NOM BLOG

Pulitzer Prize NYT Columnist: "Traditional Marriage" Has "Huge Beneficial Impact" on the Poor

 

Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times parts with his liberal brethren to acknowledge the importance of marriage for lifting individuals and societies out of cycles of poverty:

Liberals sometimes feel that it is narrow-minded to favor traditional marriage. Over time, my reporting on poverty has led me to disagree: Solid marriages have a huge beneficial impact on the lives of the poor (more so than in the lives of the middle class, who have more cushion when things go wrong).

One study of low-income delinquent young men in Boston found that one of the factors that had the greatest impact in turning them away from crime was marrying women they cared about. As Steven Pinker notes in his recent book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature”: “The idea that young men are civilized by women and marriage may seem as corny as Kansas in August, but it has become a commonplace of modern criminology.” -- The New York Times

24 Comments

  1. Lefty
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Never forget: the "enlightened" people who recently wanted to question, de-emphasize, or even abolish marriage as an institution are the same enlightened people who want to redefine marriage today.

  2. ResistSSA
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Every society has homosexuals within it. Indeed, in some early societies, homosexuality was practiced openly and accepted. And yet no society has maintained a long term culture in which homosexuality remained tolerated and acceptable. It has always been re-rejected.

    SS"M" in modern society is just the latest iteration in which a liberal society is giving homosexuality a chance. No doubt it will be rejected once its detriment to society is re-revealed over time.

  3. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    The author's use of the term, "traditional marriage" us not the same way NOM uses it. He is advocating marriage as opposed to other relationship models. I'm sure Mr. Kristof would love to set NOM straight.

  4. Ash
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    "Never forget: the 'enlightened' people who recently wanted to question, de-emphasize, or even abolish marriage as an institution are the same enlightened people who want to redefine marriage today."

    Great point, Lefty. Some of them hope that redefining marriage will do all of the things you mentioned. What better way to advocate for abolishing the institution of marriage than to say: "The enactment of SSM has established that marriage is about loving relationships. The government should not be involved in loving relationships." End of story.

  5. Publius
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Young men being civilized by women and by time-honored roles sounds very traditional to me.

    Young men without women and traditional roles and boundaries sounds more like a frat house, a bath house, a gang, or even The Lord of the Flies.

  6. james2
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    NOM, once again, strays from the straight and narrow path by implying that Kristoff opposes same-sex marriage. He doesn't. He supports marriage, as opposed to just living together.

    Some day, NOM will tell the truth, and as the Bible instructs us, the truth shall set you free!

  7. Randy E King
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for demonstrating once again that marriage corruption only see what they want to see james2.

    "Liberals sometimes feel that it is narrow-minded to favor traditional marriage. Over time, my reporting on poverty has led me to disagree:"

  8. olivia
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    Right and this is exactly why marriage should be open to all committed couples.

  9. Mr. Incredible
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    Even brothers and sisters and sisters and sisters, for example, huh. They acan be committed.

  10. Jeff In Boston
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    I cannot think of another instance in which people wanting to take part in something -- i.e., gays getting married -- is seen as proof they want to destroy something. It doesn't make sense from a political standpoint and it just doesn't make sense from the standpoint of mere logic." You people let your fears rule your intellects. It's striking. Marriage rates are up in Massachusetts, which totally debunks this entire line of thinking.

  11. Thom
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Nicholas Kristof has written several pieces in support of gay marriage. Just do a search on "nicholas kristof gay marriage".

    NOM just likes to distort things a bit because their own arguments can't stand on their own.

  12. Posted February 10, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    "marriage should be open to all committed couples."

    Well, I'm committed to my child--do we qualify for a marriage license, and govt. benefits?

  13. Layne
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Kristof supports gay marriage. Thanks for making our argument for us. :)

  14. Marcos
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    @D of E:
    Try thinking a little more "outside the box". There is not a movement of parents wanting to marry their kids. Stick with the RELEVANT issue, that the LGBT movement is legit, for thir own personal reasons.

  15. CuriousGeorge
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Well, I'm committed to my child--do we qualify for a marriage license, and govt. benefits?

    No, but in FL a man can adopt his girlfriend - go figure...:D

  16. Posted February 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    "There is not a movement of parents wanting to marry their kids."

    There aren't a lot of folks wanting a SSM. And yet, here we are. If marriage is reduced to nothing more than mere consent, in exchange for appealing govt. benefits, how many will begin to make a case for their own arrangements? Take polygamists, for instance....

  17. Layne
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    DoE, if the polygamists want to take a crack at the court systems and fight the battles we fought, and get polygamy de-criminalized (it's currently a felony in most states), let 'em! Its a free country after all. I have full faith in our court systems. So funny how you shoot down the notion that SSM is "inevitable" yet insist that polygamy is. So consistent..

  18. Kristan
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Sure, marriage has huge beneficial impacts. No one refutes that, least of all me. And if it makes the lives of poorer people better, great!

    So then one really has to wonder: how does it make sense to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples?

  19. Little man
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Olivia: Do you mean minors (age 14?). Do you mean genetic brother and sister? Do you mean couples where one of the pair has an infectious venereal disease? You say: 'Right and this is exactly why marriage should be open to all committed couples.' In some churches, they will marry a minor (age <18) to a polygamous, old, adult. Certainly marriage doesn't have to mean civil marriage.

  20. Little man
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Jeff, you are still in Boston!

    So called 'gays' (if you could define 'gay') WANT TO take part in civil marriage, though they don't have the anatomy to take part, because they want their value system to substitute the rational value system regarding civil marriage, for legislation. If you cannot think logically, you won't understand. Analogies are not logic (probably a big revelation to you). And the way our democratic political system is set up - it assumes the majority will know best (which is not always the case, but people learn from their mistakes). Ultiamtely, the majority decides.

    Immediately, people of homosexual persuasion will focus on one's 'motivation, one's 'fears', one's bigotry - and not their own. They try to provide rational arguments, but they have none.

    They will immediately accept any data that seems to coincide with their value system (e.g., "Marriage rates are up in Massachusetts, which totally debunks this entire line of thinking", they will claim.) Actually: a) MA adds more type of couples to the definition of civil 'marriage' and then people claim it therefore has been good for 'marriage' because the number has increased (duh). b) As people see the social sciences data that civil marriage is a good thing, more of them go into marriage (NOM is making a difference).

    I cannot speak for NOM, but there's a lot of information on NOM's blog that tackles the questions on the comment threads. Again, and again the same people leave the same assertions pro-same-sex civil marriage on every post. Just read past blog posts. You will find the answers there.

  21. roger
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Gay Marriage is like the Housing Bubble. Middle Class people own homes. Therefore if we qualify more people for home loans we'll have a larger middle class.

    Same could be said for a Degree from Harvard. Harvard graduates make more money...Give everybody a degree from Harvard and we won't have to worry about poverty.

    Same Sex Marriage will not spread healthy behaviors to Homosexuals, but change social norms and degrade the value of the institution.

    Marital norms of permanence and monogamy do not make sense outside of procreative acts. Studies confirm, and Homosexuals will readily admit they are not sexually exclusive, and don’t see it as a big deal. Without permanence, why sacrifice and save?

  22. yoshi
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    @roger

    "Same Sex Marriage will not spread healthy behaviors to Homosexuals, but change social norms and degrade the value of the institution. "

    Based on heterosexuals treatment of their marriage rights - opposite sex marriage doesn't achieve this objective other.

    Marriage equality is the conservative choice.

  23. John N.
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Well put Little man and roger. Those posts were great.

  24. roger
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    Yoshi - the "conservative" argument for Same Sex Marriage is being undermined by the facts in Europe.
    In the Netherlands a the VAST majority of Gays are choosing NOT to get married - and those that do are more likely to divorce. Also, Marriage rates for heteros have dropped, and illegitimacy (out of wed lock births) continued to increase.

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf