18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." .....
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:18, 21-24)

Nothing has changed! Let's see the facts.

1. MARRIAGE - THE HEALTHY CHOICE
While debate on the role and importance of marriage has been raging for years overseas, in New Zealand such debates are not so frequently heard. International research reveals various ways in which marriage is beneficial to society and individuals, including more than 100 years of research that shows married people have better physical health, on average, than unmarried. Married people get sick less often and tend to live longer than single or divorced people. Emerging research also suggests it is likely there are health differences between those who are married and those living in de facto relationships.

There are three main reasons offered for these health differences. One is that married couples' long-term mutual investment in each other encourages healthy habits and discourages unhealthy ones. Unlike those in more casual relationships, married couples expect to rely on each other in the long term for childcare and financial support, so they are more likely to take an active interest in each other's health. While people living together in de facto relationships may also benefit from this to some degree, statistics show that on average marriage lasts longer than de facto relationships. Therefore, accumulated health benefits are not as significant over time outside of marriage. Secondly, married couples generally accumulate more wealth and this is associated with better health, due to improved diets, and a greater ability to visit doctors and dentists and to take out medical insurance. There is also a link between relationship quality and physical health. Married couples tend to have higher quality relationships than those in less formal relationships, often because of the added security that comes from long-term mutual commitment.

Internationally, sceptics who question the benefits of marriage have argued that marriage does not cause better health for adults-or any other associated advantages observed for the married-but that healthier and wealthier people are more likely to marry, therefore ensuring that they will continue to have the best health over the long term. The weight of social science evidence, though, does not support this view. This is because long-term research shows health advantages for married couples accrue after they marry; they are not evident beforehand. Similarly, after divorce, physical health tends to deteriorate, which indicates there are a number of factors associated with marriage that lead to better health. The fact that there are many social and taxpayer costs related to ill health reminds us that marriage is not only personally beneficial, it is a social good as well, not just for individuals, but for the whole community.

Source: Maxim Institute Real Issues No. 263

2. WOMEN OF FAITH AND WORLD VISION
100,000 children in need have been sponsored

World Vision President thanks national women's conference in Seattle for reaching milestone

By Michael Ireland
Chief Correspondent, ASSIST News Service

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (ANS) -- According to the latest numbers released by World Vision, 3 million children benefited from sponsorship worldwide in 2006, including 850,000 who are supported by people in the United States.

At a national conference on June 30, World Vision US President Rich Stearns thanked Women of Faith for making a huge statement for children in need around the world by announcing that Women of Faith had reached the 100,000 milestone in child sponsorships.

In an average weekend conference, 300-400 children are sponsored for World Vision. At this most recent Women of Faith Conference, held in Seattle's Key Arena, more than 1,200 children were sponsored, resulting in a record 15 percent response rate and helping Women of Faith reach the goal of 100,000 children sponsored. More than 3.4 million women have attended over 275 Women of Faith events held in more than 70 cities across North America.

Featured at this year's event were Christian author Max Lucado, singer Nicole C. Mullen and author Carol Kent. Max Lucado is also the Senior Minister at Oak Hills Church in Texas. Lucado made a special child sponsorship appeal to those attending the Seattle conference. Many of the featured speakers at the event have gone on World Vision trips, including their most recent trip to Kenya in January, which was Women of Vision's fifth trip with World Vision.

At the conference, Rich Stearns presented Women of Faith with a small replica of the World Vision Jesus Statue on display in front of World Vision Headquarters in Federal Way, Washington. The statue shows Jesus tenderly holding a child and offering a loaf of bread to the hungry. World Vision works in 100 countries, helping approximately 100 million people every year.

World Vision has been a ministry partner for the past ten years and to date they have impacted more children than any single sponsor group. The theme of this year's conference: "Amazing Freedom," the kind of freedom Jesus talks about in John 8:26, "So if the Son makes you free - you are truly free."

World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families and their communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice. World Vision serves all people regardless of a religion, race, ethnicity, or gender. For more information, visit www.worldvision.org.

3. MONEY CAN'T BUY YOU HAPPINESS, SURVEY FINDS - FAMILY CAN!
Herald Sun (Australia) July 02, 2007

CHILDREN, friends and pets are more likely to make us smile than a big wad of cash, according to a new survey. The ACNielsen survey for Centro Properties Group, which runs the Smile with Centro survey in conjunction with a photographic competition, polled 1471 Australians to find out what made them smile. The saying that "money can't buy happiness" was confirmed in the survey which revealed 94 per cent of Australians rated factors other than money as things that make them smile most, Centro Properties Group spokeswoman Lisa Charter said.

The survey found that children and babies made 33 per cent of people smile, followed by family and friends (28 per cent), then pets and animals (22 per cent), nature (8 per cent), while money only made 6 per cent of Australians smile, she said. Dr Timothy Sharp from the Happiness Institute said the results indicated people gained more happiness from relationships. "It (smiling) is a natural human expression that elevates the senses and boosts the level of serotonin in the brain," Dr Sharp said. "The findings support my theory that happy people have more and better quality relationships than those who don't smile, because it is an important non-verbal sign we give to others as a way of sharing and eliciting positive emotions," he said.

READ MORE - http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22002315-662,00.html

4. CHORES MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN
Many Americans are concerned about the increasing rift between marriage and raising children, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Centre. Even though marriage rates and people's perceptions of the value of marriage have changed, most people surveyed were concerned about the number of children born to unmarried parents and the majority still believed that a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up happily.

However, people in the survey did not prioritise children in the answers to all questions. The number of people who indicated that children were very important in a marriage has declined from 65 percent in 1990 to 41 percent today. Also, while having children was ranked number three on a list of nine priorities that make a successful marriage in 1990, today it ranks second to last, behind factors such as "sharing household chores," "adequate income" and a "happy sexual relationship." The survey also showed that 65 percent of respondents believed the main purpose of marriage was the mutual happiness and fulfilment of the spouses while 23 percent thought the main purpose of marriage was making a union for bearing and raising children. The remainder of respondents believed that the main purpose of marriage was both or neither of these options.

Although this survey shows that Americans still think that marriage is important for children and, in the abstract, that it is best for people with children to be married, this does not seem to filter down into their personal actions or into what they view as priorities for marriage. Overall it seems there has been a cultural shift in the way Americans view marriage; while the family used to be viewed more as a unified whole, today it appears to be viewed in a more compartmentalised manner. Marriage is important to most people, as are children, but not necessarily in the same way that they used to be. Because marriage is associated with a range of benefits for children, and divorce can place children at risk in many ways, the challenge for the future will be to help equip people with the tools to make their aspirations for marriage a reality and to realise the centrality of children in such a vision.

Source: http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/Marriage.pdf

5. MARRIAGE STILL IN VOGUE
According to new figures released by A C Nielsen this week, New Zealanders still value marriage. The survey looked at 500 participants from New Zealand, as part of an international study on marriage and relationships, and found that there is still a strong appreciation for marriage in New Zealand, with 58 percent of participants considering marriage as one of their lifetime ambitions. It was also found that a large amount of support exists for cohabitation, as 64 percent of New Zealanders surveyed were of the opinion that a "stable, long-term relationship" was of equal value to a marriage.

There is a danger in placing this kind of faith in cohabiting relationships. A number of studies exist on the substantial differences between marriage and cohabitating relationships. The commitment to marriage offers far greater family stability, even after taking into account socio-economic factors. This research tends to show that those in cohabiting relationships are generally less committed, and therefore the relationships have a tendency to break down more often, regardless of how ‘stable' they appear to be. Some studies suggest that a connection exists between commitment and levels of depression, with lower levels of depression found in those who are married, due to the committed and permanent nature of their relationship.

It is promising that within our society, respect can still be found for the value of marriage. This report shows that stability and commitment are still considered to be of high worth, a fact that should persuade us that marriage needs to be sought after and encouraged. (Source: Maxim Institute Real Issues 8 March 2007)

6. 'DADLESSNESS' A LEADING CAUSE OF SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION
The Social Justice Research Group's landmark report, Breakdown Britain: Interim Report on the State of the Nation, continues to stir debate, as British politicians increasingly begin to recognise the importance of marriage as a social glue, and the marriage rate in Britain reaches historic lows.

The report's emphasis on dissolution, dysfunction and "Dadlessness" continues to be controversial with some deriding it for daring to argue that these are leading causes of poverty, educational failure, intergenerational relationship instability, delinquency and teenage pregnancy.

The survey data collected showed that poverty and indebtedness were the most concerning factors for families in distress, and family breakdown clearly contributed to this. After a divorce, women were, on average, 18 percent worse off financially; men by 2 percent. The report shows that family dissolution not only contributes to higher poverty rates, it also leads to further family breakdown. Children whose parents divorced generally had a lower socioeconomic base and less stable relationships in adulthood, which increased the possibility that they too would divorce. Further, children whose parents separated, or whose parents had had children in their teens, were more likely to be teenage parents themselves, thus continuing the poverty cycle.

This report adds weight to a growing body of international research indicating that a father's absence is often associated with risks for children's development. Research shows that active father involvement matters a great deal to children, even after taking income, a mother's involvement and various other demographic variables into account.

The authors of this report are bravely tackling a thorny political issue. In society's attempt to protect parents and children who have suffered family breakdown from feeling any kind of offence, we are skating dangerously close to saying that dads don't really matter. It is time we had the courage to face up to the consequences of relationship dysfunction. If we do not, children will continue to miss out. (Maxim Institute Newsletter - Real Issues - 242)

You may read the full report at...

http://povertydebate.typepad.com/home/files/volume_2_family_breakdown.pdf

7. CRIME IN NEW ZEALAND CAUSED BY THE SOLO MOTHERS BENEFIT
Crime escalated in the seventies, and while many factors have contributed to this increase, the research clearly shows that the key factor was the decline in marriage and the rise in illegitimacy: “a lack of married parents, rather than race or poverty, is the principal factor in the increase in crime” (Rising Illegitimacy: America’s Social Catastrophe, by Patrick F Fagan, Heritage Foundation 1994).

For well over a decade, policy makers have known that paying women to have children outside of marriage - substituting welfare for husbands - will lead to an increase in crime. Yet rather than change the system, most MPs and political parties have continued to support the status quo.

The reason is, of course, that they are afraid of a backlash if they suggest that the Domestic Purposes Benefit should be changed. Even though its use has been dramatically altered over the years – it was introduced to support women to move out of violent relationships but is now largely being used to fund girls and women who have never been married to raise children - the DPB has always been the sacred cow of welfare.

State sponsored illegitimacy is the root cause of crime and the public should start demanding reform. Given politicians are unwilling to change the failed system they have created, it is up to the public to force the issue.

Sensible Sentencing is a voluntary organisation that is committed to making New Zealand a safer country. They are doing this by building community support for their cause (see their webpage at http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/). Their founder, Garth McVicar is the NZCPD Guest Commentator this week. In his opinion piece he laments an appalling lack of leadership by the Prime Minister: “There have been seven murders in the first two weeks of 2007. Have you seen our Prime Minister on TV condemning this lawlessness, encouraging the police, rallying the community, guiding us…giving us hope for a better future?” (Click the sidebar link to read the article>>>).

It is long past time that the Prime Minister and government acknowledged that New Zealand’s thirty-year social experiment of trying to replace fathers with a welfare cheque has not only failed, but has created disastrous unintended consequences.

Source: Newman Weekly 22 January 2007

8. UNSOCIAL WORK HOURS 'DAMAGE 9 IN 10 FAMILIES'
By Amy Iggulden
(Filed: 18/09/2006)

Children are missing out on crucial time reading, playing and eating with their parents, according to a study published today that reveals nine out of 10 families suffer from unsocial working hours.

Eight out of 10 working fathers and more than half of all working mothers are forced to work outside the hours of 8am-7pm, Monday to Friday, says a report from the National Centre for Social Research.

Family time together eating, reading and playing are fundamental for a child's healthy development says the Relationships Foundation

Family life is being irrevocably damaged because few parents ever make up the time lost, the study of 11,000 people found.

Mothers working unsocial hours are losing eight hours a week with their children, while a third of working fathers are losing more than 15.

Only 17 per cent of families had a parent working the "normal" nine-to-five week.

"We must take collective responsibility [because] we are depriving children of time with their parents," said Michael Clark, the chief executive of the Relationships Foundation, a partner on the study.

"Parents of school-age children should be guaranteed one weekend day off a week."

The study, entitled Working atypical hours: what happens to family life?, claims to offer the first detailed glimpse of how unsocial hours affect families in Britain.

It found that in nine out of 10 families in which both parents work, at least one parent was forced to work late into the evening and at weekends.

For children aged eight to 10, this meant a reduction in the amount of time spent practising reading and playing games, the report said, while children from 11 to 13 spent "significantly" more time on their own. However, 14- to 18-year-olds with parents working unsocial hours spent time socialising with friends rather than doing homework.

Children of all ages ate less regularly with their parents, particularly where the mother worked unsocial hours.

Three out of four families have a parent who works weekends, but the large majority of mothers were dissatisfied with the situation, with 78 per cent unhappy about working Sundays.

"We know that family time together and activities such as eating, reading and playing together are fundamental for a child's healthy development," said a summary of the report by the Relationships Foundation.

"This makes it highly likely that unsocial work as it stands. . . could have a significant detrimental effect on children. Children are clearly suffering.

"Working patterns of parents could have a long-term effect on the sustainability of our society."

Leading charities backed the report and called for wider debate into the effect of unsocial working hours on children's development.

Sarah Jackson, the chief executive of the charity Working Families, said the long working hours culture was in danger of stunting children's creative growth. "The unsocial hours people are working is having a definite impact on family life," she said.

"The pendulum of importance and values seems to have swung away from families and towards work, which means children's development suffers.

"Perhaps we are in danger of raising a generation of workers who are not as creative as employers want."

The children's charity NCH said better structures for coping with a 24-hour economy needed to be created.

Clare Tickell, the charity's chief executive, said: "We need serious thought about how we can meet the very strong responsibilities we have towards bringing up children in the 24-hour economy, because it isn't going to change."

The new research follows a warning from more than 100 academics and experts last week that childhood is being poisoned by the insidious influence of junk food, marketing, over-competitive schooling and electronic entertainment.

Their intervention prompted The Daily Telegraph to launch its Hold on to Childhood campaign.

The Children's Society is today launching The Good Childhood Inquiry into the state of modern childhood, and released research which said children value family and friendship more than money and material goods.

A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said it was providing a series of measures to help parents, including extending maternity pay to 39 weeks; extending the right to request flexible working hours for carers of adults from April next year; and offering new rights to paternity leave.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3G0JOB1SS1WZVQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/09/18/nhours18.xml

9. THE REAL ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENT CRIME: THE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY (OVERVIEW)
by Patrick F. Fagan - The Heritage Foundation

OVERVIEW
• Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers .
• State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime .
• The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.
• The mother's strong affectionate attachment to her child is the child's best buffer against a life of crime.
• The father's authority and involvement in raising his children are also a great buffer against a life of crime.

RACE AND CRIME
... a closer look at the data shows that the real variable is not race but family structure ... The incidence of broken families is much higher in the black community.

CRIME STARTS EARLY
Teenage criminal behavior has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy . Future delinquents invariably have a chaotic, disintegrating family life. .. This hostility is established in the first few years of life. By age six, habits of aggression and free-floating anger typically are already formed.

2-PARENT FAMILIES NOT IMMUNE
... the incidence of delinquent behavior was higher in intact homes characterized by a high degree of conflict and neglect than it was in broken homes without conflict. ..the lack of emotional attachment to parents is more strongly related to delinquency than is an intact home. &Breakup of his parents' marriage during the first five years of his life places a child at high risk of becoming a juvenile delinquent.

HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
... the real work of reducing violent crime is the work of rebuilding the family . Instead, thanks to policies that do little to preserve the traditional family and much to undermine it, government continues to misdiagnose the root cause of social collapse as an absence of goods and services. This misdiagnosis is government's own contribution to the growth of crime. Having misdiagnosed, it misleads .

CONCLUSION - AND A WARNING
Despite the good news that overall crime rates have dropped in recent years, the frightening news is that both the level and viciousness of teenage violent crime have been rising steadily. More ominous still, this was set in motion sixteen to eighteen years ago, when these violent teenagers were born into chaotic family and social conditions. Since then these conditions have become more prevalent, and we will see a continued rise in violent teenage crime. Furthermore, America is headed toward a 50 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate sometime in the next twelve to twenty years, inching more and more of the country closer to today's inner-city illegitimacy rate. If this trend is not reversed, Americans must prepare for extensive and serious erosion of public safety and practical freedoms.

Full Article - http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm

10. TEACHERS 'HAVE LOST COURAGE TO TACKLE BAD BEHAVIOUR'

By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent - The Times - London

Rod Morgan: "Most children like a reasonably structured existence and many don't have it" (ALEX BENWELL)

THOUSANDS of children are ending up in court because teachers and care home workers are afraid to discipline them for bad behaviour, the head of the Government’s youth justice quango says today.

The police are increasingly being called in to deal with behaviour that only a few years ago would have been handled by staff in schools or residential care homes.

Speaking to The Times, Rod Morgan, chairman of the Youth Justice Board, says that it is time to confront the political correctness in schools that prevents teachers from disciplining pupils in the way that they used to — in part because they fear that parents will challenge them and even take legal action.

Mr Morgan goes on to give warning that the consequences of lone-parent families and the absence of male role models are increasing the number of young children who no longer know how to behave.

“What many young children lack are any sort of boundaries being set to their behaviour so that literally they don’t know how to behave properly. There has not been a role model to explain things and to set boundaries. Most children we know like a reasonably structured existence and many don’t have it,” he said.

Mr Morgan, a former professor of criminology, is urging the Government and local authorities to take action to give teachers and care home workers the confidence to deal with bad behaviour and minor acts of criminal damage themselves rather than calling in the police.

He said that, without change, increasing numbers of young people would be drawn into the formal criminal justice system, a trend that has accelerated since Labour came to power. Between 35,000 and 40,000 young people are today being prosecuted in front of magistrates. Ten years ago many would have been punished informally outside the courts.

“What magistrates are telling us is that many young people are coming before the youth courts who, in their judgment, don’t need to be [there].

“In children’s care homes what we are finding is that many children who are committing minor acts in residential accommodation, minor acts of criminal damage or have thrown a punch at a fellow child or member of staff — the police are more and more being used as a disciplinary back-up force for ill-supported and ill-trained residential staff.”

Mr Morgan’s comments come as official documents show that the care home linked to the murder of Damilola Taylor had a record of violence and absconding. Daniel Preddie, then aged 12, was staying at the Abbey Street home in Bermondsey, East London, when he escaped and, with his brother Ricky, 13, went on to kill Damilola. Reports by the inspectors of Southwark Council, shown to The Sunday Telegraph, gave warning that children regularly absconded from the home, “knowing that staff were not allowed to use force to stop them”.

Mr Morgan blames changes in demographics and the rise in the proportion of lone-parent families, particularly those headed by a woman, for the problems.

“We know that the proportion of families where young parents — often mothers bringing up a child alone without the presence of a male role model and a father present on the scene, and without the support of an extended family — are having to cope with more and more challenging child behaviour in fairly deprived areas.”

He said that some children were being raised in homes without even the most basic discipline being imposed, such as instructions about what time they should be up or back indoors. That behaviour presented serious problems in schools, where teachers’ confidence was undermined by the threat of being taken to court or by parents who have no regard for authority.

“I think teachers, for example, are increasingly concerned about litigation, about the fact that more and more parents are less deferential to the teacher or authority. They are reluctant to use traditional disciplinary methods. As a result police are increasingly being called in.

“This has to be confronted. Teachers have to be supported to explain the need for boundaries, to enforce boundaries, but to do it in a manner which remains inclusive and to do it in a more assertive manner for those parents who may collude with their own children’s bad behaviour or not fully comprehend the consequences of their children’s behaviour.”

Young offenders

# The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales was set up by Jack Straw when Labour came to power with the job of overseeing the justice system for juveniles in England and Wales

# It works to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people under the age of 18, and to ensure their safe custody. Its budget in 2005 was £377,000

# The board has been chaired by Rod Morgan since 2004. It advises the Home Secretary on the operation and standards of the youth justice system. It also purchases custody and remand places for children and young people

# Mr Morgan, a father of three, was Reader and Professor of Criminal Justice at Bristol University between 1989 and 2001 before becoming Chief Inspector of Probation in England and Wales and then chairman of the YJB

11. MARRIAGE STATISTICS FROM GREAT BRITAIN
***More than 40% of marriages end in divorce. The number of divorces granted in England and Wales in 2004 was 153,399. More than half of these couples had at least one child aged under the age of 16

***Nearly one in two children in the UK are born to unmarried parents, compared with one in eight in 1980. Some 2.3 million children (26%) currently live in lone parent households, compared with 15% in 1986

***The median duration of marriages ending in divorce is a little over 11 years. The average cohabitation relationship (not ending in marriage) is a just 39 months.

***One in four single women aged 18 - 49 are living with a man to whom they are not married

***Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe. In 2002 legally induced abortions were carried out on 3,514 girls aged 15 or under (nearly 1,000 were aged 14 or younger)

***The percentage of births outside marriage continues to rise. In 2004, 42.2 per cent of births were outside marriage, up from 41.4 in 2003

***In 2004, more than 500 legally induced abortions were carried out in England and Wales EVERY DAY - a total of 185,400. (82% were funded by the NHS)

***In December 2004 around 100,000 people were living in temporary accommodation. Family breakup was cited as the main cause.

***A child whose mother is living with a partner (not the child's father) is 33 times more likely to be exposed to abuse than a child living with its natural parents who are married

***5,000 children every week suffer the pain and anguish of a broken home. 4,000 children call Childline every day

The relentless erosion of our quality of life in Britain is, we believe, a result of family breakdown and the abandonment of Christian family values. Social problems such as Domestic violence, Dysfunctional Families, Drug and Alcohol dependency, Anti-social Behaviour, Abuse and Homelessness often have their roots in family breakdown. The evidence is all around us.

Family breakdown is estimated to cost the British taxpayer £16 billion every year, but even this staggering figure pales to insignificance when we count the social cost. Behind the statistics lies human misery on a grand scale - and it reaches into all corners of our society.

Source: http://gnfc.org.uk/

12. THE FATHERLESS GENERATION
Newman Weekly is a weekly article by Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Debate, a web-based forum at www.nzcpd.com for the lively and dynamic exchange of political ideas.

This week, concerns over youth gangs and violence have hit the headlines. It is a problem that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in many towns and cities throughout the country.

The debate over what can be done has ranged widely from more council amenities for young people, making education more relevant and improving after-school activities, to more pro-active truancy monitoring, more effective parenting, greater coordination between social agencies, and better policing.

While suggestions on what should be done to improve the situation have been free flowing, little has been said about the underlying causes of the problem. The reason is that it is no longer considered to be politically correct to discuss issues relating to personal responsibility, the home and the family. Yet the reality is that these are at the heart of the problem: children raised in stable, loving families, are more likely to join sports teams, rather than gangs.

Any discussion with police or those who work with troubled youth will quickly identify that the largest proportion of them come from homes where their biological father is absent: children raised in families without a father, where there is inadequate supervision and a lack of socialisation, are far more likely to become involved in anti-social behaviour and crime, than those raised with a dad.

Chief Youth Court Judge, Andrew Beecroft, in a speech at Parliament a few years ago identified six characteristics of serious youth offenders: “85 percent are male, the majority have no contact with their father, 80 percent do not go to school and have chronic drug or alcohol addictions, most have psychological or psychiatric issues, and 50 percent – up to 90 percent in some courts – are Maori”.

He explained that many of these boys have no adult male role model: “14, 15, and 16 year-old boys seek out role models like ‘heat seeking missiles’. It’s either the leader of the Mongrel Mob or it’s a sports coach or it’s Dad. But an overwhelming majority of boys who I see in the Youth Court have lost contact with their father. …What I’m saying is that I’m dealing in the Youth Court with boys for whom their Dad is simply not there, never has been, gone, vanished and disappeared”.

Judge Beecroft went on to say: “…every single young boy that we have dealt with has been abused as a child”.

This is why I am so passionately opposed to public policy and practice that encourages family breakdown and excludes biological fathers. A biological father is a child’s traditional protector. Removing him from the lives of his children leaves them extremely vulnerable to abuse, neglect and failure.

That is not to say that every child being raised without a dad that ends up in trouble, or for that matter that every child raised in a loving two parent household by their biological parents, turn out to be little angels. But, on the balance of probability, children raised without their natural father, will face greater difficulties in life, than children brought up with their dad to love, guide and protect them.

In 1990, Dr Daniel Amneus, Professor of English at California State University, in his book The Garbage Generation put it this way: “Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families”.

He then went on to say: “If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what we must do is reduce the number of female-headed families; what we must do is prevent the divorce courts from expelling half of society's fathers from their homes; what we must do is terminate a welfare system which displaces millions of men from the principal male role, that of family-provider. What we must do is make the father the head of the family”.

Here in New Zealand over the years, our policy makers have steadfastly ignored that wisdom. Instead, driven by a feminist agenda, which seeks to create equality for women by undermining men, society has now reached a sorry state: taxpayers are funding a hundred thousand women and girls to struggle to raise their children on their own, there is an epidemic of tens of thousands of abused children, and there is now an escalation in youth gangs and violence.

Boys are falling further and further behind at school now that we have taken away an external examination system that encouraged them to strive and excel. Men are finding themselves excluded from more and more of the professions like teaching that used to largely be their domain. Increasing numbers of fathers are being alienated from their children by our female-biased family court. Dads and grandfathers up and down the country are now afraid to hug and kiss their children in public.

It has all gone too far, and the sooner we return to some balance and common sense, the better.

To turn the situation around, we need to realise that New Zealand society is stronger when men and women both play an equal role, and that it is not in anyone’s interest to marginalize either. Further, we should be encouraging and supporting strong and committed families by removing the incentives in the welfare system and in family law that have lead to the massive undermining of the family.

13. THE PERSONAL BENEFITS OF FAMILY LIFE
Despite controversies over what the "family" is, there is considerable evidence about what the consequences of family life are for individuals. For instance:

* Between 1973 and 1981, Yankelovich found that about three-fourths of Americans interviewed claiming that family life was their most important value.

* Studies of the various life spheres Americans report as being sources of a "great deal of satisfaction" consistently show family life being the most important.

* Married individuals are healthier than their never-married, divorced, and widowed counterparts, according to the CDC report "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2002." Marriage increases life-expectancy by as much as five years. James Goodwin and his associates (Journal of the American Medical Association 258:3125-3130) found in their analyses of 25,000 cases listed in the New Mexico Tumor Registry, which tracks all malignancies in the state, a higher percentage of married people survive cancer at nearly every age (see "Health and Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Family: U.S., 1988-90" from the Centers for Disease Control (pdf format))

* In Lewis Terman's famous longitudinal study of gifted California children (n=1,521), begun in 1921 with follow-ups every 5 or 10 years, it was found that those whose parents divorced faced a 33 percent greater risk of an earlier death (average age at death=76 years) than those whose parents remained married until the children reached age 21 (average age at death=80). According to Dr. Howard Friedman, who did the analyses, there was no such mortality effect for children whose parents had died (cited in Daniel Goleman. 1995. "75 Years Later, Study Is Still Tracking Geniuses." New York Times [March 7]).

Source: http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/family.html

14. CHARTING PARENTHOOD: A STATISTICAL PORTRAIT OF FATHERS AND MOTHERS IN AMERICA
The great majority of Americans will become parents at some point in their lives. The statistics presented in this volume suggest that for the vast majority of parents, raising children is a central focus of their lives.

But how much do we know about the experience of parenting in America today, about the decisions and actions of fathers and mothers, even about the planning (or lack thereof) that precedes conception and childbearing? Where previous efforts have focused largely on the experiences of women and mothers, Charting Parenthood greatly expands our understanding in these areas by bringing men systematically into the picture and offering the best available data that include both men and women, fathers and mothers, for more than 40 indicators of parenting, fertility, and family formation. When men and women are both considered we find that, in some critical areas, their views and experiences diverge, while in other areas there is surprising agreement.

The data also provide important insights into the value men place on family life and childrearing, and on the multiple contributions that fathers can make to the lives of children. These insights suggest that many men have a deep commitment to raising children in the context of marriage, and that substantial percentages of fathers are deeply and regularly involved in play, discipline, and primary caregiving. For example:

* Most fathers who live with their children participate regularly in some kind of leisure or play activity with them. While mothers are more likely to do "quiet" activities (reading a book or doing a puzzle, for example), fathers are more likely to play an outdoor game or sports activity. Very high levels of both fathers and mothers report talking at least once a week with their children about their family.
* Substantial percentages of fathers who live with their children are engaged in monitoring their children's daily activities and in setting limits on these activities. For example, 61 percent set limits on what television programs their children are allowed to watch.
* Men are much more likely than women to believe that two parents are more effective at raising children than one parent alone.
* More than one in five young children in two-parent families have their father as the primary caregiver when the mother is at work, attending school, or looking for work.
* While 40 percent of children whose fathers live outside the home have no contact with them, the other 60 percent had contact an average of 69 days in the last year.

We highlight below some of the key findings in each of the three major sections of this volume: parenting, family formation, and fertility. Unless otherwise specified in this summary, "parents" refers to mothers or fathers that live with their children.

PARENTING
The Value of Raising Children. Americans place great personal value on raising children. Most adults, whether or not they are parents, believe that watching children grow up is life's greatest joy (78 percent of men and 83 percent of women in 1994).

Parental Warmth and Affection. Very high percentages of parents reported showing their children frequent warmth and affection, with 87 percent of mothers and 73 percent of fathers reporting that they hugged their children or showed them physical affection at least once a day. Similarly high percentages reported telling their children daily that they love them.

Time and Activities With Children. The vast majority of mothers and fathers report sharing responsibility with each other for playing with their children, with mothers less likely than fathers to report that playing was a shared responsibility. There are, however, domains in which mothers and fathers tend to lead. Mothers are more likely to engage children in activities like board games, puzzles, and looking at books; while fathers are more likely to play sports or do outdoor activities with children. Mothers are also more likely to be highly involved in their children's schools, perhaps reflecting different employment patterns and work hours between mothers and fathers. Adolescents also report that they are more likely to attend a religious observance with their mother than their father.

Setting Limits and Administering Discipline. Both mothers and fathers are substantially involved in setting limits for their children in various areas, with mothers somewhat more likely than fathers to report setting limits for their children on how much television they can watch (48 percent of mothers and 40 percent of fathers); on what programs they can watch (71 percent of mothers and 61 percent of fathers); and on who their children can spend time with (51 percent of mothers and 40 percent of fathers). The vast majority of mothers and fathers report sharing responsibility with each other for disciplining children, with mothers less likely than fathers to report that discipline was a shared responsibility.

Daily Time With Children. Children generally spend more time with their mothers than their fathers on any given day, possibly reflecting higher levels of employment among fathers than mothers. In two-parent families, this time difference is not terribly large: children ages 12 and under spend on average 2 hours and 21 minutes a day with their mothers, compared to 1 hour and 46 minutes with their fathers. In single-parent families, in contrast, children spend about one and a quarter hours a day with their mothers, compared to less than half an hour with their fathers, presumably reflecting the fact that more children in such families live with single mothers than fathers.

One Parent Versus Two. Men and women differ on whether one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together. In 1994, 42 percent of women agreed that one parent can bring up a child just as effectively as two parents together, compared to just 26 percent of men. Interestingly, mothers and fathers were about as likely as nonparents to agree, though in neither case did a majority believe that one parent could bring up a child as effectively as two parents together. As public debate continues on issues related to single parenthood, it would be both interesting and helpful to obtain more recent data on this question.

Primary Care by Fathers. In 1996, almost one in five children ages birth to five (18 percent) had their fathers as their primary caregivers while their mothers were working, attending school, or looking for work. Such father care was more common for children in two-parent families than for those raised by a single mothers. The likelihood that a father provided primary care also varied by the father's educational level, with college-educated fathers much less likely to provide such care.

Physical Abuse of Children. A small proportion of parents self-report ever having physically abused their children, defined as having hit the child with a fist or kicked the child, thrown the child or knocked them down, choked or burned the child, or used a knife or gun against the child (6 percent of mothers and 3 percent of fathers).

Contact with Nonresident Parent. Most children with a parent who lives apart from them have at least some contact with that parent: 60 percent had contact with a nonresident father and 78 percent had contact with a nonresident mother in 1997. These children were in contact an average of 69 days with their fathers and 86 days with their mothers over the course of a year.
Family Formation

Marriage. The percentage of men and women who are married declined modestly between 1991 and 2001. This trend was also evident among parents: 92 percent of resident fathers were married in 1991, compared to 88 percent in 2001; 75 percent of resident mothers were married in 1991, compared to 72 percent in 2001.

Poor men and women were the least likely of any income group to be married, with the proportion married increasing as income increases. For example, 41 percent of poor men were married in 2001, compared to 66 percent of men with incomes at three or more times the poverty level. The marriage gap was even wider for women. Only about one in every three poor women is married, while about two of every three women with incomes at three or more times the poverty are married. This difference undoubtedly reflects both the more advantaged backgrounds of those who marry, and the advantages of having multiple earners in the family that marriage can bring. The percentage of poor men and women who are married has also been declining over the decade.

Divorce. The vast majority of men and women who were married in 1996 had never been divorced (81 percent of men and 82 percent of women). Between 1990 and 1996, the percentage of ever-married adults who divorced remained about the same among men and declined modestly for women. The likelihood of divorce among ever-married men differs little by poverty status. Among ever-married women, however, poor women are much more likely to have been divorced than more affluent women.

About half of all men and women agreed with the statement that "divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can't seem to work out their marriage problems." Only 20 percent of men and 12 percent of women thought that parents who don't get along should stay together when there are children in the family. Women's views on this question did not vary according to whether or not they were married or had children. In contrast, fathers were more likely than men who were childless to think parents should stay together for the children's sake.

Cohabitation. While marriage has declined slightly, cohabitation has increased. Eleven percent of unmarried men cohabited in 1991, rising to 13 percent in 2001. During the same period, the percentage of unmarried women who were cohabiting increased from 8 percent to 11 percent. Cohabitation is more common among poor men and women, declining markedly at higher income levels. Overall, 40 percent of all cohabiting relationships involve parents with children in the home.

FERTILITY
Birth Rates. Overall, birth rates among men and women have declined modestly since 1980. However, this modest decline was not consistent across age groups. Between 1980 and 1999, birth rates among men and women at older ages (ages 30 and older) have increased, while birth rates among female teens have declined.

Age at First Birth. One in three females had their first birth in their teens, with females three times as likely to be teen parents than males (33 percent compared to 11 percent in 1992). In contrast, almost half of males reported that their first birth occurred after age 25, compared to one-quarter of females.

Premarital Births. The percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had a premarital birth prior to their first marriage is slightly higher among women than men: 19 percent compared to 15 percent in 1992 (the most recent year for which data are available for both men and women). This gender gap is much wider for younger adults. Women ages 18 through 24 are more than five times as likely as men in the same age group to have a premarital birth (21 percent compared to 4 percent). In general, poor adults were more likely than other adults to have had a premarital birth.

Age at First Sexual Intercourse. Among adults ages 18 to 59 in 1992, 55 percent of men and 43 percent of women reported having their first sexual intercourse before age 18. (These percentages may well have changed in ensuing years.) Age at first sex varies tremendously by education. Women college graduates are much less likely to report having had sex before age 18 than women without a high school education (21 percent compared to 67 percent). The gap for men is similar, though less dramatic - 39 percent and 64 percent.

Contraceptive Use. Younger adults are more likely than older adults to report using any method of contraception at first sex, indicating that contraceptive use at first sex has increased over time. For both males and females, contraceptive use at first sex increases with educational attainment.

CONCLUSION
This pathbreaking report brings together important information on fathers and mothers, including many new analyses produced specifically for the report. While available data leave important gaps in our understanding of these issues, federal statistical agencies are making important efforts to fill many of those gaps. Even with current limitations, however, the report extends our understanding of fatherhood in particular and parenting as a whole, and provides a hint of what might be accomplished in the future.

SCOURCE: http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/charting02/executive.htm

15. CHILDREN IN FAMILIES IN THE USA
Background measures, such as family structure, the marital status of mothers, the nativity of children and their parents, and air quality, tell us about the context in which our Nation's children live.

In 2002, 72.9 million children under age 18 lived in the United States and represented 25 percent of the population, down from a peak of 36 percent at the end of the baby boom in 1964. Children are projected to be 24 percent of the population in 2020.

Family structure is associated with the economic, parental, and community resources available to children, as well as their overall well-being. On average, living with two parents who are married to each other is associated with more favorable outcomes for children both through, and independent of, the higher income that characterizes these families.1 In 2003, 68 percent of children under age 18 lived with two married parents,2 down from 77 percent in 1980. However, the percentage has remained stable since 1995, ending a long-standing downward trend.

While the majority of children live with two married parents, 32 percent do not. In 2003, 23 percent of children lived with only their mothers, 5 percent lived with only their fathers, and 4 percent lived with neither of their parents (Figure 1).

Family structure is also affected by a mother's marital status at the time of birth. In 2002, just over one-third (34 percent) of all births in the United States were to unmarried women, up from 32 percent in 1995. In part, this recent increase mirrors the fact that there are more unmarried women ages 15-44 than ever before.

In contrast, the birth rate among unmarried women reflects changes in childbearing within this group. In 2002, there were 44 births per 1,000 unmarried women ages 15 to 44 (Figure 2). While the overall birth rate among unmarried women has changed little since 1995, there are important differences by age. The birth rate for unmarried teenagers has declined by more than one-fifth since 1994. Meanwhile, birth rates for unmarried women ages 20 and older continue to increase, though much less rapidly than in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Children with foreign-born parents may need additional resources at school and at home as a result of language and cultural barriers confronting both the children themselves and their parents. The percentage of children with at least one foreign-born parent rose from 15 percent in 1994 to 20 percent in 2003.

Among all U.S. children, 15 percent have a parent who has not received a high school diploma. This percentage rises substantially among children who are foreign-born or have at least one foreign-born parent. In 2003, 43 percent of foreign-born children with at least one foreign-born parent and 34 percent of native children with at least one foreign-born parent had a parent with less than a high school diploma, compared with 10 percent of native children with native parents.

The environment in which children live, such as air quality, plays an important role in their health and development. In 2002, 34 percent of children under 18 lived in areas that did not meet one or more of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards,3 up significantly from 19 percent in 2001. Over the past decade, this percentage has fluctuated between 16 percent and 34 percent.

Source: http://childstats.gov/ac2004/pop.asp

16. TIPS ON MARRIAGE FOR LIFE
If marriage is to be a part of intrinsic faith, a lifelong commitment, what does that mean in practice?

1. We must accept living in conflict with our culture; accept living out of style. Commitment to marriage runs counter to the pursuit of self-satisfaction in many instances.

2. Our marriage must become a chief occupation, rather than just a status. We have to think about our marriage: What is happening between my spouse and I? Are we becoming emotionally distant, or is conflict rising to uncontrollable proportions? What should we do about it? Are we experiencing joy and pleasure together? Marriage requires periodic evaluation.

3. Along with evaluation comes adjustments. When it is clear that adjustment must be made, we have to be willing to do whatever is necessary. That means that sometimes we have to sacrifice something we feel is valuable: possibly a job, time doing something we like, or a relationship. Phrases like, "go for it", and "you have to be happy yourself" have come to represent what people believe in today. Sacrifice isn't a word that you hear a lot. But it is more relevant to marriage as the Bible defines it. I'm reminded of my father, who several years ago decided to end a satisfying and enjoyable career in business to become a full-time caretaker for my mother when she developed serious, chronic health problems. He has never regretted it.

4. Marriages have to be protected. We have to limit, avoid, or give up anything that would threaten the marriage. For some, it may mean giving up golf, going to the bar with single friends, or working with a co-worker who is getting too close. It is easy for other things and relationships to become more attractive than marriage at times. Marriage isn't just loving. It is parenting, paying bills, and caring for property as well, all of which can become mundane and draining.

5. Love for spouse must be developed. Love is an investment in a person. This is best demonstrated by Christ's relationship with people. We must be willing to invest time and effort in our spouse, providing what they need rather than what we want to give them. Love doesn't come so much from the attractiveness of an individual as it does from what you invest in them. Each person has their own unique needs, and we need to know what our spouse's needs are. When people "fall out of love", they have usually stopped investing in their mate.

6. Forgiveness is essential. We inevitably fail and do wrong things. Because of the intensity of the marriage relationship, one spouse can fail another in a big way, and many times over. How often and for how bad a failure should we forgive? How often and for how bad a failure has Christ forgiven us? Of all things necessary for lasting marriage, I believe this is the most critical. We must be willing to recover from hurt without resentment.

top

God intended marriage to show us our limitations.

Among other things, I think God intended marriage to show us our limitations, make us dependent on him, and to focus our minds on enduring truths rather than the whims of contemporary society. The possibility that maybe more than one out of two marriages still endures is a hopeful realization. Yet, even a 25% failure rate is cause for concern, especially when it appears that younger people must deal with less favorable odds. Perhaps the numbers serve to remind us that marriage is not easy. Marriage is like a long mountain bike race. I never feel like I have mastered a course when I'm done. I am acutely aware of my limitations, my need for sustenance, and I'm thankful that I have finished. Marriages endure or come to an end for reasons. We need to devote ourselves not just to our spouse, but to those things that make marriage last.

Greg Swenson, Ph.D.

17. DON'T BELIEVE THE (US) DIVORCE STATISTICS
WHY YOUR MARRIAGE HAS BETTER THAN A 50/50 CHANCE
Half of all marriages end in divorce. We know this to be true because people tell us. The media report it. Your pastor might preach it. Your friends talk about it. As one expert puts it, the statistic has become "part of American folklore."

But it's a lie. Repeat after me: Fifty percent of all marriages do not end in divorce.

If it's untrue, why won't that flawed statistic go away? Because, truth be told, no one can come up with the right statistic.

Recent research suggests that one marriage in four is closer to the true divorce rate. The 50-percent myth originated a couple of decades ago when someone looked at marriage and divorce numbers reported by the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of divorces in one year was precisely half the number of marriages. Voila! Half of all marriages end in divorce. Right? Nope.

With this kind of math, we also could reason that everyone born this year also will die this year. After all, the number of births each year roughly equals the number of deaths. The flawed reasoning is obvious: A lot of people are alive who neither were born nor died this year. You very likely are one of them. Similarly, the divorce statisticians forgot to figure in the marriages already in existence, of which there are, oh, tens of millions.

"The media, frankly, tend to use a lot of information without ever challenging what they use," says researcher George Barna, author of The Future of the American Family (Moody). So the media can shoulder much of the blame for propagating an inaccurate statistic. But why don't more people challenge it?

"Many people have a vested interest in accepting it as fact," Barna says. "Preachers use it to awaken people in their churches as to how bad things are. Those who have been through a divorce may use it to rationalize what they personally have experienced. And, from a spiritual perspective, the lie is always more intriguing than the truth."

But is it a lie? Or just one of many ways to interpret the figures?

"In one sense it is true," says Scott Richert, assistant editor of The Family in America, a journal published by The Rockford Institute. "If you look at all marriages that took place last year, about 45 to 50 percent will eventually end in divorce." He draws that conclusion based on the fact that the annual ratio of divorces-to-marriages has been about one in two for more than a generation.

"There's been a slight downward trend in the past several years," Richert says, "but basically that number has been consistent since no-fault divorce began in 1970."

But remember, we're talking about two groups of people. Richert's statement doesn't necessarily contradict Barna's, because Richert is talking about new marriages and Barna is talking about all marriages. Among the 55-and-older population, for example, marriages are quite stable. Most marriages that fail do so before the partners reach their mid-40s.

Confused? Don't feel bad.

"This is all complicated stuff," says William Mattox, senior researcher for the Family Research Council and a regular contributor to USA Today. "Some statistics are clean and neat and easier to understand, and some are not."

And according to Richert, "There's really no good, national figure. You'd have to go to every county in every state and check court records on marriages and divorces. No one has had the time or the funds to do a study like that."

TELLING PEOPLE THAT 3 OUT OF 4 MARRIAGES SURVIVE LIFTS SOME OUT OF THE DOOM AND GLOOM.

Barna's research may be the best recent attempt at finding the true divorce rate in America. His group surveyed 3,142 randomly selected adults and found that 24 percent of adults who have been married also have been divorced. The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 1 to 2 percent.

The wording here is important: "adults who have been married." Don't fall prey to well-meaning statisticians who go to the other extreme and say the divorce rate is less than 10 percent. Their answer is based on the Statistical Abstract of the United States, which shows the divorce rate as 4.7 people per thousand. That's per thousand adults in general—married, divorced, never married and widowed. So the figure doesn't tell you anything.

Closer to the mark, but still not all that helpful, is a National Center for Health Statistics figure showing 20.7 divorces per 1,000 married women. Again, that can be an apples-to-oranges comparison because the statistic includes all women who have ever been married—including those who are currently widowed or divorced.

"These figures aren't percentages," Richert cautions. "People get confused and say, 'Oh, this is a lot lower than 50 percent.'"

So we'll settle on roughly 25 percent. Still, that's nothing to brag about. And, as Richert indicated, the rate is rising as the older, more stable marriages die off. In the years ahead, a 50-percent divorce rate isn't unthinkable.

"If enough factors held constant for long enough, it probably would get close to 50 percent," Barna says, though he's not ready to concede that we're close to that yet. And neither is Mattox.

"Is there any truth to this statistic? Perhaps," he says. "But it's a very misleading statistic and very dangerous. It contributes to a mindset in our culture that divorce is inevitable. And it may have become a self-fulfilling prophecy."

The result, Mattox believes, is disrespect for the institution of marriage. Couples casually decide to try this marriage thing for a while, and if it doesn't work out, no problem. We only had a 50/50 chance going in, right?

"Someone who enters into the institution with that kind of regard for it is much more likely, when a crisis comes along, to think, 'time to bail,'" Mattox says.

Here's the really bad news: Barna finds that the divorce rate among born-again Christians (27 percent) and fundamentalist Christians (30 percent) actually is higher than the rate for non-Christians (23 percent). And yes, his survey asked if the people had been divorced before or after they became Christians. Eighty-seven percent said "after."

"A person's faith doesn't seem to have a lot of effect on whether they'll get divorced," Barna says. "Even among born-again Christians, most don't exhibit attitudes or behaviors any different than non-Christians."

Those numbers, once publicized, met with only mild surprise. "That's the milieu they live in," Barna says. "Either they've been through a divorce or they know someone who has. It's no longer the shocking reality that it was 30 or 40 years ago."

Again, these statistics should be explained. Barna's group asked belief-oriented questions to categorize people. Mattox says regular church attendance might be a better indicator of religion's effect on marital stability, since about 80 percent of Americans consider themselves Christians and about 40 percent say they're born again.

So, America, we have a problem. We also have some ammunition. Go out and challenge the one-in-two doomsayers with the truth. Tell your friends. Tell your pastor. But do it with compassion for the 24 percent, or whatever the actual number is, who have divorced. As Mattox points out, divorce still carries a certain amount of societal shame, especially for Christians.

And yet, telling people that three of every four marriages won't end in divorce sure lifts some of the gloom and doom.

"To me," Mattox says, "that puts things in a better perspective. It should offer people more hope."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Killam is a free-lance writer and journalism instructor at Northern Illinois University.

Copyright © 1997 by Christianity Today International/Marriage Partnership Magazine.
Summer 1997, Vol. 14, No. 2, Page 46

18. BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS JUST AS LIKELY TO DIVORCE AS ARE NON-CHRISTIANS IN THE USA
BARNA UPDATE
September 8, 2004
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=170

(Ventura, CA) - Recent legislation, lawsuits and public demonstrations over the legality of gay marriage are just one battlefront regarding the institution of marriage. A new study released by The Barna Group, of Ventura, California, shows that the likelihood of married adults getting divorced is identical among born again Christians and those who are not born again. The study also cited attitudinal data showing that most Americans reject the notion that divorce is a sin.

Based on interviews with a nationally representative sample of 3614 adults, the Barna survey focused on the three-quarters of adults 18 years of age or older who have been married at least once. The study identified those who had been divorced; the age at which they were divorced; how many divorces they have experienced; and the age at which the born again Christians had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Comparing the ages when divorced adults had accepted Christ and when they underwent their divorce, the researchers were able to determine both the impact of one’s faith commitment on the resilience of the marriage and whether the divorce occurred before or after their born again commitment. The survey also examined whether people believe that divorce is a sin in situations where adultery is not involved.

MORE THAN ONE-THIRD CALL IT QUITS

Among all adults 18 and older, three out of four (73%) have been married and half (51%) are currently married. (That does not include the 3% who are presently separated from their marriage partner.) Among those who have been married, more than one out of every three (35%) have also been divorced. One out of every five adults (18%) who has ever been divorced has been divorced multiple times. That represents 7% of all Americans who have been married.

The average age at which people first dissolve their initial marriage tends to be in the early thirties. Among people in their mid-fifties or older, the median age of their first divorce was 34. Among Baby Boomers, millions more of whom are expected to get a divorce within the coming decade, the median age of the first divorce is currently 31. The Barna Group expects the average age of a first divorce among Boomers to be similar to that of the preceding generations by 2015, as the aging members of that generation sustain divorces later in life.

The research revealed that Boomers continue to push the limits regarding the prevalence of divorce. Whereas just one-third (33%) of the married adults from the preceding two generations had experienced a divorce, almost half of all married Boomers (46%) have already undergone a marital split. This means Boomers are virtually certain to become the first generation for which a majority experienced a divorce.

It appears that the generation following the Boomers will reach similar heights, since more than one-quarter of the married Baby Busters (27%) have already undergone a divorce, despite the fact that the youngest one-fifth of that generation has not even reached the average age of a first marriage.

CHRISTIANS HAVE SAME INCIDENCE OF DIVORCE

Although many Christian churches attempt to dissuade congregants from getting a divorce, the research confirmed a finding identified by Barna a decade ago (and further confirmed through tracking studies conducted each year since): born again Christians have the same likelihood of divorce as do non-Christians.

Among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.

George Barna noted that one reason why the divorce statistic among non-Born again adults is not higher is that a larger proportion of that group cohabits, effectively side-stepping marriage – and divorce – altogether. “Among born again adults, 80% have been married, compared to just 69% among the non-born again segment. If the non-born again population were to marry at the same rate as the born again group, it is likely that their divorce statistic would be roughly 38% - marginally higher than that among the born again group, but still surprisingly similar in magnitude.”

Barna also noted that he analyzed the data according to the ages at which survey respondents were divorced and the age at which those who were Christian accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. “The data suggest that relatively few divorced Christians experienced their divorce before accepting Christ as their savior,” he explained. “If we eliminate those who became Christians after their divorce, the divorce figure among born again adults drops to 34% - statistically identical to the figure among non-Christians.” The researcher also indicated that a surprising number of Christians experienced divorces both before and after their conversion.

Multiple divorces are also unexpectedly common among born again Christians. Barna’s figures show that nearly one-quarter of the married born agains (23%) get divorced two or more times.

The survey showed that divorce varied somewhat by a person’s denominational affiliation. Catholics were substantially less likely than Protestants to get divorced (25% versus 39%, respectively). Among the largest Protestant groups, those most likely to get divorced were Pentecostals (44%) while Presbyterians had the fewest divorces (28%).

IS DIVORCE A SIN?

Although Bible scholars and teachers point out that Jesus taught that divorce was a sin unless adultery was involved, few Americans buy that notion. Only one out of every seven adults (15%) strongly agreed with the statement “when a couple gets divorced without one of them having committed adultery, they are committing a sin.” A similar percentage (16%) moderately agreed with the statement. The vast majority – 66% – disagreed with the statement, most of them strongly dismissing the notion.

Faith perspectives made a difference in people’s views on this matter – but not as much as might have expected. Born again adults were twice as likely as non-born agains (24% vs. 10%) to strongly affirm this statement. However, a majority of the born again group (52%) disagreed that divorce without adultery is sin. Three-quarters of all non-born again adults (74%) disagreed with the statement.

A majority of both Protestants (58%) and Catholics (69%) disagreed that divorce without adultery involved in the commission of sin.

There was no difference in point-of-view on this matter across the generational groups. The largest difference among subgroups of the population was between blacks and whites. Just half of the black segment (49%) disagreed with the survey statement compared to seven out of ten white adults (70%). Hispanics were in-between those extremes (64% disagreed.)

NO END IN SIGHT

Barna stated that there is no end in sight regarding divorce. “You can understand why atheists and agnostics might have a high rate of divorce, since they are less likely to believe in concepts such as sin, absolute moral truth and judgment. Yet the survey found that the percentage of atheists and agnostics who have been married and divorced is 37% - very similar to the numbers for the born again population. Given the current growth in the number of atheists and agnostics, and that the younger two generations are predisposed to divorce, we do not anticipate a reversal of the present pattern within the next decade.”

RESEARCH METHODS

The data described in this report are based on nationwide telephone interviews conducted by The Barna Group with a random sample of 3614 adults, age 18 or older, between January and August 2004. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample of adults is ±1.9 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The maximum sampling error associated with the 1468 born again Christians interviewed is ±2.6 percentage points; with the 2147 non-born again adults, ±2.2 percentage points; with the 1246 Baby Busters, born between 1965 and 1983, ±2.9 percentage points; with the 1275 Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, ±2.9 percentage points; and with the 829 elder adults, born 1945 or earlier, ±3.5 percentage points.

People in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of those individuals coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. population. The data were subjected to minimal statistical weighting to calibrate the survey base to national demographic proportions. Households selected for inclusion in the telephone sample received multiple callbacks to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of qualified individuals.

“Born again Christians” were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made “a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today” and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “born again.” Being classified as “born again” is not dependent upon church or denominational affiliation or involvement.

The Barna Group, Ltd., and its research division (The Barna Research Group), is an independent cultural analysis and strategic consulting firm located in Ventura, California. Since 1984, it has been conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, bi-weekly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna web site (www.barna.org).

Copyright Disclaimer: All the information contained on the barna.org website is copyrighted by The Barna Group, Ltd., 1957 Eastman Ave. Ste B, Ventura, California 93003. No portion of this website (articles, graphs, charts, reviews, pictures, video clips, quotes, statistics, etc.) may be reproduced, retransmitted, disseminated, sold, distributed, published, edited, altered, changed, broadcast, circulated, or commercially exploited without the prior written permission from The Barna Group, Ltd.

19. TOGETHER THROUGH THICK AND THIN: A multinational picture of long-term marriages
Sharlin, Kaslow and Hammerschmidt (2000) conducted a unique study of nonclinical couples from eight countries (United States, Canada, Israel, Chile, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and South Africa) who had been married (or living together in the case of Sweden) for at least 20 years. Apart from making cross-cultural comparisons, the researchers had a number of aims reflecting their family therapy orientation. These were: to identify which attributes of lasting marriages contribute to their capacity to weather the inevitable marital storms; to examine how various socio-demographic variables (such as ethnicity, religion, culture, and socio-economic status) influence couples; and to inform practitioners of ways in which marriages can be supported and improved.

The total of 610 couples married (or living together) for between 20 and 46 years was obtained largely via the authors' networking. Almost all couples were over the age of 45 years and were approaching either the empty-nest years or retirement. The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study due to their sample being largely middle to upper-middle class, although the findings suggest that long-term satisfying marriages are not dependent on wealth.

Unlike the other studies discussed in this paper, participants were not interviewed. Rather, they completed an extensive battery of questionnaires covering each person's family background, relationship history, parents and marital relationships, ratings of marital adjustment, problem solving, communication, reasons for staying married, and ingredients for marital satisfaction. Early in their analyses the researchers determined that there was no need to structure comparisons according to sample characteristics since the differences in the samples across countries were small and unimportant.

At least some aspects of creating and maintaining lasting and satisfactory marriages appear to be independent of culture or geography. Love, mutuality and sharing emerged as bases of the respondents' long-term marital satisfaction, and a number of qualities such as mutuality of trust, respect, support and give and take, sharing of values, beliefs (including religion), interests, philosophies, fun and humour, all arose consistently across cultures.

Motives for staying together at the time of their interview clearly revolved around commitment to the marital partnership and love for their spouse, whereas when times were tough staying together for the children and honouring the commitment to the lifelong partnership were prime motivators. In a further comparison of three of the motives (the reason for selecting these three in particular is not explained) it emerges that children play a role in warding off divorce when couples are unhappy, while lifestyle and love are less important. At the other end of the spectrum, extremely happy couples stay together out of their love for their partner; lifestyle and love are important for very happy couples; and children, lifestyle and love are salient motivators for happy couples.

An unassailable belief in and commitment to the institution of marriage and to their spouse was especially apparent with respect to why couples stayed together during difficult times, and in the majority of cases this commitment was underpinned by their religious affiliation and beliefs. In referring to very difficult times in their relationship, most couples, whether currently happy or unhappy, reported that honouring their commitment to a lifelong partnership and their sense of responsibility towards their children were the prime reasons for seeing the marriage or relationship through the stressful periods. Satisfied couples also cited the motivating power of their love for their spouse or partner, but for dissatisfied couples forces external to the couple such as children and religious beliefs exerted greater influence on their decision to remain in the marriage.

That the rankings of ingredients for relationship satisfaction and the motives for staying together during difficult times were very similar across nations contributes further to the notion of the universal nature of the attributes of lasting marriages. In addition, satisfaction with the marriage was predicted in all countries only by various couple relationship quality variables (such as closeness, communication, affection expression etc), whereas overall life satisfaction was predicted by dimensions such as employment, length of marriage, health, and economic status, as well as closeness.

Even though respondents' marriages had been maintained for very long periods, couples were not unaware of some deficiencies in their relationship. Couples' rankings of the desired ingredients of their relationship were quite different from those they regarded as currently extant in their relationship. Components of relationship dynamics reflecting the original declaration of love, and the behaviours that contribute to intimacy were endorsed as ideal relationship characteristics that were to some extent deficient in their relationship: patience and understanding, mutual sexual fulfilment, and sensitivity and consideration for spouse's needs.

Sharlin, S. A., Kaslow, F. W., and Hammerschmidt, H. (2000). Together Through Thick and Thin: A Multinational Picture of Long-Term Marriages. New York: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.

Taken from Robyn Parker http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/parker2.html

20. FOR KEEPS: MARRIAGES THAT LAST A LIFETIME
In a larger study than the others described above, Alford-Cooper (1998) collected data on 576 couples whose marriages were intact after 50 years or more. Concentrating on a single geographic region, Long Island, New York, Alford- Cooper gathered information spanning key stages in the couples' lives, from their early courtship through marriage, parenting and growing old. From questionnaires, information pertaining to a range of marital dimensions was gathered, including the factors they thought contributed to their marital longevity, and a subset of 60 couples were also interviewed extensively.

During interviews, Alford-Cooper gathered the couples' life stories - how they met and married, how they dealt with difficulties and obstacles, how their relationships had survived. She also asked the interviewees their views on the younger generation and the advice they would give to young marrying couples.

Over half (56 per cent) of the spouses described themselves as very happily married and a further 37 per cent reported being happily married. Almost all (99 per cent) reported that when they married they thought it would last, but they had no other specific expectations of marriage. Love had kept many couples together, but unhappy couples had remained bonded through their children. Significantly, although 21 per cent of all spouses had at some time contemplated the failure of the marriage, divorce simply 'wasn't an option' (p. 134), either because of their deeply held beliefs that divorce was unacceptable, or because they had no resources or support networks on which to rely. For many spouses, little or no support for a decision to divorce was likely to be found among their own family. Some reported incidents where they had returned to their parents' home only to be immediately sent back to their spouse.

When the 576 couples were asked which of eight relationship characteristics had helped them stay together, three groups of characteristics emerged. The first comprised the three most frequently endorsed characteristics: trust (82 per cent), loving relationship (81 per cent), and willingness to compromise (80 per cent). The second group comprised mutual respect (72 per cent), need for each other (70 per cent), and compatibility (66 per cent). The third group comprised children (57 per cent), and good communication (53 per cent). When asked to add any other characteristics, spouses most often added sense of humour. They also tended to have similar attitudes towards marriage, with high levels of agreement about the sanctity of marriage and the need for fidelity and commitment.

While financial pressures prevented some women and men from leaving the marriage, for many their interdependence and sense of shared history deflected them from taking the necessary steps towards divorce. One of the components of the bond that helped to keep some couples together was their willingness to give more than they received. How much each spouse was giving or taking at any point in time was seen to be flexible and couples acknowledged that rarely was the balance equal. But where this willingness was missing, or too one-sided, there was little to bind the couple beyond obliga