Truth, in love.

Obed Bazikian, Intern

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) recent video stated that “[e]ighty percent of young evangelicals have engaged in premarital sex” and “almost a third of evangelicals’ unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.” This is a staggering statistic, and one which raises some serious questions. Adelle Banks from the Huffington Post sought to address with her recent article. Most central of all, what should the evangelical response be to this erosion of chastity and rise in abortion? 

Evangelical Leaders have stated that “abstinence campaigns and anti-abortion crusades” are not having the same effect anymore. Furthermore, Banks claims the Christian youth are frustrated by the way the church has handled the issue of sex. One can hear that premarital sex is wrong, but that is not satisfying in a culture that is constantly conveying it is good to have sex before marriage. One Christian young mother stated, “The Bible says not to do it, but I think, for most people, they need more than that.…We want to know why. And most of the time folks aren’t prepared to answer the question why.”
 

One answer can be found in the social and medical sciences. The Marriage and Religion Research Institute’s 162 Reasons to Marry contains numerous studies that show those who wait to have sex within marriage are the most fulfilled sexually, emotionally, physically, and even materially than other marital statuses. However, while this truth must be presented, it must also be done in love. In the Gospel of John, Chapter 8, a woman who was caught in adultery is about to be stoned by her accusers, a punishment fully merited under the current Law. When confronted as to whether this punishment should be carried out, Jesus stated, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (NASB). While He had every right to, Jesus did not condemn this woman. Similarly, we might be “right” in our statements to others, but be wrong in our message. However, the truth, when presented in love, will make the difference we truly seek.

Unmarried Baby Boomers Face A Grim Future

MARRI Interns

A recent study on married and unmarried individuals of the baby boom generation paints a dark picture. Researchers at Bowling Green University found that “one in three baby boomers is unmarried.” The overwhelming majority were either divorced or never-married; only 10% were widowed. This is a steep increase of more than 50% since 1980, especially in light of the fact that less than 13% of Americans age 46-64 were unmarried in 1970. In addition to in the number of unmarried adults of the baby boom generation, the marital statuses of these individuals have also shifted over time. “In 1980, among unmarried adults aged 45-63, 45% of them were divorced, 33% were widowed, and 22% were never-married.” According to the most recent figures in 2009, “58% of unmarried boomers were divorced, 32% were never-married, and just 10% were widowed.”
 

As made evident in this study by Bowling Green University, the implications and effects of these figures are significant and dire. Unmarried baby boomers face greater economic, health, and social vulnerabilities compared to married individuals. The study found that unmarrieds were almost five times more likely to live in poverty than married individuals. “Nearly one in five unmarried boomers was poor” compared with just one in twenty of their married counterparts. The research conducted by Bowling Green University confirms much of the research we have already done on the effects of marital status on family outcome, especially on the effects upon children.
 

While the conclusions of this study are in fact significant, it should come as no surprise that unmarried middle age Americans have fewer resources to draw from than do married individuals. They do not have a spouse to offer support, and are less likely to have children to take care of them in their old age. Families are the fundamental foundation of any society; the stronger the couple the stronger the family. If a society is comprised of weak families, society falters. Even for the pragmatic this study has significant implications for our own nation in terms of social security, how we provide health care, and all other social services.

Spirituality and Sexuality: Already on a Campus Near You

Julia Polese, Intern

In Sex and the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Religion and Romance on America’s College Campuses, Donna Freitas examines the interplay between spirituality and sexuality on seven different college campuses across the United States. After conducting hundreds of surveys and face-to-face interviews, she discovered that colleges divided into two categories: evangelical and “spiritual.” The spiritual schools – Catholic, private nonreligious, and public universities – were characterized by a dominant hookup culture and students who considered themselves “spiritual, but not religious.” She noted that while most of the students at these spiritual schools asked sincere questions about truth and a “Higher Power,” they did not believe these questions had anything to do with their sexuality. The evangelical schools presented a different picture. Most students assumed prima facie a picture of their sexuality inextricably linked to marriage and their faith. Their sexual choices were also spiritual (and religious) choices, and chastity was the overwhelming norm and ideal at evangelical colleges.
 

Some students interviewed realized that there must be something off about the hookup culture: many women reported feeling disappointed when a one-night stand did not turn into something more, some men wondered about the effects their choices would have when their decided that it was time to “be in love” and settle down. Freitas’ book is important because it reveals a significant season of habit-formation for many, if not most, young people today. MARRI’s research shows how important the interaction between religiosity and marriage is in sustaining an organized society. If a majority of college students spend four years divorcing questions of their sexuality’s effect on their souls, they form habits of compartmentalization that follow them for the rest of their lives. In Mapping America, MARRI shows how family structure and religious attendance positively affect myriad aspects of life. The integration of marriage and relationship choices and religion and spirituality is of utmost importance, and it is to college students’ detriment if they do not learn to do this in a real way in the most formative years of their lives.

Cohabitation

MARRI Interns

It is vexing professional conduct for a researcher to rigorously investigate the nuances of a social phenomenon and then disregard those well-established facts when offering a prescription.  Yet it was exactly that inexplicable approach to the social sciences that was on full display on the New York Times editorial page last weekend.  In an op-ed entitled “The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage,” clinical psychologist Meg Jay simultaneously displays both a firm knowledge of the effects of cohabiting and an inability to proscribe it. 

The title of the op-ed is itself revelatory of the fact that it is the downside of cohabitation that is newsworthy, since the popular presumption is that cohabitation is either neutral or desirable, but the research explodes these unreflective and unexamined presuppositions.  That research demonstrates that cohabitation is almost unexceptionally harmful for successful, stable marriages and families, as Ms. Jay argues in her op-ed. 

Yet the primary and glaring flaw of this article is its vacillation at the time of offering a prescription to this entrenched problem.  This vacillation is both wanton and willful; the author, preferring defeatist resignation to bold, consistent remedy, demurs that “cohabitation is here to stay.”  That a Slate.com columnist can flippantly generalize that “everyone lives together now before getting married” is understandable, but that a professional relational advisor can express such ideas is borderline insulting to those clients of hers that she has relegated to such irresponsibility.  (Parenthetically, it must be noted that the Slate article is patently wrong when it argues that “the cohabitation effect” which holds that cohabiting couples are less satisfied with marriages has disappeared; research as recent as the 2000s suggests that it still holds true.)  On the contrary, rates of cohabitation correlate with specific behavioral practices; for example, MARRI research shows that only 27.1% of women from intact marriages who worship weekly cohabit before marriage. 

Refusal of commitment is the essence of cohabitation; it is therefore incomprehensible to suggest that cohabitation be somehow reinterpreted to be a “pre-marriage” arrangement.  A far superior prescription that is consistent with the evidence is that clinicians and counselors advise their clients to forego cohabitation and make the real commitment of getting married.

Married Men: The Newest MVPs

MARRI Interns

Yes, perhaps that hulking linebacker can run 40 yards like a cheetah, and yes, perhaps the dexterity and agility of that wide receiver might make a hummingbird hang its head in embarrassed remorse, but the owners of the Jacksonville Jaguars want more important and substantive information about the free agents they scout for positions on their team: “Do they help with the dishes?” The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the new plan of considering free agents’ marriages at signing time is the brainchild of the Jaguars’ new owner, Shadid Khan (the expansiveness of whose vision for the team is rivaled only by the expansiveness of his imposing moustache) who “figured some of the things needed to be a solid player – like staying after practice or putting in extra work – require a stable home environment.”

So the Jaguars are interested in players who are dedicated, mature, responsible, and less likely to be filmed running away from a police car in the middle of the night, not simply more boring denizens of the boring locale of Jacksonville (as some confused and contrarian commentators have cynically said).  Yet it must be admitted that since no real studies have ever been done to prove whether married athletes actually do perform better than single players on the ball field, this new tactic is a gambit.  Nevertheless, if NFL athletes are at all like other employees (or indeed, like other men), then the gambit may actually pay off.  The wealth of marriage literature shows that married men work longer hours, demonstrate more responsible behavior, earn more wages, and are significantly less likely to commit crime or abuse illegal substances than are single men.  Therefore don’t be surprised if you begin to see more wedding rings and super bowl rings on the same hands.

Cheap Sex Isn't Free

Obed Bazikian, Intern

Carolyn Moynihan, of Mercatornet, discusses the sexual revolution and its multiple negative effects upon women. One contemporary writer she highlights is Hanna Rosin, who recently wrote an article for the WSJ, which is based on her upcoming book The End of Men. Rosin explains, “Women no longer need men for financial security and social influence. They can achieve those things by themselves. No one is in a hurry to get married, and sex is, by the terms of sexual economics, very cheap.”

Is sex really “cheap”? Perhaps birth control does not have much monetary cost. Rosin goes on to say, “Thanks to the sexual revolution, they can have relationships—and maybe some drama—through their 20s and early 30s and not get tied down with a husband and babies. If the price is a little more heartache, so be it.” But how do you quantify a “little heartache” and is it really possible to measure the internal and emotional effects that come from broken relationships? Moreover, is that all these young ladies take away from broken relationships? There are numerous social, physical, and emotional consequences of promiscuity. Incurable STD’s is just one of them. The “price” of “cheap” sex is anything but cheap. Often, it has a lifetime price tag.

Moynihan concludes that while there had been problems with “marriage and the status of women in America […], cutting sex adrift from babies and marriage was patently not the solution.” Our culture is constantly pushing women to lower their standards and dreams regarding sex and relationships. Men are encouraged to act irresponsibility and often persuade women to do the same.

There is a reason God designed sex to be within the bounds of marriage. It was not because He did not want us to have fun. On the contrary, He created it to be the healthiest, happiest, and most fulfilling within commitment, and social science research backs this up!

Marriage Still Stands

Obed Bazikian, Intern

The Associated Press (AP) wrote an article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled, “Cohabitation before marriage? It’s no greater divorce risk.”  The article used a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the US National Institute of Health, which sought to discover “trends and group differences” between marital statuses of those aged 15 to 44 years. When analyzing the AP article to the actual study, the article turns out to be rather misleading.

The title the AP used implies that divorce is not more likely for those who cohabitated before marriage than for those who maintained chastity. However, when going to the CDC study itself, this statement is found false. The study examined marriage survival of men and women in 5-year intervals from 5 to 20 years. In every interval, those who did not cohabitate with their future spouse had a greater chance of marriage survival than those who did cohabitate. The probability between these categories is often close in comparison, but the title blatantly misrepresents the facts. It would have been accurate to claim that in some of the year intervals, the difference was statistically insignificant. The study even specifies, “Looking at 20 years duration, women who had never cohabited with their first husband before marriage had a higher probability of marriage survival (57%), compared with women who had cohabited with their first spouse before marriage.”

There are more examples than just comparing the title, and discerning readers should examine both texts. This is yet another example of the media attempting to alter our culture’s perception of marriage, and to make cohabitation more palatable. However, even with their quoted data, marriage still stands. For further critique of the AP’s paper, check out Glenn Stanton’s article in National Review magazine. Also, for numerous publications and research that support marriage, please visit the Marriage and Religion Research’s website.

Individualism in Marriage

MARRI Interns

An increasingly disturbing trend in America today is the growing emphasis and view that marriage is about personal and mutual fulfillment with no essential link to children. Much of this mindset is synonymous with a more individualistic outlook on life. Mercatornet describes the typical individual as believing that marriage is “being there for the other person and helping them when they’re down, helping them get through tough times, cheering them up when they’re sad.” Ricky says, “You know, just pretty much improving each other’s lives together.” In other words, marriage is about mutual help and companionship.
 

While part of marriage is in fact about relationship between two individuals, this definition leaves out the emphasis on children. Mercatornet further found that “young adults’ belief in marriage as commitment and permanence comes with an asterisk: so long as both spouses are happy and love each other.” The growing idea that marriage is simply a union between two people to make each other happy is incomplete. According to Amber and David Lapp, marriage is about something more than simply two separate individuals coming together.
 

According to the Survey of Consumer Finance, the net worth of cohabitating families with children was only $16,540, as opposed $120,250 for intact families (“Child’s Right to Marriage of Parents”). In addition, according to Robert Whelan, Broken Homes and Broken Children, children living in cohabiting homes are also 33 times more likely to suffer serious child abuse than children living with their biological parents (“Child’s Right to Marriage of Parents”).
 

If marriage could not possibly result in children, then it would be fine for individuals to only consider themselves in their future. However, that is clearly not the case. Marriage is not simply the union of two consenting individuals as long as they remain happy; marriage is a lasting bond and commitment that not only includes the man and the woman, but also the children, who together define the family.

Demography: The Russian Case Study

MARRI Interns

Studying the social effects of marriage is seldom without surprise for the researcher because those effects manifest themselves in some of the most unexpected locations.  This dynamic confirms that the family is the foundation of civilization, and a concurring case study of this dynamic is Russia’s declining demography and its significant geopolitical import.

Writing recently in Foreign Affairs magazine, Nicholas Eberstadt of the National Bureau of Asian Research argued: “Over the past two decades, Russia has been caught in the grip of a devastating and highly anomalous peacetime population crisis.”  Yearly deaths in Russia are exceeding new births by 800,000 per year, disease is ubiquitous, and life expectancy is below several developing sub-Saharan African countries. 

According to Eberstadt, one of the many factors contributing to Russia’s decline is “family formation trends,” including sub-replacement-level birth rates and a divorce rate of 56 percent. These family-related factors are substantial in themselves, but a body of research shows that familial stability also correlates to better performance on a number of indicators that are also problematic in Russian society.  A number of the other facts Eberstadt mentions as causes of concern – risky behaviors, educational performance, and public health – have correlatives with familial and marital stability, and the literature suggests that an increase in the strength and stability of familial ties in Russia might go far to ameliorate those problematic factors as well. Indeed, recent MARRI research on the social effects of marriage (and divorce) suggest that only an unfeasibly exorbitant amount of social spending would be able to rectify the social costs of fragmented families. 

While simple reduction of all of Russia’s ills to a function of family structure exclusively would be too myopic, the Russian Case Study confirms the correlation between familial instability and social weakness more broadly, and it demonstrates that MARRI’s research has applicability on both a domestic and an international scale.

Marriage as a Public Good

Julia Polese, Intern

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute is running a series of articles on Public Discourse this week about the follies of a conception of marriage that is exclusively private. Answering slogans like “Get the government out of the marriage business” and “Leave it to the churches” that are popular in some libertarian circles, Morse outlines the public goods of marriage. It is in civil society’s best interest – even the smallest of government, night watchman state-touting libertarian’s interest – to maintain traditional marriage as a public good. As a primary mitigating institution between the citizen and the state, marriage provides a stopgap to the encroaching central government on civil society, maintains order in raising children with a mother and a father, and, moreover, Morse argues, is inextricably linked with the current societal involvement of the state. “The government is already deeply involved in many aspects of human life that affect people’s decisions of what kind of relationship to be in,” she writes. “For instance, government’s policies regarding welfare, health care, and housing have contributed to the near-disappearance of marriage from the lower classes, not only in America, but throughout the industrialized world.”

Despite the difficulties social contract libertarians following John Stuart Mill’s intellectual tradition may have in articulating a justification for the covenant-based institution of marriage, Morse’s argument from protection from encroaching government appeals to such a political theory. Jean Bethke Elshtain explains the role of the family in a democratic society in her article “The Family and Civic Life,” calling on totalitarianism’s interest in destroying the family, a particular, in favor of the state, a universal: “to destroy private life; and most of all, to require that individuals never allow their commitments to specific others – family, friends, comrades – to weaken their commitment to the state. To this idea, which can only be described as evil, the family stands in defiance.” Thus, it is a good sign the state is involved in the “marriage business,” encouraging a civil institution that has its own authoritative structure separate from legislatures and executive branches. Morse argues this point from the problem of parenthood: if marriage disintegrates, the state becomes the de facto parent, becoming literally paternalistic.
 

The Marriage And Religion Research Institute’s research and publications corroborate this theory of the family with social science research. A paper entitled “Our Fiscal Crisis: We Cannot Tax, Spend, and Borrow Enough to Substitute for Marriage” points out the human capital provided by marriage that is essential to a flourishing society apart from the state. It is in the citizens’ best interest for the state to recognize the traditional intact married family and, thus, it should be promoted and upheld.

Marriage and the Economy: There is a link

MARRI Interns

A recent study published by the Brookings Institute on the relationship between marriage and economics overlooks the causal importance of marriage in economic growth.  When discussing the lamentable recent decline in middle class income, the article rightly fingers macroeconomic features as culpable.  But marriage is also a decisive factor in the economic health of families, and the distinction between marriage and macroeconomics is not as stark as might be inferred from this study. “Globalization, technological changes, and changes in labor market institutions” must be accounted for in any diagnosis of the recent global economic malaise, but the omission of marriage from such a study results in a myopic diagnosis and a deficient prescription. 

The Brookings study posits a unidirectional model of causation: macroeconomic stagnation is responsible for the decline in marriage, and macroeconomic stability (not familial stability) is the only solution to the problem: "Rather than focusing on changing values, a more effective approach to addressing both poverty and marriage may be to improve economic opportunities for all Americans." Thus the author of a New York Times article about this study may be forgiven for echoing that same causal logic: "The rich are different from you and me: they're more likely to get married." But this analysis is unidimensional and therefore deficient. The social science data is clear in its insistence that marriage itself improves the economic performance of the partners. A preferable, though no doubt more controversial, headline would read ,"Marrieds are different from you and me: they're more likely to be rich."

Our Fiscal Crisis: We Cannot Tax, Spend, and Borrow Enough to Substitute for Marriage, a recent piece of original MARRI research, highlights the numerous economic benefits of marriage, including a 0.9% increase in income per year for men after they marry. Another piece of original MARRI research entitled The Divorce Revolution Perpetually Reduces U.S. Economic Growth shows that "the rate of change in earnings year over year are consistently higher for men in intact marriages than among single or ever-divorced men." Both of these studies emphasize that the causal link between marriage and economic success is the reverse of that implied by the Brookings study, and those seeking to resolve the nefarious economic straits faced by Americans today embark upon a fool's errand if they continue to ignore these salutary benefits of monogamous, stable marriage.

Can Cohabitation Lead To Fulfillment?

Obed Bazikian, Intern

Marriage Savers President Mike McManus relays in a recent article a talk Pope Benedict XVI gave to United States Catholic Bishops in which he urged them to address the issue of cohabitation. Pope Benedict stated, “It is increasingly evident that a weakened appreciation of the indissolubility of the marriage covenant, and the widespread rejection of a responsible mature sexual ethic in the practice of chastity, have led to grave societal problems bearing an immense human and economic cost."

There is a devaluing of the idea of commitment in our culture that is affecting U.S. couples from pledging their lives to each other. A possible cause for this is the population has become unhealthily focused on themselves. The individual is so elevated over his neighbor or community that if anything endangers personal happiness, it is avoided. Sadly, this has included marriage. However, science has claimed the opposite. One study has shown that “married couples enjoy more relationship quality and happiness than cohabiters.” The modern understanding of personal fulfillment and relationships has blinded us to the reality that in covenant there is actually increased happiness.

Perhaps an analogy can better explain the difference between cohabitation and marriage. If I could hold in hand my life, and then close my hand, I would certainly have and be able to enjoy my life. However, I would be unable to receive anything from others because my hand is closed. I may show at times what is in my hand, but in fear of losing what is mine, I never let go. However, if I was to open my hand and give up my life, only then am I in the position to receive life from another. It is the same regarding cohabitation and marriage. A cohabiter allows a glimpse to their partner, but never fully gives up his life. Only in the true commitment of marriage can one fully and wholeheartedly give and receive life and happiness.

"17 Filles"

MARRI Interns

Raising children is something that is considered to be serious but very rewarding; it is not to be taken lightly. However, a recent movie, 17 Filles ("17 Girls"), by French directors Delphine and Muriel Coulin, demeans and trivializes what it takes and what it means to raise children. The arthouse film is based on the events at Gloucester high school when 17 girls made a pact to all get pregnant and raise their children together. While there was overall displeasure with the events at Gloucester high school, 17 Filles in many ways encourages and glorifies these ambitious young women. The movie depicts the main character Camille as having killer looks and a Mean Girls-ish personality. She convinces the other envious girls that “having a bun in the oven is way cooler than having lots of friends on Facebook.”

Not only does this movie trivialize the responsibilities of raising children, but it also fails to convey the importance of raising children in an intact home. According to R. Rector: Analysis of CPS, in 2001 there were 3.93 million children living in poverty (See "Child's Right to Marriage of Parents"). If those same parents were married, 3.17 million of those same children would leave poverty.

In addition, children living with a never married mother are 4.3 times more likely to get expelled or suspended from school than those living in an intact home. Finally, according to the Adolescent Health Survey, children raised in an intact home achieve significantly higher GPA’s than those living with a never-married mother, 2.9 v 2.5.
 

While single mothers should not be condemned or looked down upon, it is wrong to encourage and praise deliberately raising children without a father and completely dismiss the consequences.