Two recent books demonstrate the absolutely devastating consequences of divorce: The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce by Judith Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee and The Case for Marriage by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher. Both of these books challenge the conventional wisdom that it is better for children if their unhappy parents divorce; wedlock is bad for women but good for men; marriage is a private matter and no business for government. Instead they both find that marriage is a vital protector for adults of both sexes and for children, and its benefits cannot be reproduced in any other family structure. The breakdown of the family, in other words, has disastrous consequences for both individuals and for society, but especially for children. How should we think about this?

Wallerstein and her colleagues build on her previous work of nearly 30 years. Their conclusions: The impact of divorce upon children actually increases and is especially severe when they become adults. Most members of the group they interviewed (now between ages 28 and 43), were left emotionally crippled. Many such children grow into adults who find love and commitment elusive, move from one relationship to another and repeat their dysfunctional upbringing with their own children. Their evidence likewise shows that they start sexual activity earlier, have more children out of wedlock, are less likely to marry, more likely to divorce if they do marry, more likely to abuse drugs, turn to crime and commit suicide.

Since 1970, one million American children a year have seen their parents divorce!!! That means that one-third of adults who reached their 40th birthday are survivors of divorce!!! As Waite and Gallagher show in their book, although marriage is often presented as a constraint on personal freedom and totally misunderstood, it actually lessens the fear of sexual abandonment and results in less cause for sexual jealousy, less violence and abuse. In fact their research demonstrates as well that mortality rates are 50% higher among unmarried women and 250% higher among unmarried men. Marriage, they show, gives both sexes better health, less depression and fewer other mental disorders. Such benefits are not shared by cohabiting adults, who are less sexually faithful, less willing to support each other and more likely to split up.

Such research merely points out what is central to a Christian worldview: Marriage and the family are bedrock institutions for civilization. If they are in trouble, so is the civilization. When selfishness and self-centeredness drive a person instead of the other- centeredness that the Bible trumpets, disaster will always follow. Divorce is really about the inability of two very selfish people to get along. If there is adultery or physical or emotional abuse, such realities merely exacerbate the self-centeredness. People need the power and enablement of God's Spirit to make good marriages. The life-changing power of Jesus Christ is an absolute necessity in marriage. Until the culture accepts this fact, there is little hope for a turn around, despite the compelling evidence that these books offer. The proposition is simple: Divorce is bad for everyone; even a difficult marriage promotes more good than bad!!

Waite and Gallagher also discovered that no fewer than 86% of unhappy spouses who remain married find that five years later their marriages are happier. Governmental figures, politicians and bureaucrats must get this message: Marriage is a public institution that changes people's goals and behavior by creating obligation to others. It is the most important institution in the culture; something God has been saying since Genesis 2!! Therefore, it should receive privileged status through the tax and welfare laws, a restoration of its special legal status and a return to the concept of fault to divorce (i.e., abandon the no-fault divorce craze).

See, in addition to the books mentioned, Melanie Phillips, "Till Death Do Us Part, or We Change Our Minds," Wall Street Journal, John Leo, US News and World Report (2 October 2000), p. 18 and Time (25 September 2000), pp. 75-88.

Back to top

The Ethics of Choosing Your Child's Characteristics

This is an example of a growing practice of screening the DNA of fertilized eggs (embryos; therefore a human life) before implanting them in a mother's womb. The benefit of this procedure is that doctors can now help cure dire disorders. But the negative of this practice is that parents may also be able to choose embryos with the markings for high IQ, musical talent, height, or muscle mass as well. Is this a good thing? Jeremy Rifkin, in his book The Biotech Century, argues that before long, having children will be "the ultimate shopping experience." This is the grave danger of DNA screening. It empowers parents to choose the kind of child they want. The potential for disaster is obvious. What if parents desire to choose more boys than girls? What will this effect over time be? Such a procedure raises profound ethical implications that I do not believe the culture can handle.

Although one must sympathize with the Nash family, this solution to their tragedy is a step toward the culture embracing the reality of treating children as commodities. Do we really think parents will not desire to choose their child's characteristics? Is there anything in the culture that would prevent over the next 20 years widespread practice of such procedures? Genetic research and DNA screening are moving our culture towards the Brave New World that Huxley envisioned in his famous novel. Such screening can help people like the Nash family but it can also desensitize the culture towards a much greater acceptance of empowering parents to specifically select the kind of child they want. Such a practice legitimizes a manipulation and control that I do not think the culture can handle responsibly.

Back to top

The Case For School Vouchers

School vouchers are very much a part of the debates permeating our culture, in both the presidential campaigns and among those calling for educational reform. What are the advantages of school vouchers? Let me list several:

Only a truly competitive educational environment can empower the ultimate consumers of educational services--parents and their children. Instead of schools choosing students as they now do (for 90% of current students) , students and parents will choose the school. The students would benefit from an improvement in educational quality. Taxpayers would benefit since taxes would cover only half the costs of spending in present government schools. Employers would benefit as well because there would be a better-schooled pool of potential employees. Finally, teachers would benefit because the good ones would have a wider market for their services.

The inefficiencies of present government schools must be recognized and ended. School vouchers would not only reform education; it would bring it into the 21st century, not allow it to remain mired in the 19th, where it has been for over 100 years!

Back to top