Category Archives: Parenting

Science Proves Family Structure Matters

Throughout history it's been obvious to any observer that children in intact families with a married mother and father do much better than children from broken homes or those living in alternative family structures. In recent years, there's been an attempt to deny that reality and convince people that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are somehow exempted from the realities of family life, claiming there are "no differences" in outcomes for these kids or even sometimes suggesting they do better than children raised by a married mother and father in the home. Increasingly, social scientists have been examining this "no differences" claim and, as you might suspect, find it without merit. A distinguished social scientist from the University of Virginia, W. Bradford Wilcox, writes a detailed piece this week for National Review reviewing three recent developments that make it harder for the "family structure denialists" to continue to make the "no differences" claim. He says:

"It’s been a rough two weeks for the family-structure denialists, those progressive academics (Philip Cohen, “How to Live in a World Where Marriage Is in Decline”), journalists (Katie Roiphe, “New York Times, Stop Moralizing About Single Mothers”), and pundits (Matthew Yglesias, “The ‘Decline’ of Marriage Isn’t a Problem”) who seek to minimize or deny the importance of marriage and family structure. That’s because three new pieces of scholarship — a journal, a report, and a study — were released this month that solidify the growing scientific consensus that marriage and family structure matter for children, families, and the nation as a whole."

The studies and reports mention by Wilcox confirm many of the outcome problems that children who lack a married mother and father in the home experience, especially boys lacking the presence of their father at home. Wilcox says these children "are floundering in school and society" and details findings including problems in the areas of truancy and educational attainment, increased behavioral problems, higher cognitive disability, perform worse on standardized school tests and are less likely to graduate from high school. And the article details important new findings that states with higher levels of married parenthood enjoy higher levels of growth, economic mobility for children growing up poor, higher median family income and markedly lower levels of child poverty. Says Wilcox,

"[W]ith study after study showing that children, families, and now even states benefit from strong and stable married families, the job of those who would seek to deny that marriage and family structure also play an important role — the family-structure denialists — is getting harder and harder. That’s because the facts just aren’t with those who seek to deny the scientific evidence that family change is having a major impact on our social environment and — in particular — our boys.

The complete article is available at National Review.

Why is the Family Suffering?

What happens when a child is mistreated? Someone usually calls the local Child Protective Services. What happens when so many children are mistreated that the average Child Protective Service agent has a fifty family caseload? The local Child Protective Services sues the government for assigning an inordinate case overload.

It may sound insane, but in Indiana, that is just what is happening. And it’s not just the Hoosier State—across the nation more families cannot function without government intervention. Why this recent rash of heavily dysfunctional families? Joseph Turner of The Federalist explores the root of the problem:

ThinkstockPhotos-468044452Let’s look at single parenthood. One-parent households receive nearly twice as many CPS reports as those of married families. About 80 percent of reports are related to neglect rather than abuse. It doesn’t take much imagination to consider how the emotional, logistical, and economic demands of children could place single parents in some compromising situations. This is true even for the most loving and well-intentioned parents. Lose your five-year-old in a crowded mall? Miss a payment on your light bill? It’ll probably be okay…but you might get a knock on your door. Children are relentless, and parents are flawed. Raising kids is not meant to be a one-person task.

. . .

Let’s look at cohabitation as a marriage alternative, and by now a norm. Here, the statistics are frightening. Children living with a mother and cohabiting partner are 11 times more likely to experience physical, sexual, or emotional abuse than who live with married parents. Even children living with their biological unmarried parents are at four times the risk. Most cohabiting relationships are doomed to end eventually, exposing any children involved to the trauma of separation from parents and caregivers. And kids in the all-too-common families with one mother but multiple fathers are likely to experience any combination of the above risk factors during childhood, perhaps several times over.

We need to reeducate the populace about the importance of marriage. Devaluing the institution has left children bereft of the proper care they require. Turner offers possible solutions:

ThinkstockPhotos-126479084To protect American kids from harm on a large scale, we need to be willing to recognize a basic truth: children are safer and better off living with their married biological parents. As a society, we shouldn’t be afraid to say so. From high school sex ed on, adolescents should be warned about the dangers of unwed childbearing. The ample empirical benefits of marriage ought to be emphasized, with future children in mind. There should be pamphlets, instructional videos, motivational speakers, the works. We’re already on a mission to provide “comprehensive” sex education at ever younger ages. We encourage kids to stay in school, and educate them about college and career paths. There’s no reason we can’t fit marriage and family into the curriculum.

. . .

Legislators should be willing to craft policies and fund programs that encourage marriage norms. Create tax incentives for people to get married and raise their own children. Start public education campaigns. Subsidize pre- and post-marital counseling for those who need it. There’s any number of ways we could strengthen marriage culture if that’s what we decided we wanted to do. Measures like these would go further to protect our children than all the CPS workers we can fit in the budget.

Marriage is a cornerstone of society. We must protect it, for our own good, and our children’s’ good. We need strong marriages between one man and one woman. Whenever possible, children need to be raised by their biological parents: their father and mother. Our nation is far from perfect, but we can attempt to give our children the best lives possible, by encouraging marriage to be upheld as the sacred and precious bond that it is: the bond that unites a man and woman is the bond that holds together the family.

See The Federalist for more.

What is the Real Goal of “Marriage Equality”?

Even states that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples continue to distinguish between marriage and same-sex “marriage” for many purposes.

In an article on The Public Discourse, Adam MacLeod, an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, asks the crucial question: What do proponents of “marriage equality” really want?

ThinkstockPhotos-75461595Massachusetts and New York continue to treat marriage and same-sex coupling differently. Despite eliminating from law the fundamental predicate that every marriage involves a man and a woman and binds the father and the mother of any children that result from the union, the courts and lawmakers of Massachusetts and New York have left in place incidents of marriage that presuppose this predicate. Yet proponents of marriage equality are not flooding the Massachusetts or New York courts with lawsuits to eliminate those incidents.

This raises a question: What do proponents of “marriage equality” want? If they are asking for governments to make marriage and same-sex couples the same in law, then they are asking for governments to eliminate the incidents of marriage that connect children to their natural parents. If same-sex “marriage” proponents are not asking governments to eliminate those legal securities for children, then they are not asking for full marriage equality.

. . .

The reality of same-sex “marriage” has not yet caught up with the logic; for now, Massachusetts still distinguishes between real marriage and same-sex “marriage.” But even if some of the incidents securing the rights and duties of parents and their children remain in place, the inchoate effort to achieve marriage equality harms the culture of marriage and thereby harms the children whom marriage is supposed to protect, particularly the least well-off.

These are costs of the as-yet-unsuccessful effort to make marriage and same-sex couplings the same in law. The law teaches, and people are prone to learn from it. The law of same-sex “marriage” is that man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, are fungible. A marriage can be a marriage without one or the other, according to the desires of the adults involved. Thus, the law of states such as Massachusetts reinforces a culture that devalues fathers and mothers as people with distinct duties toward their children.

Ultimately, the goal of the “marriage equality movement” is to destroy the family. When you take away the one man and one woman stipulation from marriage, you turn marriage into a mere legality signifying the preferences of two adults, and you demean children into “options.” We will never stop defending marriage as the union between one man and woman, because we believe that men and women are both uniquely different and essential, and children are not “mere options,” but the embodiment of hope for the future.

For the full article, please visit The Public Discourse.

What About the Children Who Want a Mom and a Dad?

Ryan Anderson, a long time friend of NOM and a formidable defender of marriage, calls attention to an important group that many media outlets overlook - children, raised by same-sex couples, who want a mom and a dad:

ThinkstockPhotos-494373553The New York Times ran an article this weekend profiling and quoting many children of gay and lesbian parents under the headline “What Could Gay Marriage Mean for the Kids?”

Noticeably absent were any children who, while loving their two moms or two dads, yearned for both a mom and dad.

In my new book, “The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” I devote a chapter to highlighting the stories of children of gays and lesbians who have spoken out about how redefining marriage has social costs. Their basic story is the same: Same-sex marriage denies children like them a relationship with either a mother or a father—denies them their mother or their father.

Worse yet, people claiming marriage must be redefined as a matter of justice are telling children that the hurt they feel isn’t a legitimate response to objective reality but the result of their own misguided feelings. This is nothing less than victim shaming.

Although the loss suffered by these child victims is real and traumatic, their existence is never acknowledged by The New York Times.

. . .

Redefining marriage redefines parenting. So a legal system that redefines marriage changes a society’s culture and the values it promotes—as well as the expectations of its citizens. A society that redefines marriage, writes Barwick, “promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting.”

Redefining marriage will stigmatize the children of same-sex couples, because they will not be allowed to give voice to their experience of lacking a mom or a dad.

For the full article, please visit The Daily Signal.

"Shall We Cancel Father’s Day?"

Father Robert McTeigue, a professor of philosophy at Ave Maria University, asked that provocative question after an email he receive brought into focus the state of the family in our culture, and why marriage must be protected in order to solidify the family:

ThinkstockPhotos-177876724There was a time when if you wanted to annoy someone, you could just say, “Merry Christmas!” Now it seems that if you want to get people really upset, you can say, “Happy Father’s Day!”

I say this because of a message I recently received from someone close to me: “Rant for today. I want to publicly thank my husband for being one of the most loving, compassionate and dedicated fathers I know. Today I helped out in the oldest of my two daughters’ first grade class while the kids were making cards and filling out questionnaires about their dads for Father's Day. Out of 29 kids about 7 could do it without help or getting upset. The poor teacher had to go through questions like ‘Well, how often do you see your dad? Is there an uncle who helps? Well, does your mom have a friend? Is it a man?’ As I helped the kids fill out the sheets there were SO many who obviously had poor relationships with their dads, if any at all. So many children wouldn't check the box for ‘Dad hugs me’ or ‘Dad plays with me.’ 3 of the kids were shaking and teary eyed. I am overwhelmed with sadness. My husband doesn't have a 9-5 job. I've seen this man come home to have supper with his family, put the girls to bed, go BACK to work and then get up after a few hours to have breakfast with us and take them to school. He's left meetings to go to a reading of the children’s book, ‘Stone Soup’. He's seen the movie ‘Frozen’ 700 times. He's had bows in his hair, glitter on his nails and has made cardboard armor. I got on my knees in gratitude.

ThinkstockPhotos-474323365Men, please understand how important you are. Kids NEED BOTH of their parents!! Be loving! Be involved!! I was heartbroken. When I told my husband he cried too. I did not expect that so many cultures have inactive dads. One mom said to me ‘Well shame on the school for bringing out an activity that would be hurtful to the kids’ and I said ‘NO! Shame on US for allowing our culture to have broken families!’ I'm gonna go squeeze my kids and write my husband a love note. Rant done.”

Rather than an awkward silence, we need to have an honest, thoughtful, lively and prolonged conversation about men, fatherhood, the needs of children to have both a mother and a father (Pope Francis said that children have a right to both), and the ill effects of growing up without a father . . . “

For the full article, please visit Aleteia.

Pope Francis: Children Need a Mom and a Dad

Last Sunday, June 14, 2015, Pope Francis stressed the importance of children having both a mom and a dad, further emphasizing that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman:

ThinkstockPhotos-154331985Addressing around 25,000 followers from the Diocese of Rome, the pope said the differences between men and women are fundamental and “an integral part of being human.”

The pontiff likened a long-lasting marriage to a good wine, in which a husband and wife make the most of their gender differences.

“They’re not scared of the differences!” the pope said. “What great richness this diversity is, a diversity which becomes complementary, but also reciprocal. It binds them, one to the other.”

Heterosexual marriages not only ensured couples’ happiness, the pontiff said, but were deemed essential for good parenting.

“Children mature seeing their father and mother like this; their identity matures being confronted with the love their father and mother have, confronted with this difference,” Francis said.

Full article is available via Religion News Service

There is a Fundamental Marriage Right

In a recent article from The Public Discourse, Adam MacLeod, author of Property and Practical Reason, explains that there is not only a fundamental right to marriage, but that we, as Americans, have the responsibility to preserve it:

ThinkstockPhotos-168759151Adam Seagrave recently argued that there is no fundamental right to marry. He criticized Supreme Court decisions to the contrary on Lockean grounds. Fundamental rights are rooted in self-ownership, Seagrave argues, and are therefore inherently individual rights. The right to marry is not an individual right, is relatively new, and is inconsistent with America’s political tradition.

Whether or not Locke would approve of it, there is a fundamental marriage right. It is ancient, not recent. And it secures the integrity of the natural family. Seagrave’s resistance to the Court’s expansive substantive due process doctrine, which secures what Justice Brandeis called “conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness,” is laudable. But his proposal to dispose of the Court’s marriage jurisprudence would throw the baby—and the baby’s mother and father—out with the bathwater.

Like the rights to life, liberty, and property, which Seagrave affirms, the right of marriage is a so-called negative right—a liberty secured against outside interference by a perimeter of claim rights. It correlates with the duty of those outside the natural family, including the state, to abstain from interfering with marital and parental rights and duties, absent an adjudication of divorce, neglect, or abuse.

. . .

Nothing is more fundamental to our legal edifice than the ancient liberty of the natural family. The new right of “same-sex marriage” will undermine the rational bases for many of our positive laws governing marriage. But it cannot undermine the fundamental liberty of the biological family, because it cannot eliminate the natural rights and duties in which that liberty is grounded. We should preserve the fundamental marriage right for the sake of our communities and the rule of law.

Full article can be accessed by visiting The Public Discourse.

The Cost of Sexual Selfishness

"The only thing radical about Bruce Jenner’s transformation into ‘Caitlyn’ is the harm to his body, inflicted in a desperate quest to be something that he’s most assuredly not: a woman." -David French

David French addresses the recent Vanity Fair shoot of Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner in National Review, and explains why Bruce/“Caitlin” doesn’t need our applause, but prayers:

ThinkstockPhotos-80710065A surgically damaged man appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, and the applause is mandatory. There are some who call this latest turn in the sexual revolution “radical” or “transformative.” Yet, in reality, the only thing radical about Bruce Jenner’s transformation into “Caitlyn” is the harm to his body, inflicted in a desperate quest to be something that he’s most assuredly not: a woman.

To those who say that Bruce Jenner’s body is his own — that he can do what he wants with it — realize that during this process his many children lost a father, and his wife lost a husband. These losses occur during every “transition,” as the sexual revolution demands — upon pain of shame and banishment — that family members treat fathers as mothers, sons as daughters, and husbands as wives. The Jenner/Kardashian clan has expressed support (though Kris and Kylie Jenner are still obviously struggling), but really, what other option did they have? For people who inhabit the pop-culture tribe, you disapprove of sexual radicalism at your own– very high — professional risk.

We’re growing increasingly accustomed to bearing the costs of sexual selfishness and radical personal autonomy. Robert Putnam’s new book, Our Kids, reads like one long treatise on what happens when families fall apart. The battle over same-sex marriage treats adult sexual fulfillment as the highest social good, one worth trampling core civil liberties to enact and preserve. In spite of this obvious cost, liberals recently exulted over Gallup-poll results showing that Americans had “shift[ed] left” on virtually every significant social issue — with increasing support for divorce, extramarital sex, gay sex, polygamy, and adultery. The formula for cultural decay is by now quite clear: Short-term gratification leads to longer-term misery. Yet the sexual revolutionaries maintain their cultural grip by owning the pleasure and blaming others for the pain.

Full article is available at National Review.

If for No Other Reason, Protect the Family for the Sake of the Children

ThinkstockPhotos-466348257The media is awash with stories promoting transgenderism, touting celebrities like Bruce Jenner as being “heroic” and featuring transgender characters in several television series. But do reality shows actually depict the reality of what happens to children and families when a man denies his innate maleness or a woman denies her innate femaleness, and attempt to trick nature and “change” their gender to suit what they say is their “identity?” Denise Shick was raised by a “transgender” father, and the reality of her experience bears no resemblance to what is being pushed by Hollywood as heroic and healthy:

I am one of those children. I was raised by a transgender father.

I can testify to the emotional strain and confusion that my father’s life played in my sexual and gender identity. I sought out our neighbors for a foster father. Many times I pretended that one of my uncles or a friend’s father was my make-believe father.

I was so hungry for my father; a transgender “mom” would not fit that need no matter how badly the adult wished it to.

My father experimented with my make-up and clothes, and by 7th grade I had decided that alcohol was the easiest method to numb my own pain. By the beginning of high school, I wondered if life was worth living.

Shick continues to relate her difficulties and experiences at the hands of her “transgender” ‘parent.’ She finishes by challenging, and begging America to do the right thing, if for no other reason, than for the sake of the children:

We prioritize adult’s sexual preferences ahead of what is best for their children.

As a culture we are very willing to address the emotional distress, isolation and other negative issues of people who come out as transgender adults. But we have not even begun to discuss the issues involved and the impact this has on their wives and children.

I’m begging America to wake up to what is being done for the sake of society and for children worldwide! This cultural celebration of transgenderism, for me as a daughter of a transgender father, is misguided and insensitive.

In our country’s most recent challenge regarding gay marriage, six adult children raised in same-sex or transgender households came forward to address the importance they placed on having both a mother and a father.

I wonder if anyone is listening to the voices of the adult children that should count and be heard.

As I know from firsthand experience, all children—including those being adopted—deserve a mom and a dad.

Source and quotes via The Daily Signal.

Data Faked by Same-sex Marriage Researchers

Last year, the media was awash in stories reporting what was considered a major study that “proved” that once people had a conversation at their home with a same-sex canvasser, their minds were changed on whether same-sex ‘marriage’ should be accepted.

ThinkstockPhotos-467417087Further, the study claimed this was such a profound tactic, that follow up research showed that the change had lasted for an entire year, and that it had spread to others in the person’s family. This is reminiscent of what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said (in her now infamous interview), claiming that the reason attitudes on same-sex ‘marriage’ had supposedly changed was that people were interacting with gay friends and neighbors who support it.

Now comes proof that the study was a fake, and it appears that the data was completely fabricated. The study’s lead author, a professor from Columbia, has formally retracted the study, blaming his co-author for the irregularities:

A study claiming that gay people advocating same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds has been retracted due to fraud.

The study was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.

Donald Green, the lead author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results.

While this development is proving to be an embarrassment to those orchestrating the movement to redefine marriage, it reflects much deeper issues:

First, it shows how willing the media is to massively publicize any claim that shows people are changing their minds on same-sex ‘marriage’ because it feeds into the narrative that this is inevitable and they are on the right side of history.

Second, it shows how the underlying methodologies of many- if not most -studies supporting the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement are questionable – often using small convenience samples featuring people who have an interest in a study turning out a particular way.

This phenomenon was discussed in a ground-breaking report by Professor Loren Marks on the many studies used to support the claim that there are “no differences” for children raised by same-sex couples. Professor Marks looked at 59 of these studies and concluded that not one of them compared a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random representative sample of married parents and their children:

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said in his retraction letter to the journal, as posted on the Retraction Watch blog.

People – including Supreme Court Justices – would do well to remember these fake and flawed studies when the media trots out the next claim purporting to show how beneficial it will be if we redefine the most important social institution civilization has ever known.

Source via Buzzfeed

Parents Shouldn't Provide What is Best for Their Children?

There are proponents in academia who have suggested that parents who educate their children to the best of their ability, is “unfair” to other children who do not receive the same opportunity. As ridiculous as this idea seems, it is an honest, though outlandish, theory that some want put into practice. Adam Swift (Prof. at University of Warwick) is a key proponent of this theory, and he seems to have backing from other academics such as Peter Singer (Ethics Prof. at University of Princeton) as well as public figures such as Pres. Barack Obama:

Parents Helping Their Children With Their Homework

President Obama used language of inequality to critique parents who send their kids to private schools and health clubs just this week.

“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together,” he said.

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social-justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” he (Adam Swift) continues, cheerfully. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we were to abolish the family, we would create a more level playing field.”

The article continues to explain the folly of holding ‘equality’ as the highest good:

Sarcasm aside, we owe Swift a real debt of gratitude for demonstrating the folly of Progressive equality-worship. Although his ideas are at the extreme end of the Progressive spectrum, the language of “equality” and the decrying of “inequality” is pervading our culture.

Of course, American liberty was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. But when people speak of equality these days, they usually mean not fundamental equality before the law, but rather state-engineered equality of socioeconomic outcomes. Perhaps by seeing this ideology taken to its insane extreme, we can recognize its failings more clearly.

The idea is to take all power, even from the parents, and center it into the State (Federal Government) so that it may decide what is best in all things.

It’s hard not to see that beneath all the egalitarian language lies a bald-faced power grab. Swift—and those who share his worldview—believe they are entitled to make mandatory rules for others which they refuse to adopt for themselves… Swift is operating squarely within the tradition of all Marxist dictators past and present, who style themselves champions of the common man but never deny themselves the luxuries of the ruling class.

Full article available via The Federalist.

No Child Deserves to Be Orphaned

459428949In today’s world, it is not unusual to hear of fathers who are so busy with their work that they hardly, if ever, have time to spend with their children. In a recent address to his general audience, Pope Francis warned that such a lifestyle creates “orphans at home.”

He explained that many problems children encounter can be traced to these “absentee fathers”- fathers who when physically at home, don’t take time to actually be with their kids.

The absence of the paternal figure in the life of little ones and young people produces gaps and wounds which can also be very grave. And, in fact, the deviances of children and of adolescents can in good part be traced to this absence, to the lack of examples and of authoritative guides in their daily life – to the lack of closeness, to the lack of love on the part of fathers. The sense of orphan-hood that so many young people live is deeper than we think.

They are orphans, but within the family, because the fathers are often absent, also physically, from home but above all because, when they are home, they do not behave as fathers, they do not have a dialogue with their children. They do not fulfill their educational task; they do not give to their children – with their example accompanied by words --, those principles, those values, those rules of life that they need.


Compared to his recent remarks praising mothers, Francis’s words for fathers seem harsh. However, the Bishop of Rome is not looking to praise only one parent or disparage the other, but rather highlight the importance of children being raised by both their mother and their father.

Francis stated that “a society without mothers would be a dehumanized society, for mothers are always, even in the worst moments, witnesses of tenderness, dedication and moral strength.” In the same way, a society without fathers is “lost”. Children look to their fathers as leaders of the family, as the one who will defend them and their mothers from the world, and quite simply, children need fathers for paternal guidance.

Francis himself acknowledged that his words were tough, but promised that next week he would speak about “the beauty of fatherhood.”

To state it simply, children need both a mother and a father. To deprive a child of one or the other is akin to orphaning them. Every child deserves a mother and father to foster, teach, and love them. No child deserves to be orphaned.

Nebraska School Insists: Stop Referring to Students by "Gendered Expressions" Such as "Boys and Girls"

A school in Lincoln, Nebraska is demanding that teachers no longer refer to students as “boys and girls”, but ... purple penguins?

Fox News reports on aLincoln Public Schools handout that included the following advice and explanation:

Purple Penguin“Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” reads a handout from the Lincoln Public Schools that was given to teachers.

“The agenda we’re promoting is to help all kids succeed,” Brenda Leggiardo the district's coordinator of social workers and counselors told the newspaper. “We have kids who come to us with a whole variety of circumstances, and we need to equitably serve all kids.”

So instead of asking boys and girls to line up as boys or girls, teachers have been encouraged to segregate the children by whether they prefer skateboards or bikes, or whether they like milk or juice.

“Always ask yourself, ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the handout stated.

The handout, provided by Gender Spectrum, a website which "provides education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages" does not explain what to do if all of the children like juice or skateboards. But it does suggest teachers “create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet at the rug.”

Equitably serve all kids? The school district seems to believe that in order to ensure “equality” for children who might have a real problem of gender confusion, it is a better idea to confuse ALL children.

As NOM President Brian Brown notes in our national newsletter this week:

178062396Now we see the tragic absurdity of a situation wherein, in response to gender dysphoria and confused sexual identities that may be conditions suffered by a certain number of kids, we confuse all kids by chiding them for calling themselves 'boys and girls' and name them instead after an imaginary creature, 'purple penguins.' (I suppose 'purple penguins,' unlike the black and white ones that live in Antarctica, don’t have biological sexes.)

This is why this indoctrination in the public schools is such a travesty and will be hard on our children: because, as you know, boys and girls actually really do exist, and purple penguins do not; and being a girl is a very good thing, as is being a boy.

Girls and boys shouldn’t be called “purple penguins” in order to appease a political agenda: they should be encouraged to be the people they have been since birth. Childhood is precious, and it should not be compromised because a small portion of adults want to modify the way boys and girls are addressed.

No law can change simple truth, no matter what terms are used. So let's fight back in our own school districts across America. Enough of the indoctrination: let girls enjoy being girls, and let boys enjoy being boys.

"Ruthless Misogyny" - A Glimpse at the Radical LGBT Playbook

From Public Discourse comes this hard-hitting piece which everyone should read and share.

It reveals the deplorable and unacceptable tenor of "debate" (if you can even call it that) waged by the radical activists promoting same-sex 'marriage' - a kind of bullying and harassment that has absolutely no place in the public square and should be condemned on all sides.

FemaleBut instead of condemnation, HRC and GLAAD and others meet the problem with a deafening silence that speaks louder than words - all the while throwing around invective like "hate group" to describe NOM and others, effectively throwing fuel on the fire and serves as a provocation to further attacks like the ones we see revealed in this article.

The author writes:

In the name of equality, groups such as GLAAD (which employs Jeremy Hooper) have pushed through gender identity laws that have legally erased women. The term “woman” now legally can refer to the way that a man chooses to identify himself. Once women have been erased legally as a group and as individuals, it is not hard to erase “mothers.” This lends support to the practice of using one woman’s eggs and another woman’s womb to supply children for gay male couples, obscuring the concept of motherhood and making it seem dispensable.

Share this far and wide, and help us expose where the real hatred and bigotry in the fight over marriage is coming from.

For a Strong Future, Children Deserve Committed, Married Mothers and Fathers

The importance of marriage to society is an irrevocable truth: for a society to even survive, there must be children. For children to be born, there must be fathers and mothers. For fatherhood and motherhood to exist, there must be commitment and sacrifice that will designate the male and female as a new union that will give society the needed foundation to flourish. That bond is marriage.

Dr. Scott Stanley examines a recent study showing that children with married parents are better off than children with unmarried parents.

Mother-Father-ChildTheir findings show that the association between marriage and positive child outcomes may be substantially accounted for by greater income and more engaged parenting among marrieds. Based on this, they argue that intervention efforts should focus on parenting and not on marriage, per se.

But Scott Hanley points out that marriage is more than a “mere commitment device” or a superfluous relationship status:

Signals of commitment are important across a wide swath of societal life because people will often make better decisions with clearer information about the level of motivation in others,iii and signals about commitment are, arguably, of great importance in the development and maintenance of romantic and family relationships. Reeves seems to be arguing that the signal value of marriage is not as consequential as behaviors such as parenting, but what that view fails to account for is how marriage has most typically been a potent signal of commitment with a distinct placement regarding the sequence and timing of childbearing. At the root of it, what is signaled by marriage is a commitment comprised of “us with a future.”v Sure, reality has very often been messier than the tidy ordering of love, marriage, and a baby carriage; and many marriages do not go the distance. But marriage is likely, in some large respect, explanatory regarding child outcomes because marriage most often is a strong and credible signal of commitment prior to childbirth.

[. . .]

While not always, and perhaps less so now than before, marriage serves as a strong signal that two people are tacitly committed to raising a family together. Further, and for more complex reasons than I want to develop here, signals are the most informative when they are fully under the control of those sending them—by which I mean, when the behavior has Family at Coffee Shopfewer prior constraints so that it reflects something true about the individual. That means that signals about commitment are more informative before a child arrives than after because having a child increases life constraints. When marriage precedes two people having a child, the question of intention about a shared long-term time horizon was settled before things got messy with baby drool and poop. For couples with this foundation already in place, even unplanned and mistimed children are still landing in a relatively rich context regarding bi-parental commitment. One can (and should) believe that various socio-economic disadvantages govern a lot in this big lottery of life, but we should not lose sight of how sequence plays a consequential and causal role in child outcomes.

Families are the foundation of society, and the devaluing of marriage has consequences that reach every male, female, and child, as well as future generations. Without marriage, “family” becomes a simple collection of cohabitants, and couples are no longer the building blocks that create and sustain those families, but simply a joint agreement.

Marriage is, indeed, fading in front of our eyes, and with it goes a lot of signal clarity about commitment in the context of sequence. Maybe those elements can be constructed behaviorally on a broad scale, but we should recognize the difficulty we face in trying to make up for the loss of something with real explanatory power.

For a strong future, children should be provided with the best environment possible: a family, with committed, married mother and father.