Death of Marriage?

On June 23 my wife and I celebrated 43 years of marriage. Our celebrations included a 1200-mile road trip from Missouri to Florida. On the actual day of our anniversary, we awoke to a Jamaican breakfast, prepared by the woman who catered for our wedding in 1973 – how nostalgic!

However, much of that nostalgia fades in light of the growing decline of traditional marriage in America. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found a number of interesting trends in their most recent look at marriage in America. For one, the study found that after years of declining marriage rates, the percentage of Americans who have never been married has reached a historic high point.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, within the last ten years, homes headed by married couples increased by 7%. Within the same period, homes headed by unmarried couples increased by 72%.

According to Sam Sturgeon, president of Demographic Intelligence, “the United States has been experiencing a “cultural retreat from marriage”. Factors like economics, education, careers and decline in religious interest contribute significantly to the decline in traditional marriage.

However, we need to ask ourselves, is traditional marriage significant enough to warrant defending? Some in human potential movements view marriage as a potential threat to individual fulfillment. Proponents of the new psychologies contend that marriage thwarts the highest forms of human needs – autonomy, independence, growth and creativity.

According to Waite and Gallagher, in their volume, The Case for Marriage, “the search for autonomy and independence as the highest good blossomed with the women’s movement into a critique of marriage per se, which the more flamboyant feminists denounced as ‘slavery and legalized rape, tied up with a sense of dependency.’”

That assessment does not describe what my wife and I have experienced in marriage. Our advanced studies and experience have given us reason to believe that our marriage has been good for our children, their children and the wider community.

Valuable research confirms that by a broad range of indices, marriage is actually better for you. Married people live longer, are healthier, accumulate more wealth, feel more fulfillment in their lives, enjoy more satisfying sexual relationships, and have happier and more successful children, than persons who remain single, cohabit, or get divorced.

Civil society benefits from stable marriages. Marriage, and by extension, families, are themselves small societies. These societies establish the network of relatives and in-laws and sustain a key ingredient of the “social capital” that facilitates many kinds of beneficial civic associations and private groups.

The virtues acquired within the family – generosity, self-sacrifice, trust, self-discipline – are crucial in every domain of social life. Children who grow up in broken families often fail to acquire these elemental habits of character.

Children, whose parents fail to get and stay married are at an increased risk of poverty, dependency, substance abuse, educational failure, juvenile delinquency, early unwed pregnancy, and a host of other destructive behaviors. When whole families and neighborhoods become dominated by fatherless homes, these risks increase even further.

Strong, intact families stabilize the state and decrease the need for costly and intrusive bureaucratic social agencies. Families provide for their vulnerable members, produce new citizens with virtues such as loyalty and generosity and engender concern for the common good.

Given the clear benefits of marriage, I believe the state should defend traditional marriage against the intrusion of alternative family structures that are incapable of producing comparable social outcomes. The public goods uniquely provided by traditional marriage are recognizable by reasonable persons, regardless of religious or secular worldviews.

The Witherspoon Institute, in its publication, Marriage and the Public Good, accurately states that “in virtually every known human society, the institution of marriage has served and continues to serve three important public purposes. First, marriage is the institution through which societies seek to organize the bearing and rearing of children.

Secondly, marriage provides direction, order and stability to adult sexual unions. Lastly, marriage civilizes men, furnishing them with a sense of purpose, norms and social status that orient their lives away from vice and toward virtue.”

Long before these studies, the Bible referred to marriage as honorable (Hebrews 13:4). In its original form, “honorable” implies, valuable, priceless, worthy of respect and deserving of esteem. For the last 43 years, I have found that to be true.

EVERY Black Life Matters

The fact that black leaders have served as President, Attorneys General, Secretaries of State and other cabinet positions does not make a difference – there are voices in America that contend, the lives of some black people do not matter. The issue concerns an ethnic group – black skinned people. People in this category are often of African descent.

As a member of this ethnic group, I am very concerned about specific behaviors in our society that suggest, black-skinned people do not matter. In response to that attitude, I contend, “Every Black Life Matters.” Here are some situations that help to shape my concerns. 

ABORTION
In the United States, more black babies are killed by abortion than any other ethnic group. Black children are aborted at nearly four times the rate as white children. A black abortion rate that for years has vastly surpassed that of every other racial group. Thirty out of every 1,000 black women obtained an abortion in 2011. That rate is nearly triple that of white women and double that of Hispanic women. Put succinctly, while about 13 percent of Americans are black, more than one-third of all abortions are administered to black women. (source)

FAMILY LIFE
In black communities, more babies are born out of wedlock than any other ethnic group - preliminary data indicate that 40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, which is appalling, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders. (source)

CRIME
Black people in the United States are more likely to be victims of violent confrontations with police officers than whites because blacks commit more violent crimes than whites per capita.

Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites. More up to date FBI statistics tell a similar story. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. 

UNEMPLOYMENT
The unemployment rates among blacks are higher than any other ethnic group in America. In February, the unemployment rate for African-Americans was 10.4 percent, while the comparable rates for whites, Hispanics and Asians were 4.7 percent, 6.6 percent and 4.0 percent, in that order, according to data recently released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

MARRIAGE
The black divorcee rate has increased nearly five-fold over the last thirty years, and is double the rate of the general population. The result, according to The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans, is a greater share of family responsibilities being borne by women, an increased vulnerability to poverty and violence, and an erosion of community ties. 

Were it not so painful, I could go on to provide statistics on incarceration, education and drugs. Honestly, we need a campaign where politicians, educators, religious leaders and everyone committed to human development would engage in civil conversation. We need a non-partisan approach to bring about healing within black communities.

I beg to disagree with those who argue that because of slavery the situation is hopeless. As a nation, and since slavery, America has benefited greatly from the contributions of blacks. There are many blacks who have invented a multitude of items or made discoveries in the course of their lives. These have ranged from practical everyday devices to applications and scientific discoveries in diverse fields, including physics, biology, mathematics, plus the medical, nuclear and space sciences. 

I sincerely believe a big part of the solution is in the family. Stable families provide the foundation for stable communities. It is in the family we learn to respect authority structures. It is in the family we learn the value of faith and appreciate social graces. 

Social experiments have invited parents to explore career opportunities, thus limiting the time parents spend nurturing their children. Electronic devices and social services cannot and should not be expected to replace parents. 

Let us stop the posturing and get to the heart of the matter. Let us begin to educate and reward healthy families. We cannot continue to empower single mothers and allow irresponsible fathers to abscond. If every black life matters, we must be intentional and address the family, the nursery for stable communities.  

Christian Jailed in US

I like Kim Davis. Last week a federal judge ordered Davis to jail following her refusal to comply with a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The county clerk has sought a religious liberty exemption, stating that it would violate her Christian beliefs to affix her name to a license for same-sex couples.

Davis’s lawyer, Roger Gannam with the Liberty Counsel, said following Judge David Bunning’s decision to imprison his client: “Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what that belief is. This is unprecedented in American law.”

According to Kim Davis, “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. I’m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place.” She added: “I’m no different than any other Christian. It was my appointed time to stand, and their time will come.”

Judge David Bunning, who ruled against Davis, argued his case compellingly. He said: "Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the US Supreme Court's decisions regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent."

In addition, Judge Bunning contends, "Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to 'authorize' same-sex marriage. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval."

In other words, Davis was not asked to solemnize something with which she disagreed – she was not employed as a Minister of Religion. What if her job required her to certify legal entities like gambling establishments or night clubs? Would certifying such activities violate her Christian beliefs or conscience?

However, according to Davis, “God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties.” The clerk currently has a case in federal court seeking a religious liberty exemption, allowing her not to have to affix her name to same-sex marriage licenses. 

The First Amendment to our US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In America, the citizen has the freedom of religion; the state should not institute an atmosphere of freedom from religion.

For me, some questions must be answered, was Kim Davis imprisoned for the exercise of her religious views? Did the government create an atmosphere that would limit or prohibit Davis from practicing her religion?

The Religious Freedom Restoration ACT (RFRA), passed by Congress in 1993, establishes the principle that when someone complains that a federal law burdens his religious conscience, the government has an obligation to demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in applying the law.

Could “a compelling interest” be determined in Davis’ case? For Davis, this is a matter of religious liberty which is protected under the First Amendment. America’s history is filled with accommodations for people's religious freedom and conscience.

For example, the Supreme Court's much-debated Hobby Lobby ruling exempts private businesses from issuing health insurance that offers contraception services to employees if that violates the religious conscience of their owners. 

Was Davis offered exemptions that accommodated her First Amendment rights? According to Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “Kentucky accommodates conscientious objectors for other types of licensing.” Why weren’t these “other types of licensing” extended to Davis?

Mat Staver, Head of the Liberty Counsel said “Davis has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and that’s what should have been done.

Furthermore, I think it’s reprehensible that she’s in jail for this when a simple fix could have been easily handled.”

Kentucky Govenor Steve Beshear could issue an executive order and correct the problem, but he would not. Also, the legislature could pass a law removing clerks' names from the licenses, but it won't be in session until January. In the meantime, Kim Davis is languishing in jail. 

This case reminds me of a few lines in Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail: “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him [or her] is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” 

Like Esther, Kim Davis believes she was elected as Clerk of Court “for such a time as this.” Esther requested of the Jews that they should fast while she prepared herself to stand before the king. In like fashion, we need to stand with Kim Davis. Rightly or wrongly, she is taking a stand for everyone who cherishes religious liberty against judicial tyranny.

I Agree With President Obama

A few days ago comedian Steve Harvey and President Obama had a non-political interview at the White House. It was refreshing to see the President in a non-combative mood.

In discussing his family, the President said he trusts his daughters to have good judgment when it comes to men. “What I’ve told them before is, as long as that young man is showing you respect, and is kind to you, then I’m not going to be hovering over every second. But, I’m counting on you to have the self-respect to make sure that anybody who you’re going out with comes correct. And hopefully they’ve seen how I treat Michelle.”

Mr. President, I strongly agree with you. Actually, I am so much more sensitive to the President’s desire for his daughters as I write this commentary from the home of my daughter in Nashville, hundreds of miles away from my home. My wife and I feel so honored to be hosted by a young woman who we love, very much like the President loves his own daughters, Malia (15 years old) and Sasha (12).

The President’s desire to want the very best for his daughters is most evident. He is concerned about their security. In the interview with Harvey, he quipped that he ran for a second term partly to keep his teenage daughters under constant supervision. “I’ve got men with guns following them around all the time. Hey, this is the main reason I ran for re-election - you know I’m gonna have ‘em covered for most of high school.”

In addition, the President would hope that any suitors would have “seen how I treat Michelle.” The President believes he models a loving relationship before his daughters. Actually, one of the best gifts we as parents can give to our children is the display of a loving relationship. 

When parents spend time with each other, nurturing their relationship, resolving conflicts, investing in one another in practical ways, and enjoying one another, children see that they truly love and value one another. This security will increase the peace and joy in the home.

In this and in previous interviews, President Obama naturally refers to potential suitors for his daughters as “young men who show respect and kindness.” Here again, the President must be congratulated on his desire to see his daughters engage in relationships that are natural and are best for their development. 

In expressing his desire for what’s best for his daughters, the President was expressing a sensitivity to issues of gender. One’s gender identity is the sense of one’s self as male or female. Gender role refers to the behaviors and desires to act in certain ways that are viewed as masculine and feminine in a particular culture. His position is consistent with history, with nature and science. 

The President’s desire for what is best for his daughters is not readily accepted by some social scientists in today’s culture. Such scholars believe our culture labels behaviors as masculine and feminine, “but these behaviors are not necessarily a direct component of gender or gender identity.” 

For me, gender and the accompanying behaviors are not determined by society. Gender is a biological, not a sociological construct. The President spoke with logical clarity, so unlike the ambiguity that’s apparent in gender experiments. Under the guise of accommodating bisexualism, some in our culture are confused and vacillate in affirming their own masculinity or femininity. I believe Malia and Sasha are in good hands if their parents continue to expect behaviors that are consistent with their femininity. 

The President is correct to want heterosexual relationships for his daughters. Such relationships have always been about bringing men and women together in permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationships. 

In their volume, Marriage on Trial, Stanton and Maier make the point: “No human society-not one-has ever embraced homosexual marriage. It is not a part of the tradition of any human culture” (page 22). Such unions have never been regarded as a normal, morally equal part of any society. Non heterosexual unions have been tolerated in some cultures, however, it is historically accurate to say that they have never been taken to be morally equivalent to natural marriage.

So, the President is on the right side of history to want natural relationships for his daughters. The President’s desire for his daughters is seeking to regulate sexuality, bringing gender balance to their relationships and offspring. This arrangement is consistent with the biblical position on family. Different genders allow for complementarity, a critical and historically proven component of healthy families.

Who Needs Daddy?

Shortly after giving birth, my daughter felt a hospital social worker was suggesting to her that it was better not to have the child’s father around. “If you do not have a husband with you, we will pay for the baby’s diapers and formula.” My daughter declined the offer. The social worker offered again, at which point our son-in-law walked into the room. “Do you want him in here?” was the daring question that came from the social worker.

I wish I could say that that interaction at a suburban hospital was exceptional – it was not. The interaction represented an attitude to the role of fathers in the lives of their children. He is merely viewed as a bank, both for sperms and financial support. If he is absent, the government will provide the funding. There are situations where it would seem more economically profitable for mothers, if fathers would simply be absent. 

However, the economic cost of absent fathers is staggering. In his book, Life Without Father, sociologist David Popenoe contends that “the decline of fatherhood is a major force behind many of the most disturbing problems that plague us.” He further contends that "child-rearing encourages men to develop those habits of character - including prudence, cooperativeness, honesty, trust and self-sacrifice - that can lead to achievement as an economic provider." Poor women and their children are more likely to escape poverty in a stable relationship with a man who is an active father of the children. 

Edward Kruk, writing about father absence, father deficit and father hunger in “Psychology Today” produced a list of woes: children without fathers actively in their lives have diminished self-concept, and compromised physical and emotional security. These children consistently report feeling abandoned when their fathers are not involved in their lives, struggling with their emotions and bouts of self-loathing.

Kruk also underlines the behavioral problems - fatherless children have more difficulties with social adjustment, and are more likely to report problems with friendships. Many develop a swaggering, intimidating persona in an attempt to disguise their underlying fears, resentments, anxieties and unhappiness. Gangs and violence and the adoration of the gun as power spring out of this condition.

Fatherless children show greater truancy from school and poorer academic performance. Kruk points out that some 71% of high-school dropouts are fatherless. Fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills.

Fatherlessness is a driver for delinquency and youth crime, including violent crime, Kruk notes, with 85% of youth in prison having an absent father.

The above statistics explain why I become so incensed with social workers like the one my daughter met in the hospital. She, like many in our society, would be willing to affirm the worth of mothers. But fathers? that is another matter. With such persons, fatherhood is viewed merely as a social role. And if merely a social role, then perhaps anyone is capable of playing that role. Players could include mothers, partners, stepfathers, uncles, aunts or grandparents. In essence, biological fathers are dispensable.
Miami Heat basketball superstar Dwayne Wade would disagree with that view. In a recent article, the single father said, “being a father is the most important and rewarding thing I will ever do, and I strongly encourage all fathers to love and take responsibility for their children.”

Last year, Wade wrote a book about his experience and the importance of all fathers being present in their children's lives. Addressing the fatherlessness issue across the country, he also teamed up with President Obama to support his Fatherhood & Mentoring Initiative.
One of the better books I’ve come across on the subject of fatherhood is Kyle Pruett’s, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. According to Publishers Weekly, Pruett’s book is “thoughtful, inspiring, and eminently practical, [it] belongs at the top of the ‘must have’ list for every father.”

Interestingly, after relegating the Bible to the archives of ancient literature, many are now finding themselves going back to its teachings. Even a casual reading of the book of Proverbs will highlight the importance of fatherhood. In the New Testament book of Ephesians, fathers are encouraged to nurture and encourage their children in Christian values. Fathers are charged not to abuse their influence and exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4).

Personally, I wish I had known this stuff when I became a father 36 years ago. I believe I would have been a much better father to our three children.

Redefining Marriage

The recent rulings by the US Supreme Court marked a confusing day for the institution of marriage in America. The decisions are complex and will take days for legal analysts to understand the full implications. What we do know is that both good and bad have come from the court’s decisions.

In the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision, the court approved federal benefits for same-sex couples who are married in states which have adopted homosexual marriages.

In the California Proposition Eight case, the Supreme Court did not overturn the 32 other states that have defined marriage through an act of direct democracy by amending their state constitutions. The Court also did not force one standard upon all the states but instead respected the rights of states to define marriage. Thankfully, the Court did not create a new sweeping right of same sex marriage and force that upon the rest of the country as many thought they may have done.

One of the things the Supreme Court also did was to open the door for dialog about marriage and other familial arrangements. As a Christian, the Court has challenged me to re-examine marriage and other familial arrangements in the Bible.

In the Bible, marriage contracts and arrangements come in different shapes and forms across cultures. For instance, in Genesis we read where Abraham got married to Sarah, the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother (Genesis 20:12). In addition, Abraham’s son Isaac, got married to his first cousin (Genesis 24:15). Sometime later, Jacob, Isaac’s son, got married to two sisters, both his cousins (Genesis 29:10).

These practices describe what anthropologists often refer to as polygeny (births through ancestral relationships) and tribal endogamy (marrying only within one’s tribe). Interestingly, many of the marriage customs of American aborigines run parallel with those of the biblical patriarchs. 

Both in Genesis and later Old Testament texts, polygamy (having many wives) was also practiced. However, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul expected church leaders to be the husbands of one wife. In attempting to establish a norm for marriage, Paul invited the young Christians to consider the model of Adam and Eve.

That model was one man with one wife. In Matthew 19, Jesus made a similar reference to the Adam and Eve pattern. He acknowledged the accommodations in marriage, but stressed the original intent was to bring together male and female.

Some analysts would want us to believe that the Supreme Court was similarly acknowledging accommodations in different forms of marriage. With this I must disagree. Nowhere in the Bible do we find accommodations including same sex marriage as a viable alternative. Every familial accommodation involved males and females. Same sex relationships were always renounced as deviant.

Even outside of Jewish society, same-sex relationships were rarely viewed as something noble. No culture or society in history has flourished because it welcomed the practice of same sex relationships. However, the practice of heterosexual marriage, the union of husband and wife is timeless, universal and particularly special because children flourish best with a mother and a father. Ninety-four percent of countries worldwide affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In addition, every major world religion affirms marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

For such reasons I will agree with John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, when he said “no court decision or public opinion poll can affect that which is evident in biology, logic, common sense and the collective wisdom of human history.”

Similar sentiments were shared by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He contends, “Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from that union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.”

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, we appeal to every leader in America to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage – one man, one woman, for life. This creation arrangement has always been suitable – “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 1:27).

Which - Cohabit or Marry?

This weekend my wife and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary. Had we chosen to cohabit rather than marry, would the forty years have been the same? According to the Pew Research Center (“The Decline of Marriage and the Rise of New Families”, November 2010), “since 1960, the number of cohabiting couples in the United States has increased fifteen-fold.” In other words, more than 70% of couples in the United States now cohabit before marriage.

I understand some persons choose to cohabit because they fear failure in marriage – hence the need to get to know each other better and to see whether they get along well enough to embark on marriage. Others believe, because of the cost of hosting a wedding, it is more practical to begin to share life with a loving companion. Some even believe since it is only a legal document that makes the difference, they could opt for cohabiting. 

Forty years ago we did not have enough money for the wedding of our dreams – we both graduated from college the day before we got married. We did not have enough time to become familiar with our differing cultures –we were from two different countries and got to know each other during our undergrad studies. Based on the rational used in some circles today, we seemed ideally poised to cohabit, as a way to prepare for marriage. 

Research data indicate that some 62% of young adults believe that “living together with someone before marriage is a good way to avoid an eventual divorce.” However, people today don’t have to wonder how living together might work out, because we can learn from the experiences of those who have already tried. 

For instance, research confirms that cohabiting lacks meaningful mutual commitment. The absence of meaningful commitment produces insecurity, a critical ingredient in any trusting relationship. When relationships lack commitment, extended family members are reluctant to provide caring and meaningful support. 

Veteran social scientist James Wilson was correct when he said that “marriage requires more up-front and ongoing investment from the spouses and their extended families – neither the man nor the woman has any strong incentive to invest heavily in the union.” In essence, marriage is a commitment to longevity, built on mutual trust. So unlike cohabiting, which is built on expedience.

In his book, The Ring Makes All the Difference, Glen Stanton contends that “according to the best research on the subject, cohabiting relationships are far less healthy than marital relationships.” Jan Stets concurs. As one of the first scholars to make a serious study of cohabiting relationships, Stets observed that “cohabiting couples, compared to married couples, have lower relationship quality, lower stability and a higher level of disagreements.”

Interestingly, cohabiting couples report more fights or violence, as well as lower levels of fairness in their relationships and happiness with them. Researchers also confirm that cohabiting couples have breakup rates five times higher than those who are married. Actually, cohabiting couples who marry have a 50-80% higher likelihood of divorcing that married couples who never cohabited (Demography 29 [1992]).

Most couples, married or not, expect sexual faithfulness for themselves and their partners. However, the National Sex Survey reports that live-in boyfriends are nearly four times more likely than husbands to cheat on their partners. And while women are generally more faithful, cohabiting women are eight times more likely than wives to cheat (Journal of Marriage and Family 62 [2000]). 

Let’s talk money – research over the past few decades consistently finds that marriage is a wealth-building institution. Married people typically earn and save more than their cohabiting counterparts. For instance, The National Marriage Project reports that while the poverty rate for children living in married households is about 6%, it jumps to 31% for children with a cohabiting mother and father. Actually, cohabiting couples act more like roommates than as a team in handling finances. This is obvious when one considers the experimental nature of cohabiting relationships. 

Long before the findings of social scientists on cohabiting relationships, the Bible spoke strongly against familial relationships that were not built on mutual trust and honor. The frequent references to adultery and fornication speak volumes. The idea is to avoid illicit sexual relationships. Both in Old and New Testaments, the terms are never associated with desirable behavior. The consequences are always disastrous to all the parties involved.

The truth is, cohabitation puts adults at risk for marital failure, and puts children at risk for neglect and abuse. Interestingly, both science and the Bible agree that marriage is good and cohabitation is never a good idea.

SUGGESTED READING:

The Ring Makes All the Difference – Glenn Stanton
The Power of Commitment – Scott Stanley