How are marriage and the family fairing these days? Not well
How are marriage and the family fairing these days? Not well
Under the title “An equitable opportunity for children,” The New York Times editorial team suggests four actions to support low-income youth: establish government-sponsored savings accounts for infants, offer universal pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds, “invest more” in the education of disadvantaged children, and eliminate lead water pipes.
Eliminating lead pipes, where it has not yet occurred, is undoubtedly a wise decision. The remaining options could be beneficial or detrimental. However, my argument here is that all four essentially reduce to the well-known principle of the third: “invest more.” Cash is the solution.
The Times editorial board’s compilation mentions nothing — not a single word — regarding the continuing crisis highlighted by these statistics: In 2017, close to 40% of all children delivered in the United States were born to mothers who were not married (whites at 28.4%, Hispanics 52.1% and Blacks 69.4%). In contrast, the overall percentage in 1970 was — when viewed in comparison — a minuscule 10.7%.
Should this increasing pattern of births outside of marriage be overlooked? Research in social sciences has consistently demonstrated that children raised without fathers face a significant risk of experiencing a concerning range of economic, social, and psychological issues. It’s unfortunate that the collective insight of the Times editorial board could not identify any commentary on providing these children “a fair chance.”
However, let’s avoid targeting the Times specifically for criticism. How are marriage and family life doing in America overall these days?
Not particularly well, it appears, as indicated by the statement made earlier this year revealing that the U.S. marriage rate had dropped to its lowest point — 6.5 new unions per 1,000 individuals — since the government began monitoring these statistics in 1867.
But there’s no need to be concerned. Somerville, Massachusetts, has taken action to come to the rescue. In late June, the city council in this community of 80,000 located near Boston voted unanimously to acknowledge polyamorous configurations of three or more individuals as domestic partnerships, endowed with the same rights as marriages. (If the terms “polyamory” and “polyamorous” aren’t familiar to you, the dictionary defines polyamorous as “engaging in or being receptive to intimate relationships with multiple partners.”)
You can’t claim that no one anticipated it. When the Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage five years back, detractors issued a caution. Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts, in his dissent, noted that an “immediate question” brought forth by the ruling of the court majority was whether states that characterize marriage as a union of two individuals would be allowed to uphold that characterization.
Outlandish? Theoretically, Roberts indicated, “the truly significant jump” is from marriage as a partnership between two individuals of differing sexes to marriage as a partnership between two individuals of the same sex. The transition from that point to marriage as a connection involving more than two individuals is relatively straightforward. “If the majority is prepared to make the significant jump,” he noted, “it is difficult to understand how it can reject the shorter one.”
Indeed. The Somerville city council has paved the path. Can we now anticipate that The New York Times editorial team will advocate for polyamory?
However, let’s not conclude on a negative tone. Patrick Fagan of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute is a social researcher who has examined and published works on marriage and family for years. In a recent brief essay, Fagan remarked that the “intact married family that worships God weekly” would become the “recognized foundation” of a new society expected to emerge from the remnants of the one that currently seems to be swiftly breaking down. Let’s hope he is correct.
Russell Shaw is a contributing editor for Our Sunday Visitor.
