The death of the taditional family

Briefing.

From CFNews: Women are more likely to give birth before they turn 25 than get married, according to official statistics that illustrate how British family life has been transformed in a generation. More people are living alone, more children are being raised by single parents and more grown-up children are living with their parents than ever before, according to the Office for National Statistics. One expert said that the in-depth annual study was final confirmation that the nuclear family had become 'a museum piece'.

The wide-ranging report also showed that Britain had become a nation of people who travel longer distances to work, take more foreign holidays and fill their homes with electrical gadgets.

The Social Trends report made clear, however, that the most radical changes had been to child-rearing and marriage.

Its figures showed that 30 per cent of women under 30 had given birth by the age of 25, while 24 per cent had married: the first time that having children had become the first major milestone of adult life, ahead of marriage. This was in sharp contrast to their parents' generation. In 1971 three-quarters of women were married by 25, and half had given birth. The statistics also showed that:

* the number of adults living alone doubled in a generation, from 6 per cent to 12 per cent, because of a combination of death, divorce and marrying at a later age;

* single-parent households nearly tripled from 4 per cent of the total to 11 per cent between 1971 and 2008;

* the percentage of households comprising the traditional nuclear family - a couple with children - fell from 52 per cent to 36 per cent over the same period;

* the number of married couples hit the lowest level, in real terms, since 1895, with 237,000 marriages in England and Wales in 2006, down from a peak of 471,000 during the Second World War;

* some 1.66 million children were being brought up by an unmarried couple, up from one million 10 years ago. The number brought up by married parents dropped from 9.57 million to 8.32 million.

The figures were published two months after official statistics showed that the annual rate of teenage pregnancy in England had risen to 42 in every 1,000, despite a £286 million government campaign to tackle the problem. The figures reinforced Britain's position as the teenage pregnancy capital of Europe.

Dr Richard Woolfson, a leading family expert and child psychologist, said: 'The nature of family life has changed significantly in the last 30 years. The traditional nuclear family of two parents and 2.4 children has become a museum piece.

'The single-parent family carried all sorts of social and moral judgments back then [in 1971]. That is just not the case any more.

'The couple who do not get married is now socially acceptable in a way that it never was before.'

Dr Woolfson said it was impossible to say if children raised outside the traditional family were unhappier, but he added: 'You have to ask what sort of families will today's children create. Where will they go?'

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and chairman of the Centre for Social Justice, said the figures 'mattered hugely'. He added: 'One in 12 children will experience their parents breaking up by the age of five if those parents are married. But that figure is one in two if the parents are cohabiting. Marriage is not just a piece of paper.'

Mr Duncan Smith called for the tax system to favour those who choose marriage over living together. 'It is not our job, as politicians, to lecture, but the problem has been caused by successive UK governments centring on the child, and forgetting the parent,' he said.

'We now know that children suffer hugely if they don't get the balance of two parents in their upbringing. Those with two parents are less likely to take drugs, more likely to do well at school, more likely to get jobs.'

The ONS figures also showed that a rise in the number of people going to university and a decade-long house price bubble had meant that 300,000 more people under the age of 34 lived at home than in 2001. In 2008, 29 per cent of men under the age of 34 lived at home with their parents, up from 27 per cent seven years earlier.

The ONS said the Divorce Reform Act of 1969, which made it easier to dissolve a marriage, was one of the main causes for the radical change in families.

Critics of the Government point out that the tax system has also been altered to the advantage of unmarried couples.

The last tax break for married couples, the married couples' allowance, was abolished in 2000. State benefits, and especially Gordon Brown's flagship tax credit system, pay more to single mothers than to two-parent families.

Patricia Morgan, the author of The War between the State and the Family, said: 'There is discrimination on the one hand, but on the other there are major benefit incentives for a single woman to have children. It's a mug's game, getting married.'

However, the ONS figures suggested that those who got married were staying together for longer. An average marriage lasted 11.6 years in 2005, up from less than 10 years in the mid-1990s.

Sue Palmer, a child expert and author of Toxic Childhood, said many of the statistics relating to the breakdown in the traditional family were linked indirectly to separate figures showing that 30 per cent of girls and 31 per cent of boys were overweight or obese. She said: 'The more parents work, the more the children stay at home and are not playing outside with their friends.'

A spokesperson for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: 'We know that the make-up of the family unit is changing but that doesn't mean the family is breaking down. It is Government's role to support families in all shapes and sizes, which is why our policies are aimed at empowering and advising parents to make the best choices for their children. We are investing £250 million in local services for parents, particularly those in challenging circumstances and last December the first ever Government relationship summit looked at what more we can do to support children and families and give extra help to families experiencing relationship breakdown.'

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: 'We support all struggling families, giving them the real help they need. Modern families come in all shapes and sizes but every family with one child, where one adult is working full-time at minimum wage took home £292 a week in 2008 compared to £182 in 1999 - a real terms increase of 24 per cent.

'Child benefit, Tax credits and other benefits help all working familiies and through the welfare reform bill we are putting new expectations on workless parents to ensure they take up the support we offer.' [Daily Telegraph]

Read More...

Summary only...

Bishop Devine slams Labour's record

Briefing. Bishop Devine is right to attempt to show Labour that trampling on the family will cost them votes. But David Cameron's support for the family is short on specifics, and betrayed his Catholic supporters completely over the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

From The Scotsman, in part: Joe Devine, the Bishop of Motherwell, has written a letter to David Cameron, praising the Tory leader for his stance on family values. The controversial bishop asked Mr Cameron to confirm that he will support and promote the "sacred" institutions of the family and marriage.

In the last Holyrood election, Bishop Devine called on Roman Catholic voters to abandon Labour, undermining the Church's previous perceived position as the "Scottish Labour Party at prayer". Then, he accused Labour of abandoning family values in its attitudes towards single parents, abortion and homosexuality.

...

[In a letter to David Cameron] the bishop made it clear that he was impressed by the work carried out by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith's think-tank on social breakdown.

"I have been full of admiration for a number of your pro-family policies (as well as your promise to support and promote faith schools) that include ending tax credit penalties paid by married couples with children," he wrote.

"Your pledge to help the estimated 1.8 million families who lose out by staying together is an exemplary policy initiative, certainly compared to the current situation where any state support for marriage and married couples is shamefully rejected.

"Families need all the help they can get – now more than ever! And families who stay together should not be financially penalised for their commitment and loyalty to each other."

See the full story.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bishops consult on Social Teaching document

Action: please respond to this consultation! The bishops want your views: give them. Their last document on the subject, 'The Common Good', was abysmal. One key problem is a complete failure to understand or address the negative effect of government policy on family life. Click on the 'Family Policy' tab above to see the most recent of the innumable stories on this blog on this subject, including reports on the stready torrent of studies which show that the tax and benefits system encourage not only divorce but even the separation of unmarried co-habiting parents of young children. This situation is diabolical: for the Catholic bishops to ignore it in a document about 'social justice' is scandalous. If they do it again, let it not be because we failed to mention it to them!

Comments and observations about the Social Teaching Document to be sent by post to:

Archbishop Peter Smith
Social teaching document consultation
39, Eccleston Square
London
SW1V 1BX

By e-mail to CSTconsult@cbcew.org.uk

Press release: Bishops consult on Social Teaching Document

A consultation period has been launched today by the bishops' working group on a proposed new Social Teaching Document. Contributions are invited from the lay faithful, agencies and groups.

The new document will seek to present the essence and application of what has often been described as the Catholic Church's best kept secret; its social teaching, to some of the issues facing society today. It will be particularly pertinent at a time of great turbulence in the global economy and change in our society. It will seek to make clear that social teaching is an integral dimension of the Gospel message, always rooted and founded in a life of prayer.

The Archbishop of Cardiff, the Most Reverend Peter Smith, Chairman of the Social Teaching Document Working Group says: "I think the document which we are preparing will be an important one, not only in helping to set out in a creative and constructive way the Church's contribution to the debate about the sort of society we want to make, but also to give our own people confidence in their generous work for the common good which is part of the Kingdom of Christ."

The proposed framework for the document identifies four areas in particular: the current social and cultural context (with globalisation, the need for a moral ecology of the markets and the changing meaning of family life being, among others, areas for exploration); the theological context; possible topics and crowd of witnesses - a section which would look at contemporary examples of men and women, and organisations and communities whose life and work are inspired and sustained by the Gospel.

A great deal has changed in culture and society since the Common Good was written by the Bishops of England and Wales in 1996. Although much of this statement on Catholic social teaching is still relevant; the new social teaching document will not be a second edition of the Common Good.

A working group of seven bishops has been charged with taking the new document forward - Archbishop Peter Smith, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, and Bishops Chris Budd, David McGough, Declan Lang, Michael Campbell and Malcolm McMahon. The bishops hope to complete their work by the autumn of 2009.

ENDS

Read More...

Summary only...

Another attack on marriage

Briefing.

From Christian Concern for our Nation: Potential Cohabitation Law Reform: An Attack on Marriage

There is a second reading of Lord Lester’s Private Member’s Bill on cohabitation on Friday 13th of March in the House of Lords. The proposals in the Bill would allow the court to make the same type of financial orders as on divorce where a couple (of the same or opposite sex who are not married or in a civil partnership) have been living together for two years or more, or have a child together. The practical effect of the change would be to remove the distinction between marriage and cohabiting relationships on relationship breakdown.

The Parliamentary page including the text of the Cohabitation Bill can be found here.

This is a Private Member’s Bill, not a Government one. However, in the past Lord
Lester produced a Private Members Bill which was a forerunner to the Government’s own Civil Partnership Act 2004, so we need to seriously take account of the potential influence this Bill may have to undermine marriage. Private Member’s Bills can on infrequent occasions become law.


The background to this Bill is a Law Commission report published in July 2007 on
the financial consequences of cohabitation, which recommended a change in the
law to introduce a limited regime of financial “compensation” for former
cohabitees on relationship breakdown. Details of the Law Commission report and
executive summary can be found here.

In March 2008, the Government interim response to the Law Commission report was to take no further action and await the outcome of research, as shown here. Ministers were reported to want to consider the cost implications.

Lord Lester’s Bill is much more wide ranging than the Law Commission recommendations. It will introduce a new law similar to our current divorce law for all cohabiting couples. It will apply to any cohabiting couple who has lived together for two years or has had a child even if they do not live together. The two years do not even have to be fully continuous and can compromise several separate periods as long as the gaps do not add up to more than six months.

Although the basis upon which orders under the proposed new law are made will be
at variance from current divorce law (for example, there will be a presumption
that the couple will be financially self-supporting with maintenance claims
generally limited to a period of 3 years, and claims will be limited to
“reasonable needs”), the effect in practice will be to remove the distinction
between marriage and cohabiting relationships on relationship breakdown.
However, there is provision for couples to “opt-out” of the obligations the new
law would impose, by entering into a written agreement after the receipt of
independent legal advice by each party.


Response At first blush, the proposals in this Bill may seem attractive in that
they will encourage parties to take responsibility for the consequences of
informal relationships. However the inherent instability of cohabiting
relationships, which are commitment vulnerable, is of great concern because of
the impact of family breakdown, in particular on the children. Statistics show
that only 35 per cent of children born into cohabiting unions will live with
both parents throughout their childhood (to their 16th birthday), compared with
70 per cent of children born within marriage. Millennium Cohort Study data on
15,000 mothers shows that during the first three years of a child’s life, the
risk of family breakdown faced by those who describe themselves as
‘cohabiting’, is 3.5 times greater than that faced by married parents. The
impact on children of family breakdown is of course well-documented. Any legal
change which lowers the status of marriage and makes relationships that are not
characterised by commitment more attractive to people at the expense of
marriage is therefore unwelcome, and likely to be detrimental.


Please pray for the protection of marriage as a stabling foundation of our
nation, and for life-long commitment to bring up children in a secure and
stable family environment. The best way for parents to take responsibility for
their children and one another is to get married.


Please also pray against any legal change that will ultimately undermine this
goal.


Where possible, and particularly if you are in communication with Members of the
House of Lords contact them to register your concern about this Bill, the
underlying philosophy which undermines marriage, and which is in practice
likely to lead to the encouragement of informal relationships that are not
characterised by commitment.

Read More...

Summary only...

Teenage single mothers: a problem?

Briefing.

From CFNews: A former Government minister has spoken out about Britain's 'national catastrophe' - its 'army' of teenage mothers living on benefits. Writing on his internet blog, Tom Harris MP also accused the Government of lacking moral leadership.

Mr Harris anticipated his readers' shock at a Labour MP speaking so forthrightly on a topic considered largely taboo within the party. 'But', he wrote, 'I can no longer pretend that the army of teenage mothers living off the state is anything other than a national catastrophe.'

The Glasgow South MP identified a lack of moral leadership from the Government as the key reason why so many young girls get pregnant and succumb to benefit dependency, very often following the example set in their own families.

Mr Harris said that effective Government policies were needed, but that 'policies are one thing; winning the argument about why they're needed is another. And we have to start by making it clear what we believe is right and wrong. How can we expect parents to teach that to their kids if our political leaders aren't prepared to say the same?'

He also wrote: 'There is right and wrong and it is wrong for anyone to choose to have a child without knowing what's involved in its upbringing, without being prepared to sacrifice your own lifestyle for it.'

He continued: 'People shouldn't be ashamed of their circumstances, but neither should we avoid making value judgments about others' choices, especially when those choices result in a greater burden on the state, and lead to the continuation of the underclass. Teenage girls shouldn't be having underage sex. Why? Because it's wrong.

'Teenage girls shouldn't choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career. Why? Because it's wrong.

'Parents shouldn't teach their children that a lifetime on benefits is attractive or even acceptable. Why? Because it's wrong.

'(Please assume all the usual caveats: some people have no choice but to claim benefits, lots of single parents do a great job, etc.)'

Aware of the criticism he would face from liberal commentators and some in his own party, Mr Harris wrote: 'Being accused of accepting the current appalling state of affairs, of pretending that the concepts of right and wrong are meaningless - that is far worse than being accused of pandering to the right.'

Mr Harris's comments attracted support from some of his party's political opponents, including Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith. Well known for his extensive research into the causes of Britain's 'broken society', Mr Duncan Smith said: 'We are into the third and fourth generation of lone teenage mothers and the Government has done nothing to end it because they refuse to say whether this is right or wrong.'

Recent figures showing an increase in teenage conceptions prompted Children's Minister Beverley Hughes to speak out about young people's need for moral guidance.

She said: 'This is not just about the mechanics of sex, it is about relationships, moral values and about making clear what is right and wrong and what you expect from young people, but it is doing that in a way that enables them to take part in the dialogue.'

And many social commentators greeted Gordon Brown's recent call for a return to 'traditional' financial policies with a demand for traditional social policies as well.

Columnist Janet Daley wrote of 'the great cultural shift' embodied by the Labour Government, a shift which included 'the celebration of personal fulfilment and self-realisation at any cost.' She said this was the case 'even if that involved breaking up a marriage or having a child outside a stable family'.

But Mr Harris insisted that he was not initiating a 'back to basics' crusade: 'I'm not sounding the rallying cry for Christian or religious morality. But when the actions of others has such a debilitating effect on the rest of society, it's time to stop being polite.

'It's time to stop worrying about how people's feelings might be hurt if we question the choices they've made. Because very often, those choices are wrong. And it's about time we said so.' [Christian Institute]

Read More...

Summary only...

Government pays couples to divorce

Briefing. Yet another study on the 'marriage penalty' imposed by the tax and benefits system.

From The Telegraph, in part: In the latest report, published in the latest issue of the Economic Journal, researchers at the University of Essex analysed data from 3,235 couples taken from the British Household Panel Survey between 1991 and 2002.
They found that the introduction of Working Families Tax Credit in 1999 made it easier for mothers to boost their income through work, because it allowed them to claim back 70 per cent of their child care costs.

But the system - which was reformed again in 2003 - also made divorce an "attractive 'outside option'" to women whose husbands were unemployed or worked less than 16 hours a week on low pay. This is because they would be more likely to qualify for the benefits if they were single.

They claim mothers in poor households were more than 2 percentage points more likely to get divorced than childless women after the reforms, "representing an increase of almost 160 per cent with respect to the pre-reform period".

See the full article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Innocent parents lose their children

Briefing.

From CFNews: UK A judge yesterday ruled that a couple will never see three of their children again even though he accepted they may have been wrongly accused of abusing them.

Mark and Nicky Webster's three eldest children were taken into care in 2004 after doctors claimed that six tiny fractures found on the middle child had been inflicted deliberately. All three were adopted.

Yesterday, in a failed attempt to have the adoption order overturned, the couple were told that even though they could be victims of a miscarriage of justice it was 'too late' for them to be reunited with their daughter and two sons.

In a devastating ruling, the judge said that as the youngsters are now settled with their adoptive families they would have to stay there - even though the original decision to take them away could have been wrong.

Last night, Mr Webster told the Daily Mail: 'I am very disappointed and hurt that we've been let down again. I haven't read the judgment yet so I can't comment on all the details but I do find it extraordinary that the judges say that there may have been a miscarriage of justice but still can't do anything about it.'

The couple's ordeal began in October 2003 when Mrs Webster took their second son to hospital with a painful, swollen leg.
He was found to have a number of small fractures which doctors said could be caused only by physical abuse.

All three children were placed in foster care and six months later, in a one-day court hearing, the children were permanently removed and swiftly offered for adoption.

Medical experts later concluded that the injuries were not caused by violent twisting and shaking, but were symptomsof scurvy. This now-rare deficiency is believed to have been caused by the family GP's advice that the child should be fed on soya milk, which is lacking in vitamin C.

The Websters have not seen their first three children since January 2005, when they were aged five, three and two.

They have always denied causing the fractures. After the heartbreak of losing the children Mr Webster, 35, and his wife, 27, fled to Ireland in 2006 to stop their fourth child, Brandon, being taken into care at birth. He has never had contact with his siblings.

They later returned to their home in Cromer, Norfolk, where after a long legal battle Norfolk County Council dropped proceedings to take Brandon into care after accepting that he was in 'robust good health'.

Yesterday the Websters were left bitterly disappointed after the Court of Appeal rejected their bid to challenge the adoption order on their other children.

Lord Justice Wall, sitting with Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson, said he had 'profound sympathy' for the couple, for whom the case had been a 'disaster', but ruled that the courts could do nothing for them.

He said: 'Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right. A family which might well have been capable of being held together, has been split up.'

But he said the case highlighted the 'finality' of adoption orders which can be revoked only in extremely limited circumstances. 'The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so.'

He added: 'If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual.'

Lisa Christensen, director of children's services at Norfolk County Council, said she sympathised with the Websters but believed the authority was 'absolutely right' to refer the matter to the courts when details of the fractures were first identified on their second child. [Mail]

Read More...

Summary only...

UN chief: Breakdown of the family a 'triumph'

Briefing. Don't be surprised: this is entirely logical. There is a whole literature on how evil the family is, an idea supported for a century or more by leftists and feminists. It is a key source of resistance to their plans to remake the world according to their tastes. These ideas are influential in the UN: that is a reflection of the intellectual culture there.

From LifeSiteNews: A leader of the UNFPA, the UN population agency President Obama plans to fund that has been involved in the forced abortion program in China, is drawing heat for applauding the breakdown of the family caused by abortion. Arie Hoekman from the Netherlands, recently spoke about family breakdown at a colloquium in Mexico City. In his remarks, Mr. Hoekman declared that family breakdown is a triumph for human rights. His remarks came only days after Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, spoke at the World Meeting of Families in Mexico City, where the breakdown of the family was described as a 'crisis.' Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America, responded to Hoekman in comments sent to LifeNews.com. 'Mr. Hoekman praised the 'weakening of the patriarchal structure' and the 'new values' made possible by the United States' change of policy that increases the economic base for UNFPA. This man actually admitted that the goal of the United Nations is to promote 'new values' around the world. Sadly, those who closely watch the U.N. have seen that goal of promoting new values implemented in numerous policies in nations around the world.' Crouse explained the UNFPA's new outlook: 'The official United States policy during the Bush administration was to deny funding for foreign organizations that promoted or provided abortions; that policy meant no funding for UNFPA. Nevertheless, the UNFPA continued to support and subsidize China's One-Child Policy and to help fund sterilizations worldwide. When the Obama administration overturned the Mexico City Policy, the U.S. restored UNFPA funding. Now they will be better able to broaden their impact around the world.' [LifeNews]

Read More...

Summary only...

Decline of marriage

Briefing. The cost of the wedding party is often cited as a reason for delaying it. But guys, it doesn't have to cost much! If you can't afford a 100-guest reception with champagne, save it for your 10th Anniversary when you can.

Notice also the time most 'cohabitations' last: no more than a couple of years. This is NOT a modern form of marriage. For most people it is promiscuity in slow motion.

From CFNews: The cost of living for married couples and the hefty price tag for weddings are just two possible reasons why the number of people who live as husband and wife in England and Wales could fall to less than half of the population, reports the Iona Institute of Dublin.

The institute, which works to promote civil society, especially through promoting marriage, reported this week on new figures published by the U.K. Office for National Statistics in its General Household Survey 2007, a poll of almost 13,000 homes across Britain.

The study shows that a mere 51% of all adults are now married, and 10% cohabit. Just 10 years ago, some 59% of all adults were married. A further 23% are now single, 7% widowed, 6% divorced and 2% separated.

Among women aged 18-49, fewer than half (49%) are married. And in the same age range, the number of women cohabitating has tripled from 11% in 1979 to 33% in 2007.

In addition, 44% of cohabiting women have children at home.

The figures also show that 15% of couples who are now living together out of wedlock had cohabitated before, and most of those cohabitations had lasted between one and two years.

One of the culprits is the low number of weddings. In 2006, there were only 236,980 weddings in England and Wales in 2006, the lowest number since 1895.

Iona Institute speculated the number could dip lower considering the global financial crisis and the high cost of weddings. It said the cost of a wedding in the United Kingdom is believed to have doubled over the past decade to reach an average of more than £21,000 ($30,090).

Other factors pointed to by the institute included the lack of marriage-friendly laws and tax policies: 'Recent changes to the tax and benefits system have left married couples up to £5,000 ($7,164) a year worse off than those who remain single.'

They also noted the abolishment of the Married Couples' Allowance and the introduction of tax credits 'that reward single mothers ahead of couples.' [Zenit]

Read More...

Summary only...

Gays, not Grandparents, to care for children

Comment: Melanie Philips is right. These children are being sacrificed for dogma. As of now, there is no presumption in favour of normal family life in the UK.

From the Daily Mail, in part: When homosexuality was legalised back in 1967 did anyone dream that some four decades on a British grandmother and grandfather wanting to adopt their own grandchildren would be refused permission and the children adopted instead by two gay men?

The case in Edinburgh reported today, where precisely this grotesque development has occurred, illustrates the sickening way in which what started out as a decent attempt to be tolerant towards a minority lifestyle has turned into a totalitarian assault upon family life and human rights.

See the full story.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ken Clarke: failing to punish married couples through tax 'social engineering'

Comment: when a couple marry and one chooses to stay at home to look after children, the state HALVES their collective tax allowance, at just the moment when their earnings have fallen and their needs have increased. Yet Ken Clarke tells us it would be wrong to reduce this tax on marriage even by the pathetically small ammount represented by the Married Person's Tax Allowance which he abolished when Chancellor. Liberal Conservatives, alas, have as little logic as their opponents in the Labour Party.

H-t Christian Concern for our Nation: from www.publicservice.co.uk: Calling himself a pragmatic politician who believes in free market economics with a social conscience – or "enlightened social reform" – Clarke said: "I got rid of the married couples allowance [when I was Chancellor]… I really don't think it's anything to do with politicians whether you [get married] and most of the younger people I know don't seem very keen on it. My view of Conservatism is that it's not for us to tell you [what to do through] the tax system – my wife didn't put up with me because I was getting £150 by way of tax allowance. This is social engineering for God's sake and when I joined the party we weren't in favour of it."

He went on: "But what I am in favour of is David [Cameron] setting an agenda pointing out all the social problems, the broken parts of cities, the level of family breakdown, poverty, social disorder and crime. I'm glad to see us getting into all that but the stuff I associate with the religious right in America, I think, is having too much influence on where we are."

See the full story.

Read More...

Summary only...

Teenage pregnancies come to suburbia

Briefing. Another great success for sex education. We're not joking: it is embedding a radical, anti-marriage sexual revolution accross society. Whereas in the past social conservatives could appeal to a shared understanding of marriage and family, these developments are being used by the government to argue that 'non-traditional families' are so numerous that they must simply be accepted as part of society. When they are the majority, they will be above criticism: they will simply be 'normal'.

From the BBC: Despite a Government campaign to cut teen pregnancy and birth rates, two out of three parliamentary constituencies have seen an increase in children born to mothers under 18, the numbers of which have almost tripled in some suburban areas.

In the two thirds of the worst affected areas, which the Government has targeted with increased sex education and contraception classes for children, teenage maternity is also still on the rise.
Experts blamed the increases on young women who see the morning-after pill as a contraceptive or want to have children young to copy their favourite celebrity mother. An aversion to abortion among affluent families may also be a factor, they said.

In December, official figures revealed a 2.7 per cent increase in teenage pregnancies in England and Wales last year - ensuring Britain's place at the top of the Europe's under-18 pregnancy league. The latest figures, obtained by the Conservatives. break down the number of teenagers giving birth by parliamentary seats and show that 42,300 babies were born to mothers under the age of 20 in 2006. Surprisingly, many with the highest rates are affluent suburbs, often presided over by Conservative MPs.

The seat with the biggest increase of teenagers giving birth - from 16 in 2002 to 44 in 2006 - was Rushcliffe, Nottingham, where the MP is former Conservative Health Secretary Ken Clarke. In Pudsey, West Yorkshire, the number rose from 26 to 60 and in Epsom and Ewell, in leafy Surrey, it rose from 15 to 32.

Conservative children spokesman Tim Loughton said that the situation was getting worse despite the Government's "smoke and mirrors" tactics to disguise it. "Most of the areas that are already experiencing the biggest problems are seeing the number of teenage pregnancies rise," he said.

Former Conservative frontbencher Ann Widdecombe added: "Girls are increasingly sexually active and nobody is willing to tell them that they should not be. We are all afraid of being judgemental."

Read More...

Summary only...

Tax and benefit system punishes committed relationships

Briefing: bizarre, but true: for many people receieving benefits, parents are a lot better off if they live in different homes than if they live together. Not only does the state not support the most committed relationship, which is most beneficial for the children - marriage - but it punishes any kind of stable cohabitation.

From the Telegraph, in part: he report, Individualists Who Co-Operate, said the system "penalises" couples who live together, adding to accusations that Labour's taxes and handouts are encouraging the death of traditional family structures.
It found, in one case, that where a lone mother earned £10,000 a year, and her partner earned £25,000, they were £5,473 worse off if they decided to live together. If the lone mother did not work, they were £4,522 worse off for cohabiting.
The report echoed claims that Government policies have led to the "perpetuation of single-parent families", adding: "Potential partners on low incomes (precisely those who can only make ends meet by combining their efforts) are discouraged from partnering (or re-partnering)."

One in five of those who stopped receiving benefits did so to move in with a partner, it said, suggesting that more couples might live together if they were rewarded in tax breaks.

Read the full Telegraph story.

Buy the report here.

Read More...

Summary only...

UN battle over 'gender identity' discrimination

Briefing.

From C-Fam: By Piero A. Tozzi

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Two dueling declarations were presented today at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on the controversial subject of “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The first, submitted by the French-led European Union (EU) and signed onto by roughly 65 nations, called upon member states to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected non-discrimination categories and “to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties.”

Nearly sixty nations, principally from the Islamic world, sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania, presented an alternate statement which warned against the attempt to create “new rights” or “new standards” by “misinterpreting” the non-discrimination clauses of long-established human rights instruments. The alternate declaration condemned “all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stigmatization, prejudice, intolerance and discrimination and violence directed against peoples, communities and individuals on any ground whatsoever, wherever they occur,” while defending the ability sovereign nations to enact laws that meet the “just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare.”

The counter statement emphasized the danger of introducing terms “that have no legal foundations in any international human rights instrument,” such as “sexual orientation,” which “where never articulated nor agreed by the general membership.”

After the dueling statements were read in the GA’s morning session, a high level panel discussion on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” chaired by a representative from the International Lesbian and Gay Association, weighed the effect of the French-led declaration and considered next steps. Rama Yade, France’s Junior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights who announced in September that her country would push the sexual orientation declaration at the UN, was among the participants. Other supporters included the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Though both declarations were non-binding and neither was voted upon, homosexual rights activists were quick to portray the French/EU declaration as a victory. Speaking at the high level discussion, Dutch homosexual activist and parliamentarian Boris Dittrich called the declaration a “historical event” and a “step forward in the decriminalization of sodomy laws.” Yade echoed this, stating that the “final objective was universal decriminalization,” and vowed that the French/EU declaration was “just a starting point and not an ending point.”

Critics anticipate that the non-binding declaration will reappear in a more permanent form, perhaps as a General Assembly resolution to be voted upon. They also see the French/EU declaration as implicitly advancing radical social policy goals contained in the Yogyakarta Principles, a non-binding statement pushed by certain members of UN treaty compliance committees and civil society. EU government sources told the Friday Fax that a reference to the Yogyakarta Principles in an earlier draft was deleted in order to maintain consensus.

The United States was to issue a statement deploring violence based on sexual orientation. A constituency had emerged within the State Department in favor of the French/EU proposal, but intervention by pro-family advocates ensured that the United States did not sign on to it.

Russia, Belarus, and the Holy See made separate statements critical of the French-EU initiative, independent of those nations that signed onto the alternate declaration.

Read More...

Summary only...

Equality and Human Rights Commission: up to no good

Update: EHRC responds: The Equality and Human Rights Commission confirmed that it had given a £35,000 grant to the atheist group this year, but pointed out that it also funds 285 other organisations that campaign for an end to discrimination in race, gender, age and sexual orientation. It said: 'The list includes nine organisations specifically focused on religion and belief from different perspectives, as well numerous other organisations that have an element of religion and belief in the work they do.'

So: out of 286 organisations, 9 are focused on religion or belief: not a very high proportion. Are the atheists one of the nine? They are focused on religion, all right. Any religious group which does get money from the EHRC will be sure to be told that its beliefs should not be reflected in its work, as Hazel Blears made clear not long ago - unlike the atheists, whose beliefs are fine.

Comment, 27/11/08: further to this quango using taxpayers' money to promote the negative and hate-filled agenda of the British Humanist Association, Religion Law tips us off about the full list of their beneficiaries.

Not one of these is clearly a religious organisation: not one is named after a saint, for example, or has 'Christian' in its name. Given the fact that 70% of the UK population identifies itself as Christian, and the record of Christians working for human rights (I mean, Christians invented human rights for heaven's sake: the terminology and the practice), this is pretty astounding. The groups we do see include a large number which have publicly vowed to destroy Christianity: not only the BHA but several branches of Stonewall, the extremist gay-rights organisatioin, which never misses a chance to pillory Christian leaders for their supposed 'homophobia'. In addition there are rows of gay and lesbian groups, and groups supporting the 'transgendered' agenda.

We know what these groups want: a revolution in attitudes to sexuality which overthrows traditional values. This has got nothing to do with either equality or human rights.

Neil Addison of ReligionLaw comments:

On its page about the grant awards the EHRC says
"Funding has been awarded for three priority areas: promoting good relations, promoting equality and human rights and supporting the development of legal casework."

though I frankly cannot see how the BHA seminars fall under any of these criteria.

Or the gay groups either: they seem most intent on stirring up hatred. For example see this on Stonewall's 'bigot of the year' awards.

Read More...

Summary only...

Couple who smack may adopt

A victory for common sense and parental rights.

From CFNews: A court has ruled in favour of a couple who had appealed a decision by a local council to bar them from adopting a baby girl on the grounds that they sometimes used spanking to discipline their son. The court called the council's decision 'bordering on the bizarre' and has ordered that the couple be reconsidered for adoption.

The couple, identified only as Mr. and Mrs. A, have an adopted son and had applied to the Newham county council in east London to adopt his baby sister. They were refused when Mr. A admitted to using corporal punishment in rearing his son. The couple's barrister said that the Newham council's decision violated the family's human rights, and that their son would now unjustly grow up without his sister. The couple are experienced foster parents and have taken in children from all over London.

Mr. Justice Bennett, however, ruled that the couple's application to adopt the baby girl must be reconsidered. He said the council's decision was 'unreasonable' and 'in dangerous territory.'

The council had dismissed the findings of a review panel which described the parents as 'strong, caring, sensitive, supportive and resourceful.' Despite the fact that spanking remains legal in Britain, the council concluded that 'Mr. A does not appear to accept that corporal punishment should not be used. Such indications would normally mean an adoption application would be refused.'

Several attempts by activists in Parliament have failed to prohibit parents from using corporal punishment to discipline their children. The most recent law upholds parents' rights, only outlawing punishment which leaves 'physical marks' or causes 'mental harm.'

Read More...

Summary only...

Gay fascists storm Californian church

Briefing: the gay lobby in California is furious that it lost the battle to stop 'Proposition 8', a referendum voted on at the same time as the Presidential election, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Proposition 8 became necessary when liberal judges in California decides that, although no one had noticed until now, the state constitution allowed gay marriages.

The reaction of the gay lobby is violence, notably death threats, violent protests, and the disruption of the services of churches which supported Proposition 8. Several other states have passed similar laws by referendum, either in the most recent election or in previous years. It is important to remember that what these laws are seeking to do is simply to maintain what has always been the case, that the legal definition of marriage refers to the natural institution of a life-long commitment between a man and a woman suited to the procreation and raising of children. This huge outburst of anger is at a set-back to the progress of their agenda. If they won this battle they would simply move on to the next item - insisting that home-schooled children are given more homosexual propaganda, say, or reducing the age of consent to below puberty.

One group whose support they can rely on is the US media - and no doubt the BBC as well - who are declining to report this fairly, or even at all. Imagine the outrage if these were white supremicists. All the pictures on news services seem to be of respectable-looking gays peacefully holding banners. And yet they are defacing Mormon temples and invading churches shouting 'Jesus was gay'.

H-t to Cathcon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Broken homes bad for children

Briefing: more research

From CFNews: Children from broken homes are almost five times as likely to suffer from emotional disorders as those whose parents stay together, new research shows.

The findings from the Office of National Statistics add to the mounting evidence of the damage caused by family breakdown, with experts warning things could get worse.

Family breakdown was far more significant than most 'household' factors such as financial circumstances, although having two unemployed parents was also a factor.

Children from so-called 'reconstituted' families containing step-parents and step-siblings were also more likely to suffer emotional problems.

Patricia Morgan, academic and expert on the subject of family breakdown, said: 'This does not come as a surprise, and things are going to get worse.

'Broken families and serial fathers produce homes full of conflict and chaos and they are terrible for children.'

Although the study did not differentiate between married and cohabiting families, another study released earlier this month showed that one in four children of cohabiting parents suffer family breakdown before they start school at the age of five.

This was compared with just one in ten children of married parents who experience a divorce or separation by the same stage.

One teacher speaking at the annual conference of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers in March warned that the children of 'so-called blended families' fell behind their peers from traditional families.

Phil Whalley said: 'The great sadness is that the consequences of an unstable family background are felt long into adult life.

'Those who under-achieve in their education are more likely to go on and live dysfunctional lives and be unable to support a stable family life for their own children.

'In short, as a society we are in danger of creating an expanding, perpetuating and toxic circle.' [Christian Institute]

Read More...

Summary only...

EU backs away from forcing same-sex marriage on member states

Briefing.

From LifeSiteNews: Vladimir Spidla, the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, has backed away from suggestions that EU member states will be coerced to recognise same-sex partnerings. In an interview for Destination Equality magazine, Spidla said that it is up to individual member states to decide whether to legally recognise same-sex partnerships.

Speaking of the EU's new 'anti-discrimination' directive, Spidla said, 'Within European legislation we have gone as far as we can go. If a state accepts the equality of these relationships then that state cannot discriminate. And there are already some infringement procedures against some states on this matter.

'However, whether the state accepts these unions or not is a basic national competence. And we don't interfere with that. I think that we found the best possible balance in the proposal of the directive.'

He continued, 'These are national competences over things that are very sensitive and which are not the subject of European legislation so we preserve them in that way and I think that at this moment there is the best possible balance.'

When asked whether same-sex partners recognised legally in one country could lose their status when moving to a country that does not, Spidla responded that his 'goal and my political aim is equal protection against discrimination on all grounds throughout the whole EU.

'And of course when it comes to transferability of social entitlements I am also trying to ensure that transferability is as universal as possible. That is my approach.'

But Spidla's assertion that states can opt out of the 'gay rights' and 'anti-discrimination' policies, flies in the face of much recent history at the European Union's various rights bodies. His own recent work shows no sign of letting up on pressuring member states to accept same-sex unions as the equivalent of natural marriage.

In February this year, Spidla initiated legal proceedings against Germany and 11 other member states for failing to implement the EU's directives on 'anti-discrimination' issues. Spidla's 'letter of formal notice' to Germany, Latvia and Lithuania complained that Germany's same-sex civil union registration does not sufficiently match the rights granted couples in natural marriages.

In addition, the commissioner singled out Estonia, France, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Czech Republic in a memo that set out in detail the transgressions of each country on 'discrimination' laws and warned that a 'reasoned opinion or letter of formal notice' would be sent to each.

Earlier this month, British Liberal Democrat MEP Sharon Bowles put forward a declaration that demands that all member states recognise the same-sex 'marriages' and civil partnerships of all other member states, as part of the freedom of movement provisions of the EU.

The declaration followed a speech by the policy director of the most prominent of the EU's homosexualist lobbies. Christine Loudes, of the European branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe) told the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on Fundamental Rights in the EU that recognition of civil same-sex partnerings is one of the issues of 'freedom of movement and mutual recognition of LGBT families relationships in the EU.' Bowles admitted in August that she had drafted the declaration 'with the participation of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) Europe.'

In August this year, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) of the European Union called for binding EU regulations that would equalize the legal status of couples in natural marriages with that of same-sex partners across Europe. The 165-page report said that EU law should force member states, in which there is no registered-partnership or 'gay marriage' legislation, to treat people in these arrangements as married couples. It also recommended policies aimed at 'promoting visibility of homosexuality and other gender identities' and criminalizing homophobia through 'hate crime' legislation. [LifeSiteNews]

Read More...

Summary only...

TV bad for children

Briefing: interesting new research from France.

From CFNews: Television channels aimed at pre-school children are damaging their development, researchers have claimed. Ofcom, the British TV regulator, has asked its counterpart in France to send research on the issue after that country took tough new measures to protect the young.

Across the Channel there hfas been alarm that parents are using dedicated channels such as BabyTV, which air all day and night, as a form of baby-sitting. French researchers found that watching television impacted on the development of children under three. Their study showed it delayed language learning, encouraged passivity, reduced concentration, increased agitation and caused sleep disorders.

From November TV channels in France will be banned from promoting the proclaimed 'educational benefits' on shows at aimed at under-threes.

It has also forced dedicated channels and programmes for this age group to issue a warning before they start. It states: 'Watching television can slow the development of children under three, even when it is aimed specifically at them.'

Now the Counseil Superior Audiovisuel has passed on its concerns to Ofcom.

Parenting groups here believe the regulator could use the French findings to force a similar clampdown on the UK TV industry.

In France the moves have been seen as an attack on foreign-run channels such as BabyFirstTV and Baby TV, which also air in the UK. The broadcasts are both transmitted from this country into France.

BabyFirstTV describes itself as a provider of shows 'designed to inspire a baby's learning'. The service, which lets children interact, does not feature any commercials and advises parents against long periods of viewing.

BabyTV also airs in the UK and France. It is designed to provide a 'safe, stimulating and educational environment' for toddlers. Similar internet services like this have also been launched in recent years.

A report by Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2007 found watching entertainment TV before the age of three caused attention problems. Claude Knights, director of children's charity Kidscape, has called on Ofcom to make parents more aware of the dangers.

He said: 'It is really sad when TV is used as a babysitter or a means of controlling very young children.

'There may well be parents that don't realise the cumulative effects of exposure to TV. Ofcom should state the case and give the concerns about possible harm revealed in this research.'

Ofcom said: 'The CSA has made Ofcom aware of its concerns regarding TV programming aimed at very young children.

'Ofcom takes the protection of minors extremely seriously and notes that BabyFirstTV provides information to parents about how best to allow their children to interact with its programming and advises against long periods of viewing for young children.

'At present there has been no evidence supplied to Ofcom that proves such content is harmful to minors.

'However, Ofcom has asked the CSA for any research which supports their concerns and will consider in detail any research it can provide.' [Daily Mail]

Read More...

Summary only...