Candidates and the family
Janette "Jan" C. Borst - Emporia
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
PRESIDENTIAL candidates of both parties stress the ills our society currently faces and how they would correct them. The war, affordable and accessible health care and concerns about an economic recession are issues addressed in every speech. These and other worries are then related to the future being created for our children.
However, one ‘cure’ that would improve millions of children’s futures — AND that of their parents — is a simple one that I’ve not heard discussed: that is promoting, improving and supporting healthy, long-term marriage.
Whether liberal or conservative, social scientists recognize that a well-functioning two-parent family in the context of a satisfying marriage is the best environment for rearing healthy, happy, achieving children. Statistically speaking, marriage is the only social structure that lowers the poverty rate for both adults and children. When parents divorce or choose not to marry in the first place, child poverty is three times higher than of that of married parents.
Compared to those growing up in a one-parent home or with parents who have not married, children who grow up in an intact two-parent home have two to three times lower truancy and school dropout rates and are more likely to attend college or other post-secondary education. They are two to three times less likely to use or abuse alcohol or drugs, become sexually active at an early age, acquire a sexually transmittable infection or be involved in a teen pregnancy and two-thirds less likely to be involved in criminal activity. They are less likely to be abused physically — and especially sexually — and less likely to observe or live with adult domestic violence. Overall they have better mental health and fewer emotional problems. Further, they are more likely to have a happy, long-term marriage of their own in the future. These facts make a strong argument for married parents.
While research findings have proven the above again and again, one must admit that a happy, intact marriage cannot provide a 100 percent guarantee for producing healthy kids. We know that even the best marriages might have children who fail. Likewise, some children reared in one-parent homes flourish. Also, some living within highly dysfunctional homes under deplorable conditions transcend them to live full, enriched lives. However, all things being equal, it is clear the odds highly favor children who spend their youth in an intact, married couple home.
This is important to note when one considers that 60 percent of our children today are in homes without both their biological parents. In some inner city neighborhoods the rate is 80 percent or higher.
If one is still not convinced that marriage should be encouraged and supported in order to benefit our youth, then consider that marriage is good for adults. Good marriage helps adults live longer and healthier lives. Statistically (again) non-married women have a 50 percent higher mortality rate than married women. For unmarried men, the mortality rate is a whopping 250 percent higher compared to married men. Married couples are better off financially than singles or non-married couples as they accumulate more wealth over their lifetimes — 12-30 percent by most estimates. Married persons suffer less depression and mental illness and have lower suicide rates. Married women are three times less like to experience domestic violence compared to unmarried women whether they are single or cohabiting. And the icing on the cake: compared to singles and cohabitors, married persons report more and better sex! All in all, married persons rate their lives twice as satisfying as the unmarried.
So I argue that marriage is more than just a piece of paper and that all family arrangements are not equally beneficial to children. Moreover, today’s young adults who were children of divorce know these truths and are committed to doing better by their own future children. Many of them understand marriage is not all bliss, they will not live every day ‘happily ever after.’ Instead of romanticizing about having a perfect marriage all the time, they are more realistic about enduring some conflict, some low points, while striving to have a ‘good enough’ marriage most of the time.
In 2006 as Congress passed the annual budget and also reaffirmed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, they included President Bush’s request for $150 million in grants to states and organizations for the promotion of healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. The President proposed an additional $100 million per year funding. Currently scores of programs are functioning with this financial support. Two primary goals are 1) preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock births and 2) encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
It is my wish that our presidential candidates will recognize what many believe; that is, as the family goes, so goes the country. And especially if they are as concerned about our children’s and grandchildren’s futures as they say, they will recognize and acknowledge the importance of strong families, particularly the benefits to children of growing up in a married, two-parent home.
Jan Borst in an instructor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Emporia State University. Among her other duties, she teaches classes in marriage and family.
dml (anonymous) says...
Well put, Jan.
Hillary got it wrong the first time she was in the Whitehouse. She thought it took a VILLAGE to raise a child when in fact it takes a FAMILY!
March 5, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DeniseDDorcey (anonymous) says...
In fact, Barack Obama speaks in almost every one of his speeches about the importance of families; mentioning the partnership aspect. He especially focuses on the necessity of parents turning off the TV, computer, Nintendo, etc. and helping their children with homework, reading and just spending time together.
March 5, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
As the child of divorced parents, I totally agree! Kids need a stable home environment with both parents supporting the children and each other. We have a toddler and can't imagine trying to raise him alone. I feel for all single parents out there. Sometimes the partner just up and walks off and leaves the other one hanging; I know several people where this has happened. If society would focus more on marriage and family and less on the wonders of single life and sex, we'd be much better off. TV shows are really bad about that. How many shows are about stable families vs. single people running around getting busy? When I was in school it was shameful to get pregnant. Now it's accepted. And girls barely in their teens are having babies! What kind of mother can a 13 year old really be? The grandparents end up raising the child but apparently didn't get some message through to their kid if they were having sex already. It's a vicious cycle.
March 6, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Mike Huckabee was on MSNBC this morning, sort of processing out of the presidential race. He was asked about his focus on family and values in the campaign. One of the things he mentioned was the cost, in monetary and poltiical terms, of the growing dissoultion of the American family. The costs are high - drug abuse, crime, domestic violence and the growing sense on the part of America's youth that they really aren't wanted. One of the startling things that Huckabee said was that it costs American taxpayers more to keep someone incarcerated for a year than it would to provide a college education for a young student who wants to do something with his or her life. But, we have so many who don't go to college and become productive adults because of the breakup of the family. Instead, they take a path to drug abuse, crime, etc.
That's one of the reasons values do matter to us all. The current downward spiral, if unchecked, will take us all under.
March 6, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pollyanna (anonymous) says...
Whatever: Sorry for your childhood, and I'm glad your mom had the strength to get out of the bad situation her marriage was in. Many women can't/don't have the courage to get out.
That being said, I think your words were harsh in respect to the article. Never did the author advocate staying in an abusive/unhealthy marriage. In fact, the words I continually read were.. "healthy long-term marriage, well functioning-two parent family, satisfying marriage, happy intact marriage." I can't see how you are claiming the author is advocating staying in an unhealthy situation. The facts about marriage and family are all there, look them up yourself.
I work every day with teens and talk to them about some of these critical issues, primarily teen pregnancy and early sex. In every class I talk to I ask several questions, one of which is "why do you think so many young kids today are sexually active?" In every class I've talked to I hear several things over and over.. "they are looking for love" or "no parents at home or parents who don't care what I do". It is very sad and heart breaking to see in the eyes of our youth the desperation they feel to be loved, secure and valued. That kind of love, security and value primarily should come from a family. Granted there are all sorts of successful families out there doing it right day in a day out, but I could never refute the fact that a healthy marriage and home environment is the ideal situation for our kids.
March 7, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whatever (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
March 7, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, it was startling what Huckabee said about how it costs more to incarcerate someone than educate him. But we have to break into that path to destruction early on. The question is how to do that without it becoming a social nightmare.
Your comments are right on target, Pollyanna, especially about the reasons why youngsters become sexually active so early. Looking for love and validation is probably pretty high on the list. I can't help but recall the young girls who got involved with the sex predator who was on trial last year here. It seemed so easy for him to attract his targets.
Remember what JFK did for the Peace Corps and his "Ask what you can do for your country..." idea? Imagine what a new president can do for this country by presenting family stability as part of his focus. If we can have a Peace Corps go out to the rest of the world to work, why not a similar corps to work here with families? I know, I know, we have churches and agencies now. How's that working for us?
March 8, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )