FamilyFoundationBlog.com

That’s the topic for discussion on Thursday, October 29, at Virginia Commonwealth  University. An eyebrow raising one at that. What may be more of a surprise — albeit a decidedly good one — is that Dr. Brad Wilcox is the one giving the presentation.

Dr. Wilcox is a renown expert on marriage and serves on our Marriage Commission, which has produced several recommendations for the General Assembly to reduce the rate of divorce in the commonwealth (at least one of which now is law). Dr. Wilcox is director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, where he also is an associate professor of sociology. In addition, he is a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University. His research focuses on marriage, parenting and cohabitation, as well as on the ways that gender, religion and children influence the quality and stability of American family life. He is widely published in publications such as The American Sociological Review, Social Forces, The Journal of Marriage and Family, and The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

The lecture is one in the Saint Benedict Institute Lecture series and is free and open to the public. If you live in, or will be in, the Richmond area on October 29, it will be well worth the time to attend. We’re sure Dr. Wilcox’s remarks will shed light on the very serious problem of divorce in America and the reasons for its proclivity. The preface to the lecture’s theme — “After The Revolution” — gives a hint: The sexual revolution was supposed to unleash a healthy liberation for women and men alike. Apparently, not; not for women, not for men, and certainly not for the wreckage of the broken families and children left in its wake.

The lecture is from 7:00-9:00 p.m. and is free and open to the public. It is in room 1169 at the VCU building at 901 West Main Street.

Contents of the letter written to Governor Tim Kaine Wednesday, April 10, 2009, by Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb, requesting that his poverty commission address the breakup of traditional famlies as the root cause of poverty.  

June 10, 2009

The Honorable Tim Kaine

Governor of Virginia

State Capitol

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Governor Kaine: 

The issue of poverty and how to address it has always been a challenge. Some groups and organizations, many faith-based, do exceptional work providing services to those who find themselves in extraordinarily difficult economic situations. Often, these service providers are able to address the symptoms of poverty, some try to address the root causes.

At The Family Foundation, we are committed to supporting initiatives and principles that will address the root causes of poverty. Parental choice in education for example, will help children in poverty become better educated to be able to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them. Such proposals involve less government, not more. Unfortunately, it seems that in our current cultural lexicon social justice equals government intervention.

But perhaps the most important single factor in reducing poverty in our nation is protecting and rebuilding the very institution our organization revolves around — the family. Regardless of your perspective on the issue of poverty, the science is in and it is absolutely clear — the best safety net, the best deterrent to poverty — is an intact, married, two-parent family.  The numbers are overwhelming. 

According to Sociologist Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia, “The collective consequences of marriage are quite large. If we were to increase the percent of children living in married homes to the level we experienced in 1970, scholars estimate that 1 million fewer children each year would be suspended from school, 900,000 fewer children each year would engage in acts of delinquency or violence, and 61,000 fewer children each year would attempt suicide. We would also see child poverty drop by approximately 20 percent, and Virginia welfare spending drop by millions. Clearly, marriage matters to Virginia — and particularly to education, public order, and the fiscal health of the Commonwealth.”

I imagine if any candidate for office offered a proposal that would guarantee a 20 percent reduction in child poverty that would not cost the taxpayers a penny, they would raise some eyebrows, but that is exactly what increasing the number of marriages and in-wedlock childbirths would do.

Last month, when you announced your task force on poverty, I was surprised and disappointed that no mention was made of the one absolutely effective means of reducing poverty and giving children the absolute best chance. Nowhere does it appear that the task force is going to address the fragmentation of the family.

Governor, let me be clear: It is simply not possible to adequately address the issue of poverty in our Commonwealth without addressing the issues of divorce, family fragmentation and out-of-wedlock births.

Therefore, I am urging you to add a working group to your poverty task force that focuses on the issues of divorce, family breakup and out-of-wedlock births. I believe that these are issues for which you have deep concern, as evidenced by your support this year of our primary marriage legislative initiative that added the benefits and value of marriage to the Commonwealth’s FLE curriculum. This task force should include social scientists and marriage education leaders at a minimum. Simply having this part of the equation studied by government bureaucrats is not enough.

I would be happy to discuss this with you further and I offer to you the resources of The Family Foundation to assist in addressing this matter. The issue of poverty in Virginia must be addressed, but we can no longer hide behind partisan rhetoric. We must be willing to go to the source of poverty if we truly want to provide an environment in Virginia where all families and children can thrive. Anything less and we will simply be fooling ourselves. Anything less and we will once again look to the government for the solutions. We are better than that. We have to be.

Sincerely,

President

I’ve often enjoyed reading the commentary of University of Virginia professor and political analyst Larry Sabato. Not because I agree with him, which I normally don’t, but often just for the humor that I find in his typical rage against the right. How anyone sees this guy as objective is beyond me.

In today’s Virginian-Pilot, Mr. Sabato finally “comes out,” so to speak, making it abundantly clear about his view of conservatives and in particular, the dreaded “Christian right.” Shockingly, he urges Republican nominee for governor Bob McDonnell to distance himself from conservative Christians:

In his campaign for governor, McDonnell is positioning himself as a moderate Republican.

“One of the underlying concerns that many thoughtful Virginians have about McDonnell are his ties to the Christian right,” Sabato said. “I can’t tell you how many times senior people have asked, ‘Who will Bob McDonnell appoint to the 4,000 appointments he gets?’ ‘Who will run the college boards of visitors and the state agencies?’

“The reasons these questions matter to the people asking them is they fear it will be the far right and the Christian conservatives,” he said.

“I can guarantee you whoever the Democratic nominee is, that’s going to be one of his major lines of attack: McDonnell is tied to the far Christian right and he will disproportionately make his appointments from that group. And that’s not where Virginia is anymore. That will send the key independent and swing voters to the Democrats.”

So, let’s see . . . if you are a “thoughtful Virginian” you clearly have to be concerned about McDonnell and the “Christian right.” The implication is, of course, that if you are the “Christian right” you must not be thoughtful.  (You know who you are — the “poor uneducated and easy to command” as the media once referred to you.)

Plus, and perhaps most importantly, those ties “will send key independent and swing voters to the Democrats.” Not “might send” or “probably will send” or “could send,” but Mr. Sabato categorically has decided that if you are an independent or swing voter you simply aren’t going to vote for a conservative. I guess you might as well stop thinking now.

Let’s cut to the chase here. The last people Republican candidates need to be listening to are media pundits (next to, perhaps, their consultants). Sabato clearly wants Democrats to win elections — the debate over his objectivity is over. This is really what he’s saying: “If you’re a Republican please don’t run as an actual conservative Republican with any of those principles you used to talk about, you know, back when you used to actually win elections.  Since you have been losing by avoiding principle, please continue with that strategy. It’ll work this time, I promise.”

This diatribe (which J.R. Hoeft at Bearing Drift addresses masterfully here) is getting seriously old and it is astonishing that any “thoughtful Virginians” are influenced by it.

It does all bring back memories of Charlie Brown and Lucy and the football.  Remember, Lucy would promise time and time again to hold the ball and this time she’ll actually let Charlie Brown kick it. And Charlie Brown eagerly falls for the lie every time. 

Time will tell whether Mr. McDonnell listens to Lucy and goes to kick that football again.

Friday’s Wall Street Journal contained an excellent article written by none other than Dr. Brad Wilcox, The Family Foundation’s very own Marriage Commission member. OK, he’s more than a Marriage Commission member.  When we are not utilizing his expertise, he also serves as a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. Seriously, we’ve been so honored to have Brad be apart of our organization that we have soaked him for all the time we can get. We had him speak at our 2007 Lobby Day, our 2008 Board of Directors Retreat and to the General Assembly House Education Committee in 2009. Imagine what 2010 holds for you Brad!

Dr. Wilcox’ WSJ article outlines the inverse relationship between size and scope of government and the religious observation. Basically, the more folks turn to the government to provide all of their needs (Scandanavia, etc.), the less they need to turn to the church. Anyone who has fallen on hard times knows that the blow is softer when cushioned by a loving and supportive church community. While it might have been good enough for Paul and his cohorts to “sell their possessions and goods and give to anyone as he had need,” today this wonderful human experience requiring self-sacrifice and a sense of community is less desirable if the government can provide “cradle to the grave” health care, education and housing. 

Combine these findings with a study we co-released with the Family Research Council in December 2008 that showed children have fewer problems at school and home when they frequently attend religious services. Coauthored by Drs. Nicholas Zill[1] and Philip Fletcher [2], this research found that religious attendance had an effect on the likelihood of repeating a grade level, having their parents contacted by school for behavioral issues, diminished social development and much more. These differences held up even after controlling for family income and poverty, low parent education levels, and race and ethnicity.

So, bigger government means less religious participation and less religious attendance means behavioral and educational challenges for children. As we continue on the road to the great welfare state, let’s be sure we know the end game.

[1] Dr. Nicholas Zill is the founding president of Child Trends and the former vice president of Westat, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2] Dr. Philip Fletcher is a research psychologist at Westat.

One would assume that “Family Life Education” would include instruction about the basic make up of the “family.” Guess again.

After researching the commonwealth’s Standards of Learning requirements for family life education, the only reference to marriage found is not very encouraging at all:

“The student will provide examples of difficult family situations: abusive behavior, financial problems, separation or divorce, illness, injury or death, loss of job, family has to move, birth of a baby, remarriage, etc.”

Gee, that’ll make kids want to grow up and get married, won’t it?

Earlier this year, The Family Foundation’s marriage commission met to discuss legislative proposals that will encourage and strengthen traditional marriage in Virginia. One idea was to make sure that the benefits of marriage are being taught to the next generation in Family Life Education. Most people are simply not aware that marriage is beneficial to everyone involved, as well as the community. But the science doesn’t lie.

According to Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and a member of The Family Foundation’s marriage commission, “In general, the research shows that children who grow up in an intact, married family, are about 50 percent less likely to experience serious psychological, academic, or social problems as children or young adults, compared to children who grow up in single or step-families.” Social science also shows that both men and women benefit from marriage as well.

Unfortunately, our culture and media portray marriage as archaic and even dangerous. Virginia is one of a growing number of states where the marriage rate, the number of people choosing to get married, is declining. It also is one of the few states where the divorce rate continues to climb.  

One way to reverse these trends is to begin showing our kids the positive benefits of marriage. Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-96, Yorktown), who, along with her husband Roger, ran our marriage amendment campaign in 2006, and state Senator Ralph Smith (R-22, Roanoke) have agreed to carry this priority legislation on behalf of The Family Foundation. The bill simply adds a line to the commonwealth’s Family Life Education requiring that the benefits of marriage be taught to our kids.

Teaching the next generation that marriage is a positive instead of something to be dreaded is just one step toward restoring marriage in general. Of course, the General Assembly should pass this bill without any decent because it is based on science, something that many members are always advocating.