In response to my post, “Reality Bites: No-fault divorce is no good,” Kevin commented that “divorce costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year.”  Theresa-Marie wanted to know more about that claim.

A recent study, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States,” shows that divorce and family fragmentation is very expensive for taxpayers.  In addition to the pain experienced by children and their parents, taxpayers pick up the costs to society due to:

… taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice, education programs, and through lower level of taxes paid by individuals who, as adults, earn less because of reduced opportunities as a result of having been more likely to grow up in poverty.

The principal investigator, Benjamin Scafidi, used a low estimate in his conclusion, but it’s an unbelievable amount.  The final estimate was that “family fragmentation costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion each and every year.”

As an international organization with outreach to hurting families around the globe and our nation, it goes without saying that Focus on the Family would like to see more children growing up with their married mom and dad. This research helps reveal that marriage is a great investment for our communities.

Read more about this report at The Institute for American Values Web site.

It’s Friday, there’s something of spring in the air, and there are two great stories to celebrate.

NPR did a great piece about Colbert Williams, the teacher who became his guardian, and the how Williams, a father at 16, raised his son.  It’s a story that continues to give—a quietly inspiring story of sacrificial fatherhood.

On becoming a father Williams said,

I guess as a 16-year-old who came from a situation where there wasn’t a father, you know, my confidence level was probably as low as it possibly could get because I realized that I was going to be responsible for some person,” Colbert said. “So I was scared.”

And today Focus on the Family celebrates the part we played in helping to place half of Colorado’s children eligible for adoption in forever families.

Tiffany Beal, now a 20-year-old college senior in Colorado Springs, was in foster care for about three years before her adoption at age 11. She urges people to go out on a limb and adopt — because it’s the best thing they can do for a child.

“The most amazing part of being adopted was that no matter what, I always had a home. I had someone to call Mom and Dad,” Beal said. “Even at 3, my little brother knew he wasn’t home in foster care. He kept asking me, ‘When are we going to go home?’ “

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14516591#ixzz0hK2S2Fa7

Talk about a misleading headline: “Report: Cohabiting has little effect on couples’ success in marriage.”

USA Today can’t carry all the blame for misleading—the writers repeated what Pamela Smock, University of Michigan sociologist said.  In contrast, the NY Times headline had a better grasp of the real takeaway, “Study Finds Cohabiting Doesn’t Make a Union Last.”

This is the truth.  Studies show that there is a difference in types of cohabiting—the sliding kind and the deciding kind.  The slide: Couples who never talk about marriage and “slide” into a cohabiting situation, usually break up.  The decide: Couples who had already decided to marry and then move in together, are more likely to marry and stay together.

Importantly, cohabitation in the best “decide” situation is only neutral–  research shows no positive effects on marriage, but lots of downsides are possible.  Children especially suffer when their parents share little more than toothbrush space and rental agreement, but adults lose without marriage as well.

Also significantly, marriage is the basis for stable relationships—physically, emotionally and financially.  There are a lot more reasons to encourage marriage than to scapegoat cohabitation.

The 3-page order is here.

In a nutshell, Chief Justice Roberts thinks that the petitioners’ (those asking for a stay of the new DC same-sex marriage law) argument “has some force.”

But then he goes on to remark on the uniqueness of DC’s governance. Historically, the Supreme Court has deferred to the courts within DC on matters of local concern. Second, he highlights the unique relationship of DC to Congress, who had the opportunity to stop this new law from going into effect but did not do so.

Finally, he says that this case hasn’t really ended. Although the petitioners’ quest for a ballot referendum (vote to kill the new law)  is now moot, a ballot initiative to restore the traditional definition of marriage will still wend its way through the DC courts on the legal issue of whether the DC Human Rights Code trumps the charter provisions on ballot issues, and the Supreme Court may have an opportunity to get involved at that stage.

We could end up with another California situation with same-sex marriage existing for a time before a return to one-man, one-woman marriage.

The new DC same-sex marriage law takes effect on Wednesday.

My earlier post on this issue is located here.

Florida state legislators want to make a positive change to the state’s “Family Law” handbook given out to couples requesting a marriage license.

According to the Florida Family Policy Council, the handbook currently offers detailed information about ending a marriage, but very little that would help a couple be successful.  The proposed legislation would provide for  marriage and family advocates who would choose resources to add to the handbook that would help couples strengthen their marriage with the goal of long-term success.

Examples of states with marriage-positive handbooks are Alabama, Louisiana and Texas.

It seems a little bit crazy that a “Family Law” handbook given out with marriage licenses would be filled with information for ending the marriage rather than sustaining it, but this is probably a reflection of actual laws.  It takes lot more law and policy to regulate divorce and family dissolution than stable married life.

An appeal was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund yesterday with Chief Justice John Roberts over the District’s refusal to let the people vote on the issue of marriage.

Here’s what’s going on. The D.C. Council passed a law allowing same-sex marriage in the District. Bishop Harry Jackson, on behalf of himself and other District residents, asked for a referendum so that the voters of the District could decide on marriage. The request was denied in an administrative hearing. Jackson appealed to a trial court and asked as part of the lawsuit for an injunction blocking the law going into effect this Wednesday. The court denied it. Jackson appealed to the District’s appeals court on the injunction issue. Lost again. Now Jackson is asking the Supreme Court to look at the refusal to grant an injunction.

The District is unique in its governance. It has its own charter (the equivalent of a state constitution) and its own statutes, but Congress oversees the District and has the final say (if it wants to) over any laws the Council passes. Congress did not take any definitive action on the new law.

The standards for injunctions are pretty unique, and it’s hard for me to generalize about any of the legal developments in this case. But the basic issue looks like it comes down to this: Does a District statute (its non-discrimination code) trump the District’s own charter (which grants its citizens the right to hold voter initiatives and referenda)? The District, and the 2 courts who have ruled thus far, say “yes.”

There could be lots of other issues that complicate the basic question, and I have to hedge my bets here until I get to read some of the pleadings in the case,  but if a non-discrimination statute can trump a charter provision, then charters (and constitutions) are essentially meaningless documents.

And that’s a scary thing.

There’s a ton of books about relationships and marriage on the market, but the most valuable advice comes in tidbits from the couples who share wisdom from their 50 plus years of marriage.  See a previous blog about Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher.

Virginia Seitz, 89, celebrated her 70th anniversary to Joseph, who has Alzheimers, with an unexpected letter from President Obama and his wife, Michelle.

Virginia says it hasn’t been easy, but promised herself when she married that it would be forever.

When she hears about all the young couples these days who don’t stick it out, she would like them to know that it’s possible to work through the tough times. She offers her story as an example.

“It’s a hard game to be in love with somebody. As you get older, there’s a different kind of a love, but there’s still respect,” Virginia said.

Josh responds to my post “Rethinking the best age to marry”:

I checked out this site – http://www.divorcerate.org/ – and found that marriages by people younger than 25 account for over half the divorces in the US.

You’re in favor of people rushing into marriage when they’re younger, but it seems like you’re opposed to teens getting married. Could you clarify?

Josh,

Thanks for writing, and for looking into the research.

In response, I’d like to address first your comment that Focus on the Family is “in favor of people rushing into marriage when they’re younger.”  A look at the premarital resources offered in the online bookstore will indicate quite the opposite.  We believe that deciding to marry a person is one of the most important decisions in life, and Focus would never encourage anyone to rush into it.  Considering a younger age for marriage is a different question, and one that we think is worth parents and young adults giving a second thought.  Mark Regnerus’s article is very thought-provoking.

Additionally, with regard to the statistics, because the Web site you mentioned does not reference its statistical sources, I’m going to respond using a couple of other sources. David Lapp uses stats from the CDC  in his WSJ article.

First, let’s take a closer look at that term “early marriage.” While it’s true that teenage marriages are a significant predictor of divorce, it turns out that marriages of people in their early to mid-20s are not nearly as much at risk. According to a 2002 report from the Centers for Disease Control, 48% of people who enter marriage when under age 18, and 40% of 18- and 19-year-olds, will eventually divorce. But only 29% of those who get married at age 20 to 24 will eventually divorce—very similar to the 24% of the 25-and-older cohort. In fact, Hispanics who marry between the ages of 20 and 24 actually have a greater likelihood of marital success (31% chance of divorce) than those who first marry at age 25 and older (36% chance of divorce).

This is backed up in another publication you could check out.  “The State of Our Unions 2007” reports that,

Teenagers, high school drop-outs, and the non-religious who marry have considerably higher divorce rates.

On p. 20 of the same document they list factors that could lower a person’s risk of divorce.  Basically, if you married at age 23, had graduated high school and had some college, didn’t have any children previous to marriage, and went to church with your spouse, your chances of divorce are already drastically decreased.  It’s interesting stuff!

Thanks, again, for writing, Josh.

Jenny

Focus on the Family’s marriage simulcast event is this weekend.  You can still attend at one of the event sites across the country.

Featured speakers include Gary Thomas, Dr. Gary Chapman, Les and Leslie Parrott, Francis Chan, Kirk and Chelsea Cameron and Stephen Kendrick.

There was a great response to last year’s inaugural event with thousands in attendance across the U.S. Find a host site near you.

This headline from a U.K. publication caught my eye.

“Lap-dancing clubs increase while library numbers drop,” and the article includes these details.

The number of lap-dancing clubs has increased from 24 to 300 since 1997, but the number of public libraries has shrunk by 6 per cent in the same period.

Schools, police stations, hospitals and public toilets have also become a rarer sight on the nation’s streets, the figures show.

A photo caption with the article says that this is a 1,150% increase in lap-dancing clubs.

This is the trajectory of a western country in which most adults are not marrying, and the church–informally sidelined since at least WWII–is now officially sidelined by so-called “equality” legislation that would further stifle the religious freedoms of people and organizations.

It’s beginning to look a bit like the U.K. version of Pottersville, and I mean the Jimmy Stewart variety rather than the Harry variety.  Can the U.S. be very far behind?  And who wants to live in Pottersville, anyway?

Tomorrow I’ll add a link to a Citizen magazine story that goes in-depth about the loss of religious freedom in the U.K.  It will be posted here.