Darrel Reid, Ph.D.

If we were to step back only a generation, back 30 to 40 years ago, who would have thought that on the verge of the year 2000 a world congress would be held to discuss what can be done about the "decay of the natural family".  What futurist in the 1960s looking ahead to this day would have predicted that marriage and the natural family, cornerstones of any healthy and civil society, would be facing decline as they do now?

We are at this point, not because of some great defining moment, rather because we failed to recognize that ideas matter.  Thirty years ago it would have been preposterous to say the natural family or marriage was a useless institution. Those with an anti-family agenda were well aware of this.  Therefore, their agenda has not been to eliminate or replace the family and marriage, but instead they simply set out – in the classrooms, in the media, in the professions, wherever ideas were discussed – to slowly redefine these relationships.

Not long ago there was little if any doubt what a "family" meant.  Nearly everyone agreed that the family was the basic unit in society consisting of a husband and a wife along with their own or adopted children.  However, today some have redefined the family to include common-law unions or single parent households.  Even now there are efforts world wide to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. 

By expanding the definitions of family and marriage to include these other relationships we begin to strip away the value and prestige once the exclusive domain of the family and marriage bonds. It is nothing less than a bold face lie to say it harms no one to extend the privileges bestowed on legally married couples to other relationships.  By providing equal treatment, society forcefully communicates that these choices are of equal value with none being more desirable than the others are. This has serious implications for individuals and society as whole.  Furthermore, research and history reveals this notion of equality to be nothing more than the empty rhetoric of political correctness. 

The push to redefine the family and marriage no longer comes from some fringe element that can be easily dismissed or ignored.  In most countries it is clearly in the mainstream, fueled by the agenda of a minority, albeit a powerful one.  Their influence has often been incremental, but effective.  In Canada, for example, Statistics Canada (the national statistics agency) uses a census family category that includes most household relationships except homosexual couples, and that is currently being considered.  Each of our provincial governments treats common-law unions of a minimum duration as the legal equivalent of a marriage in many aspects.  Some of our provinces have even extended most of these legal rights to same-sex couples. 

But do not be mistaken – as successful as they have been, anti-family forces are a minority.  The vast majority of Canadians, as is the case in the rest of the world, value and support the natural definition of family.  Even those who have experienced family breakdown through divorce or illegitimacy often still believe the natural family and life-long marriages are the ideal relationships.  Despite this the attacks are continuing.  They come from gay rights activists who are seeking legitimacy of their relationships and misguided feminists who believe the roles of husbands and fathers are unnecessary.

In Canada a recent Supreme Court decision referred to as M and H has open the door to the possible redefinition of a spouse in common-law unions to include a same-sex partner.  The decision has opened the door for legally recognizing same-sex marriages in the future.  And coming soon, the courts will hear arguments to make parental discipline involving spanking a criminal offence.  Unfortunately, the fear of being labeled intolerant or worse yet discriminatory prevents many from openly opposing the ongoing redefinition of family and marriage.

While the natural family and life-long marriages have certainly been beat up some, their demise is, to quote Mark Twain, "greatly exaggerated." It can not be said enough – the anti-family forces are the minority.  The vast majority of people value and desire to live in natural families based on life-long marriages.  This is especially true among young people who have suffered the consequences of family breakdown over the last 20 years.  The research into marriage and family life continues to support our claims that the natural family and marriage between a husband and wife are superior to any other alternatives.  The evidence is there, all we need to do is act.  In fact positive pro-family action is already taking place throughout the world.

The Current Situation The Statistics:

Let’s begin by looking at the facts.  What is happening to marriage and the family?  Specifically, what is happening in Canada?  Although each country is slightly different, the trends have been very similar.

Common-law unions and single-parent families are on the rise.  The number of common law unions grew 158% from 1981 to 1996 and single parent households grew 59%.  In comparison the traditional married family grew only 10% over the same time.  In 1981 83.1% of families were legally married.  By 1996 this dropped to 73.7%.  During the same period common-law and lone parent households combined grew from 16.9% to 26.2% (See Graphs 1 and 2). More than a quarter of the families in Canada are not based on marriage.

What is even more disturbing is that the number of children dragged into this.  Nearly 1.8 million children live in single-parent homes.  A 44% increase since 1981.  The number of children raised in common-law unions has grown an astounding 241% between 1981 and 1996 from 215,805 to 735,565.  Meanwhile the number of children raised in married families has declined 5%.  The proportion of children not raised in a married family has grown from 16.6% in 1981 to 26.7% in 1996 (See Graphs 3 and 4).  As we look at the research, we realize that is 2.5 million children at risk.

Divorce and births outside of marriage are the main causes for so many children being raised outside of a married family.  In 1974, 94% of all births were to married women.  In 1997 it had fallen to 68.8%.  In the same period births to never married women rose from 5.5% of all births to nearly 30% (see Graph 5).  Even more staggering is what has happened among women under the age of 20.  The vast majority of births to women between the ages of 15 and 19 years of age are now to single mothers (See Graph 6), a big change since 1974. And teen pregnancies (unfortunately that is very different from births due to the high rate of abortions among teens) have risen 19% between 1987 and 1994 (See Graph 7).

While marriage is becoming less the norm, family breakdown has now become an expected reality for many Canadians. In 1997 the percentage of marriages expected to end in divorce within 30 years was around 35% (Statistics Canada: "Divorces 1997," The Daily (May 18, 1999)). The introduction of more liberal divorce laws in 1986 resulted in a spike in divorces in 1987.  The rate has since declined (See Graph 8), but this may be attributable to the decline in the number of new marriages and the increase in common-law unions. Between 1974 and 1996 the number of new marriages fell from nearly 200,000 in 1974 to less than 157,000 in 1996 (See Graph 9). 

For many Canadians marriage and the family have become a temporary arrangement. The proportion of brides and grooms who were previously divorced has doubled since 1974 (See Graph 10).  According to Canadian sociologist Reginald Bibby, the percentage of all Canadians who were "ever divorced" doubled between 1975 and 1995 (Bibby, The Bibby Report, op. cit., p. 6.).  And "almost 6 million Canadians, or 26% of the population 15 and over, were in, or had been in a common-law union at some time." (Statistics Canada: "Report on the demographic situation in Canada," The Daily (March 25, 1997)). It’s no wonder that the majority of Canadians feel that "the state of the family is a national crisis" (Angus Reid Survey, September 27, 1999).

The Research:

So what does this mean?  Should we be concerned with these trends or is this just some evolution of our relationships that we must simply adjust to. Well the research tells us that we should be deeply concerned.  The evidence is overwhelming. The breakdown of the natural family is dangerous for individuals and society.  It may be why, despite the disappointing statistics, 92% of Canadians still rate the family as being very important in their lives, 78% children need a father and a mother at home and only 12% feel the institution of marriage is outdated (Feedback Research Corporation: The Canadian Family (October 1998)).  Canadians long for stable intact families. And they do so for very good reasons.

Family breakdown is harmful to children.  In fact, if family breakdown were a car it would have been recalled years ago. In his survey of the research, the Heritage Foundation’s Patrick Fagan (1994, 1996 and 199), found that the impacts of illegitimacy and marriage breakdown on children included:

• Lower newborn health and increased risk of early infant death;

• Retarded cognitive and verbal development

• Lower educational achievement;

• Lower levels of job attainment;

• Increased behavioural and emotional problems;

• Warped social development;

• Increased dependency on welfare

• Lower financial well-being;

• Increased exposure to crime; and 

• Increased risk of being sexually abused.

In addition children experiencing family breakdown or illegitimacy are more likely to have marital problems of their own.  Thus continuing the dangerous cycle for their children.

The impacts of marital breakdown or cohabitation for adults are just as dangerous.  Compared to other alternatives (that is – cohabitation, divorce and single) married people are much better off. 

Research has found married people:

• Have better physical health;

• Live longer;

• Are happier;

• Have better mental and emotional health;

• Are better off financially;

• Have more satisfying sex lives;

• Have more stable relationships; and 

• Experience less domestic violence.

The natural family, built on stable marriages is far and away better than all the other alternatives. 

The Action Plan:

It is obvious that strong marriages and healthy families are vital for productive and prosperous societies.  People of all political stripes are beginning to agree on this. But what can we do?  To begin with we must get the information out.  People must be told that the alternative definitions are not equal to natural marriages and families.  The lies must be exposed.  We do not have to accept the breakdown of families as an unstoppable trend.  Rather we must ensure the truth is heard – from our churches, synagogues and mosques, from our classrooms, from our media, from our entertainment and from our governments. 

Government

I would like to more closely examine what governments can do to ensure that marriage and the natural family is supported.   It is an area where I have some experience.  The following outlines 11 initiatives governments can do to ensure they are supporting strong natural families and marriages.  Some of these initiatives are already being implemented in some jurisdictions and there may be more than one way to accomplish each initiative. Others have yet to be implemented, however, inaction is no longer acceptable.

Gather Data: Without the facts, developing effective public policy is a guessing game and research is severely hampered.  However, in Canada and many other nations, our governments fail to collect adequate data on marriages and families. We know so little about the people who get married or divorced, the family settings children are growing up in or what characteristics are common among strong families.  For example we do very little to distinguish between common-law and legally married couples.  By lumping these two relationships together we learn very little if children or spouses in married families are safer, achieve higher education, attain more wealth, are less likely to commit a crime, etc than those in common-law relationships.  Furthermore, it is very likely that combining common-law couples with married couples leads to underestimating the benefits of marriage. These are important facts that must be known if we are to make wise public policy choices. If we can measure nearly every industry trend, then we can surely do a better job of measuring marriage and family trends.  Governments should produce a regular report combining all the current data on family matters.  The recent report, "To Have and To Hold: Strategies to Strengthen Marriage and Relationships" produced by a committee of the Australian House of Representatives could serve as a model for other governments. 

An ideal annual or biannual statistical report would:

• Indicate the relationship history of people before they marry (i.e. never married, number of previous common-law relationships, number of divorces, etc.) and track the divorce rate of each history category.

• Provide a complete listing of marital status including single, common-law divorced, and separated when discussing family issues such as crime, violence, income, health, number of children, health and education of children etc.

• Provide more detailed and separate tracking of common-law unions, including length of relationships, outcomes (marriage, break up, or ongoing), etc.

• Indicate the number of blended families and number of children not living with both biological parents.

• Track family structure, legal marital status, divorce and marriage rates, birth rates and total number of people affected by family breakdown on a more regular basis.

Define Marriage in Legislation: With society becoming more and more obsessed with contracts, legal agreements, conventions and charters we no longer can rely on religious, cultural and natural norms to protect marriage.  It must have the full weight of the law with clear definitions.  For many countries based on common-law there is no formal legislation that defines marriage.  Unfortunately our courts have proved more than willing to erase centuries of common-law history in the name of political correctness.  As was noted earlier the natural definition of a marriage between one man and one woman is vastly superior to other alternatives in so many ways. A Definition of Marriage Act would signal that marriage is a foundational aspect of our society and should not be easily redefined. Such legislation has already been introduced throughout the U.S. and we at Focus on the Family Canada are calling for similar legislation to be introduced in our country.

The key aspects of Definition of Marriage Act are:

1. Marriage is clearly defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.

2. Spouse is clearly defined as either a man or woman who are married to each other.

3. Marriage is established as a unique legal relationship deserving of special status before the law.

Reform Divorce Laws: Marriage is likely the most important relationship two people will enter into.  Yet it is the only agreement that can often be unilaterally ended with no reason.  Despite the fact that marriage is more than a temporary living arrangement and most people enter the relationship with much higher expectations than that, the law communicates the exact opposite.  "Till death do us part," has become "until something better comes along." Divorce laws must be reformed to indicate the importance society places on marriage.  Research has shown that no-fault divorce has resulted in a significant increase in the level of divorce.  Divorce should be more difficult to obtain, especially when contested or when children are involved.  When contested, the waiting periods for a divorce should be longer to provide an opportunity for reconciliation.  Parents who wish to divorce should be fully informed of the impacts their decision will have on their children and if they still choose divorce – how to minimize those impacts.  A number of states in the US are experimenting with divorce reforms including repealing no-fault divorce.  In Canada a special joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate recommended a move from the current adversarial, "winner take all" approach to one based on "shared parenting" The impacts on marriages and families over the next few years will be worth watching.

Much needed divorce reforms include:

1. Ending no-fault divorce

2. Establishing longer cooling-off periods

3. Increased use of arbitration as opposed to the current adversarial court system

4. The establishment of a parenting plan before the divorce is finalized

5. Increased emphasis on joint access

Introduce Family Impact Legislation: Often legislation, regulations and policies are put into place with the aim of dealing with a very specific problem or issue.  However, tunnel vision can prevent policy makers from recognizing the unintended impact these policies might have on the family.  Therefore all government policies should be passed through a filter that assesses what affect this might have on the family.  With Family Impact legislation in place family issues would play a central part in the development of new policies.  Right from the start, policy makers who want to see their programs implemented would have to consider the potential impacts their proposals might have on the family. U.S. President Ronald Reagan, established such a filter by Executive Order, unfortunately President Clinton has since removed the order.

Family Impact legislation should force policymakers to consider the following:

1. Does the policy serve to reinforce the stability of the family and marriages?

2. Does the policy help the family to perform its functions or does it substitute government intervention?

3. Does the policy strengthen or erode the authority of parents in the home and the rights of parents in the education, nurture and supervision of their children?

4. What message, intended or otherwise, does the policy send to the public concerning the status of the family, especially to young people?

5. Does this policy lessen earned household income?  If so how do the benefits of the policy outweigh the lower family income?  (Adapted from "Report to the President: The Family," The White House Group on the Family 1986).

 Reform the Tax Code: The tax system should not penalize couples who choose to be legally married, nor should it favour one parenting relationship over another.  While there may be considerable debate over what is the appropriate level of taxation (if God requires 10% of us, I question who the government thinks they are), the tax system should not penalize the couple who marries or has one parent stay at home to care for their children.  Whether it is the marriage penalty in the U.S. or the homemaker penalty in Canada.  For example in Canada a family with one-income earning $60,000 pays $6,000 more in income taxes than a two-income family earning the same amount.  A country’s tax system should at least be neutral on family decisions or even be weighted in favour of traditional families.  As part of its overall tax reform, the province of Alberta in Canada has taken bold steps to correct this bias against one-income families by significantly raising the spousal exemption.  Other provinces are now considering similar action.

The following options are available to make the tax code more supportive of families:

1. Allow joint Filing or income splitting

2. Increase the spousal exemption amount

3. Provide a universal child tax benefit regardless of the type of childcare used

Promote Abstinence Education: Governments need abandon safe sex education and begin promoting abstinence education.  Decades of sex education programs have done nothing to lower teen pregnancies. However, the recent reintroduction of abstinence education is starting to have an impact.  The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils in the United States has concluded that abstinence education works whereas "safer-sex" programs do not. Canada is starting to similar results of its implementation of abstinence education (Need Calgary statistics). The birth of babies to 2 very young British girls not even in their teens has caused that country to seriously consider what is being taught in their schools.  Abstinence education leads to fewer teen pregnancies, fewer abortions and fewer children in single parent homes.

Promote Family & Marriage Education: Marriage and starting a family are big decisions that should not be taken lightly.  Young people should be well aware of what they are getting into.  It is ironic that we teach sex education in schools, but little if anything is taught about marriage and family.  The state of Florida has passed the Marriage Preparation and Preservation Act that requires a marriage and relationships course for high school students.  The law also reduces the cost of marriage license for couples taking an approved religious or non-religious marriage preparation course. Couples applying for a marriage license receive a handbook outlining their legal rights and responsibilities. These educational initiatives should go along way in preventing family breakdown even before the wedding.

The following educational initiatives should be implemented:

1. Provide incentives for taking pre-marital counseling

2. Provide objective and factual family and marriage education in High School curriculum. Topics should include the benefits of marriage for individuals and society along with a discussion of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.

3. Existing government programs supporting social science research should direct research grants towards marriage and family research.

Reform Welfare and Other Social Programs: Social programs should not take the place of a spouse nor should they encourage irresponsible parenting. Yet this is exactly what many of our current welfare programs do.  Single moms are rewarded not for getting married, but rather for having another child.  Not only has welfare become more lucrative than getting a low-paying job, it is also more lucrative than marrying someone with a low paying job.  These disincentives to marriage are one of the biggest contributors to the problem of fatherless families. Society should not encourage single parenting and more importantly it should not help fathers abandon their responsibilities to their children. Fortunately, many states in the U.S as well as provinces in Canada have begun to lower benefits to make working and marrying someone who works more attractive.  Some jurisdictions are limiting the benefits available to those who have another child well on welfare.  Still others are ensuring that one parent can not walk away from his or her financial responsibilities and expect the state to fill the gap. And the United Kingdom has made lowering teen pregnancies a key priority of its welfare reforms.  These programs need to now be implemented more broadly.

Enforce Child Support: Governments should not let a father or mother walk away from their responsibilities.  Child support must be vigorously enforced. In almost all instances children are a result of consenting relationships.  If one parent chooses not to take care of their child – to live up to his or her responsibility, then society must act on behalf of the child.  We must send a clear signal that once you have a child parenting is no longer an option.  The British Green Paper, "Children First" sets out a plan to improve the child support system of the United Kingdom.  Its aim is to ensure support is collected, that children benefit from greater enforcement, that non-custodial parents have greater access to their children and taxpayers are not forced to pay for absent parents. While the details may be different for each country, the objectives are worthwhile for any jurisdiction.

Child support programs should:

1. Ensure all reasonable efforts are made to collect support

2. Provide the benefits from greater enforcement first to children and not government administration

3. Allow non-custodial parents greater access to their children

4. Reduce the taxpayers costs for irresponsible parenting

Confirm Parental Rights: Governments need to recognize that they make lousy parents.  They should not interfere in normal family life.  This is not to say that the laws against child abuse and neglect should be ignored.  Of course those laws should be vigorously enforced.  However, the state should not dictate to parents what is in their children’s best interests.  If parents are expected to be responsible for their children’s behaviour then they must have the right to choose how their children are raised.  Those groups who exploit the real human rights violations against children to promote their agenda of professional parenting and child bureaucracies must be stopped.  Governments should support, not replace parents. 

Set Objectives: People are motivated by goals.  As Proverbs 29:18 states, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." People need a vision for families and marriage. Governments continuously set goals for all kinds of economic and social initiatives.  However, they have been reluctant to set goals for strong marriages and two parent families, despite the overwhelming evidence in support of these.  This is an area where governments can provide leadership and we are already beginning to see some do so.  For example in the United Kingdom the government released its green paper on the family "Supporting Families" that discusses the issues facing families and sets some basic objectives for strengthening families and marriages.  Far from perfect, Tony Blair’s initiatives have at least resulted in the major British political parties now debating what are the best ways to assist families and marriage.  Of course action must follow.

Key objectives should include:

1. Decreasing the number of divorces

2. Decreasing the number of single-parent households

3. Increasing the number of children raised in legally married families

4. Decreasing the number of teen pregnancies

5. Decreasing the number of children born to mothers on welfare

6. Decreasing the number of children not receiving their child support

7. Decreasing the number of child custody battles in the court