More on the Children of divorce growing up

Maggie already linked to this Newsweek story on the Children of Divorce growing up. I was struck by how this story put a human face on so many of the statistics we talk about on this site. For instance, Research shows that children in stepfamilies have a unique set of emotional problems. Overall, their emotional health is more like the children of unmarried mothers than the children of married couples.

Laurie Gelardi's folks split when she was 3, and within a few years they'd married other people. From the outset, her relationship with her father's new wife was fraught. The way she saw it, her stepmother "didn't really care for him having a child from a previous marriage," says Laurie, who spent summers with them in San Francisco, where her dad was a Teamster. The rift worsened after her father and stepmother had a child, and Laurie felt she could never get any alone-time with him. "When I was about 13, I had a pretty big conflict with his wife one day when he was at work," she says. "I basically told him, 'I don't want to be with her, I don't come here to see her, and I don't want to come here anymore if you're going to make me stay with her while you're working.' And he said 'Fine.' That was probably the one and only time we had a serious conversation about the situation." Things weren't much better with Laurie's stepfather (it was her mom's third husband; her second had died when Laurie was 5).

And I read the ending of the article slightly differently than Maggie. While I don't like the fatalism implied in "the divorce was probably for the best," I didn't read the ending as 'upbeat.' I read more that the adult children of divorce are very forgiving of their parents. This corresponds to what I have observed in my travels. Young people want to forgive their parents. I find it inspiring, actually.
Read more at my blog.
posted by Jennifer Roback Morse at 6:29 PM | link

What's the matter with civil unions?

By David Benkof

Some opponents of same-sex marriage have agreed to civil unions or domestic partnerships - some enthusiastically, some with hesitation - in hopes of forestalling same-sex marriage. And I understand and respect that approach as an acknowledgement of the political reality that there may be no other way to prevent the legal redefinition of marriage.

But I'm not sure those of us in the traditional camp have spent enough time exploring the pros and cons of societal recognition and privileges for same-sex couples that resemble those of marriage, albeit with another name.

Personally, I oppose any governmental benefits for two individuals based on the fact that they have gay sex with each other. I am an Orthodox Jew, and in my religion same-sex relations are considered deeply immoral. I don't want my tax dollars spent to reward people for engaging in behavior my religion abhors.

But wait - you might think, "Civil unions for gays and lesbians are not about sex, they're about love!" Oh, really? I love my brother. I know two straight men in a close, non-sexual relationship who love each other. But the gay community isn't proposing that my brother and I qualify for a civil union - nor my two straight friends. Civil unions are intended for same-sex pairs who are in a sexual relationship, and I am against the government blessing such couplings with recognition and privileges.

On the other hand, I don't like the fact that various gay people in hospitals have had the most important person in their lives barred from visiting them, and that long-term same-sex couples have faced obstacles in inheriting property when one partner dies. So why can't we have public policies that allow any unmarried adult to designate one other person who can visit them in the hospital and inherit their property? That person could be a roommate, a best friend - or a lesbian lover. The government doesn't need - and shouldn't want - to know the nature of the relationship.

Such a solution would relieve some of the distress felt by gay and lesbian partners without giving in to the demands that society celebrate and single out a kind of relationship that overwhelming numbers of Americans do not consider to be the equivalent of marriage.

Labels: civil unions

posted by David Benkof at 2:20 AM | link

Benedict to Bishops: Fight for Marriage

In his address to the Catholic bishops--the heart of the faith, Pope Benedict just delivered a strong message: it's your job to stand for, evangelize and educate on marriage:

". . . In this regard, a matter of deep concern to us all is the state of the family within society. Indeed, Cardinal George mentioned earlier that you have included the strengthening of marriage and family life among the priorities for your attention over the next few years. In this year's World Day of Peace Message I spoke of the essential contribution that healthy family life makes to peace within and between nations. In the family home we experience "some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters, the role of authority expressed by parents, loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age, mutual help in the necessities of life, readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them" (no. 3). The family is also the primary place for evangelization, for passing on the faith, for helping young people to appreciate the importance of religious practice and Sunday observance. How can we not be dismayed as we observe the sharp decline of the family as a basic element of Church and society? Divorce and infidelity have increased, and many young men and women are choosing to postpone marriage or to forego it altogether. To some young Catholics, the sacramental bond of marriage seems scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person. Hence we have an alarming decrease in the number of Catholic marriages in the United States together with an increase in cohabitation, in which the Christ-like mutual self-giving of spouses, sealed by a public promise to live out the demands of an indissoluble lifelong commitment, is simply absent. In such circumstances, children are denied the secure environment that they need in order truly to flourish as human beings, and society is denied the stable building blocks which it requires if the cohesion and moral focus of the community are to be maintained.

As my predecessor, Pope John Paul II taught, "The person principally responsible in the Diocese for the pastoral care of the family is the Bishop ... he must devote to it personal interest, care, time, personnel and resources, but above all personal support for the families and for all those who … assist him in the pastoral care of the family" (Familiaris Consortio, 73). It is your task to proclaim boldly the arguments from faith and reason in favor of the institution of marriage, understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, open to the transmission of life. This message should resonate with people today, because it is essentially an unconditional and unreserved "yes" to life, a "yes" to love, and a "yes" to the aspirations at the heart of our common humanity, as we strive to fulfill our deep yearning for intimacy with others and with the Lord."

posted by maggie at 11:05 AM | link

New Study: Why Older Children Do Better

Using game theory backed by empirical research, a new study in the April Journal of Economics (copy here) "Games Parents and Adolescents Play" by Hotz, Hao and Jin finds a new reason older children do better: they have a younger sibling their parents have to set an example for. From the press release:

"My older sister always complains that she never got away with anything when she was growing up, and we all agree that my youngest sister got away with murder," says Hotz, who was the middle child of five siblings and is now the parent of two grown children. “That's the story of this study."

To test their reputational theory, they analyzed existing survey data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The National Longitudinal Study of Youth tracked more than 11,000 Americans for over 16 years (1979 to 1994). Specifically they focused on the rate of pregnancy and the teen dropping out of high school. To estimate parental sanction, they measured whether the teen was allowed to remain at home and level of financial support after reaching age 18.

In their analysis, the researchers found:

*Having one additional younger sibling lowers the likelihood of an adolescent s dropping out of high school by 3 percentage points. This amounts to one eighth of the average dropout rate of the sample (24%).

*The probability of parental financial support to a rebellious child is significantly lower if the family still has another child under age 18. For example, the probability of parents providing free room and board is 4.5 percentage points lower to an adult child who dropped out of school and 9.5 percentage points lower to an adult daughter who had a baby as a teen. These reductions are sizable given the sample average of living with parents after age 18 is about 20 percent. . .

posted by maggie at 10:50 AM | link

Dutch Marriage Registrars Must Perform SSMs

From "Marriage Registrars Must Perform Same-Sex Marriages," NIS News, April 16, 2008:

THE HAGUE, 16/04/08 - Marriage registrars who refuse to perform same-sex marriages must also be denied from performing marriages between men and women, the Equal Treatment Commission (CGB) ruled yesterday...

The CGB [ruled that a] local authority is "not violating the equal treatment law if it refuses to appoint a marriage registrar who does not wish to marry persons of the same sex on grounds of religion"...

The CGB is an advisory court. Its rulings can be used in real court cases. The courts usually uphold CGB verdicts...

posted by Imapp Staff at 10:41 AM | link

Signature Deadline Approaches For IL Marriage Amendment Referendum

From "Deadline for signatures approaches for marriage amendment supporters," State Journal-Register, April 15, 2008:

Supporters of a state constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as only for male-female couples are in the final stretch of a push to collect enough signatures to put an advisory referendum on November election ballots.

How close they are to their goal is unclear...

Protect Marriage Illinois is shooting for more than 300,000 signatures statewide. That figure would exceed the required number of about 270,000 signatures, but organizers want to ensure their effort survives even if some signatures eventually are thrown out as invalid.

The signatures must be submitted to the State Board of Elections by May 5 to get the advisory referendum on Nov. 4 ballots...

If Protect Marriage Illinois succeeds, voters this fall would be asked in a non-binding referendum if the Illinois General Assembly should propose a constitutional amendment that states:

“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose.”...

posted by Imapp Staff at 8:29 AM | link

Was Canadian same-sex marriage a mistake?

By David Benkof

Today's National Post (Canada) contains an op-ed suggesting that same-sex marriage in that nation was a mistake:

The most important section is at the beginning:

What makes the national mistake of legalizing same-sex marriage unique in Canadian history is that to even discuss the issue is considered by many, particularly our elites, to be at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad. Social conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil.

The discussion, we are told, is over. Which is what triumphalist bullies have said for centuries after they win a battle. In this case, the intention is to marginalize anyone who dares to still speak out. In other words, to silence them.

It’s important to emphasize that this is not really about homosexuality at all, and has nothing to do with homosexual people living together. Opponents of same-sex marriage may have ethical and religious objections to homosexuality, but they are irrelevant to the central argument. Which is not about the rights of a sexual minority but the status and meaning of marriage.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the same-sex marriage debate in the United States is the accusation among proponents that opponents are "taking away rights." Any honest look at the history of this debate has to acknowledge that traditional people did not seek out this fight. It was the gay community and their allies - and a few judges in Massachusetts - who thrust this debate upon the nation. Given that overwhelming numbers of Americans support the existing definition of marriage (as shown by vote after vote and the fact that proponents have tried to prevent votes in Massachusetts and elsewhere), it should come as no surprise that opponents have mobilized to preserve traditional marriage.

Labels: Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 3:23 PM | link

Getting a Same-Sex Divorce Can Be a Problem

From "Some gay couples are having trouble obtaining divorces," AP, April 15, 2008:

...Gay couples who still live in the state where they got hitched can split up with little difficulty; the laws in those states include divorce or dissolution procedures for same-sex couples. But gay couples who have moved to another state are running into trouble...

Massachusetts, at least early on, let out-of-state gay couples get married there practically for the asking. But the rules governing divorce are stricter. Out-of-state couples could go back to Massachusetts to get divorced, but they would have to live there for a year to establish residency first....

In Rhode Island...the state's top court ruled in December that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts can't get divorced here because lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman. In Missouri, a judge is deciding whether a lesbian married in Massachusetts can get an annulment...

Oregon started allowing gay couples to form domestic partnerships this year. But to prevent problems similar to those in Massachusetts, lawmakers added a provision that allows couples to dissolve their partnerships in Oregon even if they have moved out of state...

New York does not permit gay marriage, but a judge there has allowed a lesbian married in Canada to seek a divorce. In 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld the breakup of a lesbian couple who entered into a civil union in Vermont...

Getting a divorce could prove toughest in some of the 43 states that have explicitly banned or limited same-sex unions, lawyers say...

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:12 AM | link

The High Cost of Divorce

Also see "New From IMAPP" on iMAPP Home Page...

From "Divorce, Unwed Parenting Costing Taxpayers," AP, April 15, 2008:

NEW YORK (AP) — Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages...

The study was conducted by Georgia State University economist Ben Scafidi. His work was sponsored by four groups who consider themselves part of a nationwide "marriage movement" — the New York-based Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest of Redmond, Wash., and the Georgia Family Council, an ally of the conservative ministry Focus on the Family...

Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes. The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government...

While the study doesn't offer formal recommendations, it does suggest that state and federal lawmakers consider investing more money in programs intended to bolster marriages...

posted by Imapp Staff at 8:20 AM | link

Newsweek:The Divorce Generation

The author manages to end on a cheerful note, but to an observor the story is pretty bleak, here.
posted by maggie at 11:01 AM | link

Choosing Mates, Who Knows Best?

From "Parents and Children at Odds In Defining Mr. or Mrs. Right," Washington Post, April 14, 2008:

...In a study involving Dutch, American and Kurdish students, psychologists in the Netherlands found that...young people invariably considered [their] potential mate's attractiveness the most important quality, whereas parents uniformly paid more attention to the suitors' social background or group affiliation -- race, religious background and social class...

...Parents and offspring clash, the researchers argued, because their genetic self-interests, while overlapping, are not identical.

The reason young people care so much about intellectual and physical attractiveness, the scientists suggested, is that these characteristics are markers of genetic fitness. By contrast, they said, parents care about group affiliations because parents are primarily interested in whether an incoming member of the family is likely to make a good parent -- and a good all-around team player...

[H]istorian Stephanie Coontz argues that the researchers did not draw a clear enough distinction between love and marriage. Evolution might play a big role in shaping the reproductive drive, she says, but it would be a mistake to think that the institution of marriage has primarily been about either love or reproduction.

Until very recently, Coontz contends, children and parents were rarely in conflict about whom to marry -- they both agreed that marriage was not about love, but about social and economic ties...

Nearly everyone in the West -- and growing numbers of young people elsewhere in the world -- believes in the ideal of marrying for love, an idea that would have been ludicrous and dangerous a century ago, said Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage." Coontz traces the change in attitudes about marriage to the fact that growing economic self-reliance has made it less likely that people need to marry for money...

posted by Imapp Staff at 8:40 AM | link

Schwarzenegger Opposes CA Marriage Amendment

From "Same-sex marriage ban 'waste of time'," San Diego Tribune, April 12, 2008:

MISSION VALLEY – [California] Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said yesterday he would strongly oppose an inititiative to outlaw same-sex marriage if it qualifies for the November ballot.

“I will always be there to fight against that,” the governor said to thunderous applause in San Diego at the convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national gay Republican organization.

It was the first time Schwarzenegger had commented publicly on the proposed constitutional amendment that reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, a statute banning gay marriage that is under review by the California Supreme Court.

The initiative is a constitutional amendment that would be more insulated from legal challenges than Proposition 22...

Polls show that opposition to same-sex marriage has softened since Proposition 22 was approved with 61 percent of the vote. A March 2006 Field Poll showed that opposition had declined to 51 percent...

posted by Imapp Staff at 8:10 AM | link