A USA Today editorial says the research is in, and it proves that the trend for more couples living out of wedlock is putting the nation's kids at risk.
The newspaper quotes the latest U.S. census figures which indicate more than 40% of all live-in households in 2000 included a child under the age of 18 -- a 21% increase since 1987. As the USA Today editorial notes, while an unmarried mom and dad living together might look like the married couple down the block, unions lacking formal long-term commitments have been found more likely to create problems for kids.
Sociologists cite evidence that children raised by live-in parents have a greater likelihood of emotional troubles and poor school performance. And the newspaper says the major reason for this is that unmarried couples are more likely to break up. In fact, according to the Rutgers-based National Marriage Project, three out of four children born to unmarried couples see them split up before age 16.
The editorial goes on to praise church and community organizations -- and even the Bush Administration -- for taking steps to promote the value of traditional marriage.
Just the Beginning
Last week was "Marriage Protection Week," as proclaimed by President Bush. It marked the beginning of an effort to bring pressure on lawmakers to defend traditional marriage or face opposition from organized pro-family forces.
One of those pro-family groups, the Washington-based Family Research Council (frc.org), is circulating what it calls a "Defense of Marriage Pledge." FRC president Tony Perkins says that pledge -- which asks every elected official at the federal and state level to affirm their commitment and support for traditional, one-man, one-woman marriage -- is part of his organization's effort to protect the traditional view of marriage.
"We believe that this is the issue of our time," Perkins says, "and the Family Research Council will use every resource at its disposal to ensure pro-family voters know which candidates are friends of the families when they enter the voting booth in 2004."
Pro-family groups across the nation are mobilizing their supporters to bring pressure to bear on lawmakers regarding the issue. They want a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The amendment, according to Perkins, is necessary because of what he calls a "black plague" -- his description for black-robed, un-elected judicial activists and their rulings.
"The courts are treating marriage as if it were a Mr. Potato Head, where individual preferences can govern its makeup," Perkins says. "Marriage has no interchangeable components -- it's between one man and one woman."
The FRC leader says the only one way to stop that "Black Plague" is for the nation's leaders in Congress and the Executive Branch to take a stand for marriage.
Willie Wooten is a New Orleans pastor who is representative of the coalition of pro-family groups who are fighting for the preservation of traditional marriage. Wooten says Christians need to get involved in the battle.
"I want to exhort all people -- and in particular the African American people and ministers -- to get behind the efforts to protect our marriages," the pastor says. "I want to exhort Christian ministers to organize [and] to get involved in the governmental processes, for we have congregations that are filled with people who are citizens who have a right to speak."
Pastor Wooten says this is a great way to make a difference. He says he believes marriage and the family must be preserved as God established them.
Necessity for Marriage Amendment
Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families (campaignforfamilies.org) seconds the necessity for an amendment to overcome judicial activism against the biblical view of marriage.
"It is time for people of faith to reclaim our country and our culture from our 'robed masters,'" Bauer says. "If we fail to pass a Constitutional amendment that binds these robed radicals, then it is only a matter of time before they undo thousands of years of accepted societal and religious values."
Bauer cites a divorce case in Washington state as one example why a Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary. The "couple" in question was two lesbians who were never married, but the judge still saw fit to divide their assets 50-50 in accordance with state divorce laws -- despite the fact the State of Washington does not recognize homosexual "marriage." The judge's rationale was that the lesbians' relationship was "sufficiently marriage-like" to warrant relief.
Bauer says the standard for marriage cannot be based on just anything that a judge declares to be "marriage-like."
