to promote responsible fatherhood. Donations would be matched by the federal government, and the messages would promote fatherhood and marriage. The bill also would allow the government to spend $50 million for responsible fatherhood programs. Of that, $20 million would go to as many as 10 states to implement responsible fatherhood efforts, such as programs aimed at building parenting skills or providing employment services.Now that federal support for marriage has taken center stage politically, and is generating the most controversy, people seem to have largely forgotten about fatherhood support -- which, just a couple of years ago, was very popular among a lot of people who are now trying to get the marriage bill passed. Personally, I'd like to see both proposals adopted by the Congress. FATHERS' RIGHTS/MARRIAGE MOVEMENT: Here's my Round Two entry. Also, reader Peter Hoh gives his two cents: ...I'm stumped by the opening statements from Stephen Baskerville and Roger F. Gay. They may rally their troops with this kind of writing, but they aren't going to win me over unless they start making sense. Baskerville and Gay need to respond to the marriage movement instead of railing against the child support agents in black helicopters. (Okay, so I exaggerate, but this is how they sound to me.)P.S. In the MND Discussion Forum, I am now being referred to as "Tonya Sylvester" because I'm an "enemy of men." |
||
