Family Research Council

Keeping Marriage Public

by Jared Bridges

December 6, 2007

Responding to last week’s NY Times op/ed by Stephanie Coontz, who suggested that marriages shouldn’t recognized by the state, FRC’s Michael Fragoso argues that marriage should be kept public:

Coontz misstates the historical record to give the impression that marriage has typically not been a province of law and only became such in an effort to preserve the narrow interests of certain powerful sects of society: wealthy parents in requiring parental consent, Catholic authoritarians in proscribing divorce, and Southern racists in preventing miscegenation. This could not be further from the truth. As a rule, the more marriage was enshrined in law, the more freedom under the law was given to men and women who sought marriage. This was often the case in the ancient world, and emphatically the case in the medieval world.

Read it all at First Things.

Christians can now adopt in India

by Jared Bridges

December 5, 2007

I was unaware that until recently, only Hindus were allowed to adopt children in India. Thankfully, the second most populous country in the world — and one with a huge sex-selection abortion problem — has now opened the door for adoption to non-Hindus:

NEW DELHI, November 30 (Compass Direct News) Ending a long era of absence of adoption rights for non-Hindus, the government has cleared the way for all religious communities in all Indian states to adopt legally.

The government of the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance on October 26 gave notice of new rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act or JJA of 2006, making room for all communities to adopt, reported national daily The Times of India on November 17.

This has ended a long wait by the Christian community, which for many years has been urging the government to grant them the right to adopt, a representative of the Christian Legal Association (CLA) told Compass.

Christians from almost all denominations are happy with the governments move.

Hopefully, the increased availability of adoptive parents will be good news for survival chances of Indian girls.

Now And Not Yet: Live Webcast

by Jared Bridges

November 7, 2007

Jennifer Marshall is the Director of Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Marshall formerly worked at Family Research Council as the Senior Director of Family Studies. She has authored numerous studies of marriage, family, education, and civil society.

Follow this link to see the live webcast at 12:00 pm EST.

Straw Poll on the Issues

by Jared Bridges

October 23, 2007

The FRC Action Values Voter Straw Poll has been making lots of news, but one of the poll questions that hasn’t yet gained as much attention was question #3, which asked participants to rank the order of importance among a set of issues. Here are the results:

Here’s the statistical breakdown:

Now that you’ve got the numbers, feel free to crunch away.

Right Matters on “A Judge’s Marriage Decree”

by Family Research Council

August 31, 2007

The Washington Post recently launched a new Discussion Groups section where readers can join WP staffer and others in talking about politics, culture and other topics. Our friend Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for National Review, is the moderator for Right Matters, a section devoted to “Talking About the Future of Conservatism.”

Today’s discussion is on a ruling by Judge Robert Hanson’s ruling that declared Iowa’s marriage laws unconstitutional, and ordered the county recorder in Des Moines to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Judge Hanson is utterly dismissive of the concerns of opponents of same-sex marriage, which he treats as irrational and illegitimate.

The decision is a gross act of judicial activism. Advocates of same-sex marriage make a serious case: but that case should be made to voters and legislators, not to judges. When the people of Iowa adopted their constitution, they surely did not mean to embrace principles that would lead to same-sex marriage. If they want to do so now, they can; but courts should not pretend that they already have.

If judges can rewrite our most fundamental laws, are we still a self-governing country?

This is a great forum for conservatives to explain our rational and legitimate reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, so drop by and present our case.

No wedding, no benefits

by Jared Bridges

June 25, 2007

FRC’s Vice President for Policy, Peter Sprigg, pens an op-ed in today’s edition of USA Today on the benefits of marriage to society. Here’s an excerpt:

The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement for every citizen regardless of lifestyle. They give an incentive to enter into the socially beneficial relationship of authentic marriage and give protection to the social institution of marriage.

Awarding such benefits to the unmarried makes no more sense than giving veterans’ benefits to people who never served in the military.

Read it all here.

Survey Says? Divorce Ranks Second In Morally Acceptable Acts

by Tony Perkins

June 11, 2007

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

When asked, most Americans would put cows before vows. Marriage vows to be exact. According to a new Gallup poll, a majority of people think that animal testing is more unethical than divorce. Divorce topped gambling, cloning, and premarital sex as the most tolerable act. Sixty-five percent said divorce was morally acceptable while only 58 percent said the same about buying fur. In other words, dissolving your marriage is less important than what you wear to divorce court. Of course, if the country cant understand the importance of marriage, how can we fight to preserve it? For years, theres been resistance to legislation that helps couples keep their commitments. Last week, when Texas passed a law that doubled the price of a marriage license to $60 for couples who dont have premarital counseling, some people were outraged. Its none of the governments business, said one. Well, frankly, it is the governments businessparticularly when the cultural and social cost of divorce far outweighs the licensing fee. Taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for family breakdown by fighting poverty and juvenile delinquency. The bottom line: marriage matters.

To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. For an e-mail subscription to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.

The Disney Family Model

by Family Research Council

May 19, 2007

Jae Ran Kim applied a “social workers perspective to the wholesome characters in popular Disney movies” and asked, “How many of these beloved characters live in a married, two-parent (hetero) household?”

• Aladdin (Aladdin) orphaned and homeless; petty crimes for food and shelter
• Annie (Annie) orphan adopted by rich single dad
• Ariel (The Little Mermaid) dead mother, rebellious teen who runs away to be with a man
• Aristocats Marie, Berlioz and Toulouse three kittens raised by a single mother
• Bambi (Bambi) raised by single mother who is murdered, has never met his absent father
• Belle (Beauty and the Beast) dead mother, raised by single father
• Cinderella (Cinderella) dead mother, raised by abusive Stepmother and neglectful, absent father
• Dumbo (Dumbo) raised by a stigmatized, depressed single mother
• Elliot (Petes Dragon) orphaned, runaway from abusive foster parents, adopted by single mother
• Hercules (Hurcules) son of gods transracially adopted by humans
• Lilo (Lilo and Stitch) orphaned, raised by older sister
• Mowgli (The Jungle Book) orphaned, raised by 2-male heads of household (bear and panther)
• Mulan (Mulan) cross-dressing teen girl with intact, multi-generational family unit
• Nemo (Finding Nemo) dead mother, raised by single overprotective father
• Oliver (Oliver & Company) orphaned kitten transracially adopted by rich girl
• Peter Pan (Peter Pan) orphaned, troublemaker and gang leader of Lost Boys
• Penny (The Rescuers) orphaned girl kidnapped from orphanage
• Pinocchio (Pinocchio) wooden toy adopted by aged creator Gepetto
• Pochahontas (Pocahontas) dead mother, raised by single father
• Quasimoto (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) physically disabled male adopted by evil church minister Frollo
• Simba (The Lion King) father murdered by uncle, raised by 2-male heads of household (meerkat and warthog)
• Sleeping Beauty (Sleeping Beauty) parents transferred custody to 3 fairies
• Snow White (Snow White & the 7 dwarves) dead mother, raised by abusive Stepmother and neglectful father
• Tarzan (Tarzan) orphaned, transracially adopted by gorilla family

Law Firm Held In Contempt For Glamorizing Divorce

by Tony Perkins

May 10, 2007

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

In the Windy City people are getting blown away all right, but not by the weather. A controversial new billboard is mocking marriage to turn a profit. The ad features photos of a woman in lingerie, a mans muscular chest, and the message, Lifes short. Get a divorce. The ad, sponsored by a Chicago law firm, hopes to attract new clients by encouraging couples to trade in their spouses for a newer model. Fetman, Garland, and Associates have taken a lot of heat for their approach, and rightfully so. Divorce isnt a product that needs marketing especially in America. At a time when half of all couples split, these lawyers hardly need to drum up more business. Partner Corri Fetman said the ad promotes happiness. But happiness for whom? Not the adults, who suffer physically and financially from divorce. And certainly not the children, who grow up with deep emotional scars. Come to think of it, the only people who benefit from divorce are lawyers. The real irony of their billboard is that its true. Studies show that life is shorter for couples who dont stay married.

To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. For an e-mail subscription to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.

More children “fine” by some Chinese

by Jared Bridges

May 8, 2007

Many urban Chinese kids are discovering for the first time the meaning of sibling rivalry—and the government is taking notice. Since the late 70s, China’s family planning policy has dictated a one-child policy for city-dwellers (two children for rural citizens), with fines for those who do not comply. The BBC reports, however, that due to China’s rising wealth, many couples are opting to pay the fines and proceed with more children:

[China] is keen to curb its population growth, and the controversial family planning policy, implemented in the late 1970s, is meant to limit urban couples to one child and rural families to two.

But rising incomes mean that some newly rich couples in urban areas can easily afford to break the rules and pay the resulting fines.

In fact, last month, a survey by the National Population and Family Planning Commission found that the number of rich people and celebrities having more than one child was on a rapid increase, and nearly 10% of people in this category had three children.

The story also brings to light a fact of which I was previously unaware: the Chinese government prohibits early marriages. In the United States, the oldest marriageable date without parental permission is 19 (Nebraska). In China, men are permitted to marry at 22, and women can tie the knot at 20.

Granted, that’s well below the average age of marriage in most in developed countries, but it’s also a much higher legal age than any other developed nation. This late marriage policy is also becoming increasingly ignored:

But according to [a spokesman for the PRC’s National Population and Family Planning Commission], “early marriages are still prevailing in some parts of the country, especially in rural areas, which goes against the family planning policy”.

Part of the reason why rural families refuse to comply is because of the traditional preference for sons.

Experts say this preference has led to the under-reporting of female births, as well as abortion of female foetuses and female infanticide.

As we have written here before, when mixed with a cultural preference for sons, a maximum child policy can be lethal. Now that the Chinese government has seen that its systems of fines is failing as the economy grows, it will face some tough decisions. While we don’t know whether or not the government will stiffen or loosen its penalties, it is good to see that some families see that no matter what the fine, the value of life and marriage is priceless.