Once upon a time, we raised our children in the quintessential Midwestern town of Atwood Illinois.

Just as you would imagine, mom and pop businesses lined Main Street, which of course ran through the center of the town. Only the local bars rivaled the number of neighborhood churches. Even the police department closes up shop on Sunday nights. To this day, it’s still a close-knit community. But it’s been fighting a slow death of poverty for years.

Just a few years ago, the one-and-only grocery store within 15 miles closed its doors. Just this year the community said farewell to their high school with its last Homecoming game–a devastating blow to the spirit of a small town.

When an outside company wanted to help, by bringing in their grocery store, renovating some empty buildings and generating some high-paying jobs the town leadership rejected it flatly. The fat, white good old boys started a letter writing campaign. They whined that this store carried too many ethnic foods–it would not serve a primarily white population. The predominately lower middle-class neighborhoods might see a more diverse, or affluent people move into town. Most of all, it would increase the desirability of the neighborhood, and who wants that?

Apparently these racists would rather buy their milk at the gas station.

Actually, that’s a lie.

That would never happen in Atwood. The town is in trouble. But there is no hope on the horizon, no offer of something as wonderful as a Trader Joe’s offering to be their new neighborhood grocer.

That honor went to a community in Portland. Unfortunately for them, my fairy-tale is their reality. Only the colors have been changed.

According to the AP it all started here:

“The Portland Development Commission had offered a steep discount to the [Trader Joe’s] grocer on a parcel of nearly two acres that was appraised at up to $2.9 million: a purchase price of slightly more than $500,000. The lot is at Northeast Alberta Street and Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and has been vacant for years.”

The Portland African American Leadership Forum ran them off saying it would “perpetuate income inequality” and ”increase the desirability of the neighborhood.” Exactly.

How is this a bad thing?

Of course Trader Joe’s had the good sense to not go where they’re not welcome. So the California-based company took their discount health foods and products along with their $10-20/hr clerk jobs elsewhere. Did I mention that their supervisors make $45k-75k and reportedly the store managers bring in six-figures?

The Portland African American Leadership Forum would much rather see empty decaying buildings in their neighborhood than give up their victim card.

In the meantime, farming communities are fading away, left alone to suffer the same fate as coal-mining towns.

Economist Jennifer Roback-Morse has repeatedly warned that intentionally severing the tie between biological parents and their offspring will result in greater intrusive government involvement with and regulation of family life not less as some liberals and libertarians assert. Take a gander at the new 277-page “parentage” bill (HB 1243) sponsored by State Representative Kelly Burke (D-Evergreen Park) for evidence that Roback-Morse is right.

This bill would replace the existing parentage law and would grant parental rights to adults who are neither the biological nor adoptive parents of children with whom they are living. Further, it has no explicit provision limiting the numbers of “parents” to two.

This bill states that a man or woman is determined to be the a parent if “for the first 2 years after the birth of the child, he [or she] resided in a household with the child, openly held out the child as his [or her] own during that time, the child had only one parent under law at that time, and that parent consented to the man’s [or woman’s] holding out the child as her own.” This means that a man or woman cohabiting with the legal parent of a child for two years could be established as a legal parent. Parentage would no longer be connected to biology, marriage, or adoption. This is a revolutionary legal shift that bodes ill for children.

Equally bad, the bill states the following: 

A woman is presumed to be the parent of a child if…she and the birth mother of the child have entered into a marriage, civil union, or substantially similar legal relationship, and the child is born to the birth mother during the marriage, civil union, or substantially similar legal relationship, except as provided by a valid gestational surrogacy contract.

This means that if a woman in a civil union with a woman has a sexual relationship with a man and conceives a child, the non-biological civil partner will be presumed to be the child’s parent. Her legal status as parent supersedes the rights of the biological father. Worse still, since the bill does not limit the number of parents, it’s within the realm of possibility that the child could have three legal parents.

Attorney and Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, William C. Duncan, warned about the radical and subversive nature of this shift of  views on parentage:  

[A] revolution in the legal understanding of parenthood seems to have quietly begun with little or no public debate or discussion. This dramatically transformative development is the statutory recognition of “de facto” parenthood—the notion that an unrelated individual (usually the unmarried partner of a biological parent, but potentially any adult) can be designated as the legal “parent” of a child by virtue of an agreement with a biological or adoptive parent, or even just a relationship with the child.

…

These changes, however, are radical. The default rules for establishing legal parenthood—which were nearly universally recognized until now—recognize individuals as parents based on (1) biological parenthood, (2) marriage to a parent, or (3) adoption. These clear laws advance the interests of children to know and be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. The one significant exception, adoption, largely imitates the biological mother-father model, thus allowing a child who cannot be raised by his own parents to at least be raised by a mother and father (emphasis added).

Once parentage is severed from biology and from an understanding that children are entitled to a mother and father, there remains no rational justification for limiting parentage to two people. The understanding of parentage as binary emerges from the reality of procreation: There are two sexes the sexual union of which produces children.

Duncan writes that some states have already abandoned the “binary nature of legal parenthood by allowing three or more adults to be designated ‘parents’ of a child at the same time.” The proposed Illinois law has no language explicitly prohibiting more than two people from being identified as parents. That is no mere oversight. “Progressives” committed to deconstructing marriage and family in order to serve the desires of adults—particularly homosexual adults—would like nothing more than to sneak into law the radical possibility of a child having three or more legal parents.

The practice of purchasing eggs or sperm and renting wombs for growing babies commodifies human beings. Children who are created to be intentionally motherless or fatherless are being denied their inherent right to know and be raised by their biological parents.

In the commodification of children who are being created and purchased to satisfy the desires of adults, children suffer most. This law would merely exacerbate the social, moral, economic, and legal problems that our abandonment of truth about marriage, family, and children has created.

Rather than discouraging the practice of non-biological, non-adoptive adults living with children, this law would help normalize and facilitate it, which puts children at increased risk of harm. Again Duncan warns:

Existing law…ensures that when natural parents transfer their legal rights, there are “bright lines” governing the process. Thus, parental rights are only terminated when there is clear evidence of unfitness, or when a parent voluntarily relinquishes them through a formal procedure like adoption (including adoption by stepparents)…It is clear that living with a cohabiting couple increases risks of abuse and maltreatment for children, and that unrelated males living with children are more likely to abuse those children.”

Feckless cultural approval of no-fault divorce, non-marital cohabitation, adoption by homosexual couples, and reproductive technologies that sever the tie between procreation and childrearing has paved the way for this legislation. The loss of a correct understanding of what marriage is has resulted in the subordination of the needs and rights of children to the desires of adults. IFI recognizes that it seems an insurmountable task to restore sound thinking and sound action regarding family. We can either become dispirited and fatalistic by these sorry conditions or use them to motivate us to fight more courageously and tenaciously for children.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email or fax to your state representative to ask him/her not to legislate away God-given parental rights to adults who are neither the biological nor adoptive parents of children. Urge your state lawmaker to let stand Illinois’ existing parentage law, which better reflects truth about children’s needs and rights.

Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Primary Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote family values?  Donate today.

‘Choom gang’ president called it less dangerous than alcohol

Written by Art Moore

President Barack Obama’s assessment in his in-depth New Yorker interview that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol is contradicted by scientific research.

An extensive four-decade study published in 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences showed marijuana can lower the IQ of young teenagers and may cause permanent mental impairment.

The research, which followed subjects from 1972 to the present, found that persistent users of marijuana demonstrated “neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife.”

The international team, led by psychologist Madeline Meier of Duke University, concluded the most persistent users suffered an average eight-point decline in IQ between adolescence and adulthood.

In the New Yorker interview, Obama acknowledged he “smoked pot as a kid” but said he viewed it “as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life.”

“I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol,” he said.

Asked if marijuana was less dangerous than alcohol, the president gathered his thoughts then stated it is less dangerous “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.”

“It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy,” Obama said.

The president said the legalization of recreational use of marijuana, launched in Washington and Colorado even though it conflicts with federal law, should move forward.

Obama emphasized his concern that lower-class teens, particularly minorities, are more likely to serve jail time for marijuana use because they lack the resources and support to avoid harsher penalties.

He said it’s important for legalization “to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”

He did say, however, that he believed those who argue that “legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems” are “probably overstating the case.”

‘Choom Gang’

Obama admitted to smoking pot as a high school student in Honolulu in his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father.” David Maraniss’ biography, “Barack Obama: The Story,” provides further details, portraying Obama not only as a pot smoker but as a pot-smoking innovator.

“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”

Choom is slang term for smoking marijuana

One of Obama’s innovations, Maraniss writes, was “roof hits.”

“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Recent polls of adolescents reflect Obama’s view, showing fewer believe that regular marijuana use is harmful to health.

At the same time, young people are using marijuana at younger ages, and more are using it on a daily basis, the polls show.

The 2012 study published by the National Academy of Sciences, however, found that persistent marijuana use was associated with neuropsychological decline, even after controlling for years of education.

Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, who assisted in the study, said there are many “clinical and educational anecdotal reports that marijuana users tend to be less successful in their educational achievement, marriages and occupations.”

The study further found that quitting marijuana did not fully restore neuropsychological functioning among subjects who had become users as adolescents.

However, the study found no evidence of similar problems affecting people who only took up marijuana as adults.

Bracing for new addicts in Colorado

Meanwhile, on New Year’s Day, as Colorado’s new law went into effect, some rehab centers were preparing for an increase of marijuana-addicted patients, especially teenage users.

People under the age of 21 are not allowed to buy marijuana under the new Colorado law, but psychiatrists and others have declared to media that they remain concerned that teens could be most at risk for becoming addicted and suffering serious health damage.

Christian Thurstone, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado and the head of the teen rehab center Adolescent STEP: Substance Abuse Treatment Education & Prevention Program, told ABC News recently that 95 percent of patient referrals to the program are for marijuana use.

“Anecdotally, yes, we’re seeing kids in treatment here who have paranoia and seeing things and hearing things that aren’t there,” said Thurstone. “Adolescent exposure to marijuana [raises] risk of permanent psychosis in adulthood.”

When Colorado passed its medical marijuana law in 2009, adolescents started to report that “they’re using much higher potency products,” such as solid forms of synthetic marijuana called “waxes,” which can be up to 50 or 60 percent THC, the major psychoactive ingredient of marijuana.

“Our kids are presenting more severe addictions; it takes them longer to get a clean urine drug screen,” Thurstone told ABC News.

Thurstone also said using the highly potent marijuana makes some teens more likely to suffer psychotic episodes or breakdowns.

Ben Court, an addictions expert at the University of Colorado Hospital Center for Dependency, Addiction and Rehabilitation, told ABC that since medical marijuana became legal in Colorado he’s seen an increase in patients coming for treatment for marijuana addiction.

Thurstone has treated patients as young as 11 for marijuana addiction. Many had their first experience with pot around the age of 6.

This article was originally published at the WorldNetDaily.com website.

A Chicago Tribune columnist does it again.

Tribune columnist Steve Chapman argues that the notion of “traditional marriage” is a myth. What’s almost comical about his “argument” is that all the evidence he marshals in support of his thesis actually undermines it. Chapman argues that because some marital “customs” have changed, there has never existed a recognizable and stable form of marriage that can be identified and that we can, therefore, refer to as “traditional.” But (and here comes the almost-amusing part), every prior form of marriage that he cites as evidence was sexually complementary, thus undermining his thesis that there is no prior marital structure that can be recognized as stable and “traditional.”

If the variability of social and legal tinkerings with marital customs, rights, and responsibilities throughout history can be applied so expansively as to eliminate the single enduring constituent feature (i.e., sexual complementarity), then marriage becomes both formless and meaningless. Chapman apparently believes that tinkering with some features of marriage justifies eradicating any feature of marriage, including the central feature without which marriage is not marriage: sexual complementarity. If that goes though, there is no reason to retain the requirement regarding numbers of partners, a change of which the Left is increasingly admitting they find acceptable. But there’s no rational reason to stop there.

Since marriage customs have changed over the years, thereby—according to Chapman—permitting the jettisoning of sexual complementarity from the legal definition (and cultural understanding) of marriage as well as the jettisoning of the requirement regarding numbers of partners, why not jettison blood kinship? After all, what possible reason is there to legally prohibit two brothers from marrying? Neither Chapman nor his progressive compeers can appeal to tradition or even concern for genetic abnormalities (which they couldn’t anyway, because they’ve already argued that marriage has nothing to do with reproductive potential). What the heck, why not permit four brothers and their strange uncle who lives in the attic to marry? Their sex lives are none of the government’s business. And anyway, how will their marriage affect Steve Chapman’s marriage or yours, all you narrow-minded, fusty bigots?

Come to think of it, since history demonstrates that marriage is an ephemeral shape-shifter, why should we demand that marriage be constituted by romantic/erotic love? I say, let any configuration of people of any assortment of genders, related by blood or not marry so long as they experience some form of love including platonic. If we can forgo the most enduring, cross-cultural feature of marriage—sexual complementarity—surely erotic love can be dispensed with. Let good pals or passing acquaintances marry. Who are we to judge.

Those slightly-right-of anarchy “progressives” who futilely argue that marriage has a nature central to which is “binariness” and romantic/erotic love are left standing naked and forlorn with narry a sound argument in which to cloak themselves as the cultural maelstrom unleashes its chaos around us. And who left them so bereft of a defense for their rigid conception of marriage as binary and romantic? Friends like Steve Chapman who are unwittingly—or wittingly—shredding any rational way to defend any form of marriage, that’s who.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

The Girl Scouts is set to launch its annual cookie sale, but a prominent pro-family/pro-life organization is suggesting the public not purchase them.

Over the past several years, Girl Scouts of the USA has lost a large slice of its membership largely due to its left-leaning policies and associations, including its honoring of strongly pro-abortion people and political office holders. Since the Girl Scouts makes millions of dollars in revenue from cookie sales, American Family Association is recommending people who disagree with those liberal practices not support the cookie campaign.

“If a Girl Scout asks you to buy Girl Scout Cookies, just simply say No, thank you,” advises Randy Sharp, director of special projects for AFA. “There’s no need to explain to this little girl what the social agenda of the organization is. There’s no need for us as adults to embarrass the little girls.”

Full explanations of objections to the Girl Scouts’ pro-abortion views and activities are available online at MyGirlScoutCouncil.com and SpeakNowGirlScouts.com. Christy Volanski, who created SpeakNowGirlScouts.com, last month penned a column titled “What every pro-lifer needs to know about the Girl Scouts’ link to Planned Parenthood.”

“It’s hard to say no to those little sweethearts in the green and brown sashes,” Volanski writes, referring to youngsters selling the cookies. “However, I just can’t bring myself to fund GSUSA and local councils, and further facilitate their indoctrination of our daughters.”

Other resources include Missouri Right to Life and the Archdiocese of Kansas City.

There are alternatives to the Girl Scouts, says Sharp. “The American Heritage Girls is a God-centered organization,” he shares. “It’s a national organization complete with all the values that we would want our children to learn. So the American Family Association highly recommends American Heritage Girls as an alternative to the Girl Scouts of America.”

Research shows the Girl Scouts is promoting a liberal agenda while American Heritage Girls supports a godly agenda – and the latter is showing tremendous growth.

 This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com blog.

Written by Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Marriage is very important to me. Personally, it is a covenant that I made with my wife of over 35 years. It is a sacred trust between the two of us but it is more than that. Marriage plays a significant part in the health of our society and the future of our children. This is why I have fought so hard to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

In November, Illinois became the sixteenth state (including the District of Columbia) to change its definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships. You probably didn’t hear too much about the fight in Illinois, which dragged on for several months longer than homosexual “marriage” activists had intended. Why did it take so long for an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature to approve what homosexual activists promise us is an inevitable part of our future?

The answer is that, for quite a while, the efforts of key black clergy members preserved the traditional definition of marriage in Illinois. Their courageous stand—which included placing relentless pressure on black Democratic legislators—had the opposition gnashing its teeth in frustration. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on their activity in May, noting, “stubborn resistance within the House Black Caucus, a 20-member bloc of African-American lawmakers who have faced a withering lobbying blitz against the plan [to redefine marriage] from black ministers, has helped keep Harris’ legislation [to redefine marriage] in check, with several House members still undecided.”

In the end, however, the well-funded and aggressive campaign to redefine marriage succeeded. It is worth noting that the margin in the House was razor thin. The measure would not have passed without the three Republicans who supported it: Representatives Tom Cross, Ed Sullivan, and Ron Sandack.

As the Associated Press explained, after the bill failed in May, “Proponents then launched another aggressive campaign with help from labor, the former head of the Illinois Republican Party and the ACLU… [Illinois Governor] Quinn and House Speaker Michael Madigan also persuade[d] lawmakers in the final days.” Shortly after Illinois’ decision, New Mexico’s State Supreme Court ruled homosexual “marriage” a constitutional right.

Homosexual activists have been hailing these victories as an unstoppable tide of change sweeping the nation. They rarely mention the fact that 31 states have already passed amendments to their state constitutions clarifying that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Even with the Supreme Court striking down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June, the tide may in fact be turning.

From now on, advocates for homosexual “marriage” face a very different landscape. Only one of the remaining states (which have not redefined marriage) has a Democrat-controlled state legislature. That state is West Virginia, where recent polls suggest that less than 20 percent of the population supports redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.

Thus far, homosexual activists have relied on bullying and on two major deceptions. The first is that all they want out of the redefinition of marriage is rights for loving, committed couples. The second is that homosexual marriage is so incredibly popular that its universal acceptance is inevitable. To be on the “right side of history,” we are told we must get on board now.

The first lie is being exposed before our eyes. Illinois had already legalized civil unions. But as a brief “Civil Unions are not Enough: Six Key Reasons Why” from Lambda Legal explains, “Regardless of whether civil unions and marriage offer the same benefits and obligations on paper, when the government relegates same-sex couples to civil unions rather than marriage…those couples lose the respect and dignity that they deserve for their commitment…” What homosexual activists want, and have always wanted, is mandatory public approval of their lifestyle.

The widespread support for traditional marriage in the black community has been very difficult for radical homosexual activists to understand. After all, if we are to believe their narrative, blacks should be nothing but grateful for all our gains in civil liberties since slavery. They believe that our own experience with oppression should impel us to go along with whatever homosexual activists tell us to believe.

But those who feel this way completely misunderstand what the Civil Rights Movement was all about. It was not about radically restructuring society. We appealed to the rights given to us by our Creator, who created not only mankind, but placed us in families. The family was the one institution that held the black community together through slavery and segregation. And it is the black community that has suffered most acutely as marriage has been devalued and the family has begun to fall apart.

Homosexual activists would have us believe that the fight is nearly over and that their victory is inevitable. Yet barring action from United States Supreme Court, it seems most likely that the real fight is only beginning. The battle will be waged state by state, and it will test the patience and perseverance of all. Several of the black Democrats in Illinois who voted to redefine marriage are facing primary challengers, as are all three Republicans. Will they face consequences for their decisions? Only time will tell.

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com blog.

Yesterday’s article on the Grammy’s generated a lot of impassioned responses, including a shocking email that can be read here. **Caution: This is the most depraved, blasphemous, and hateful email IFI has ever received (which is saying a lot), so you’ve been forewarned.

The reason for publishing it is to remind Christians of what evil lurks behind the façade and rhetoric of decency, compassion, love, equality, and tolerance created by politically savvy “progressives.” I’m not suggesting that all “progressives” think as the lost soul who emailed me thinks. I am suggesting that the hate that animates him is not dissimilar from the hate that animates Fred Phelps—a truth that the mainstream press rarely discusses.

IFI is not seeking to sensationalize the evil expressed in this email but rather to illuminate how truly evil the homosexuality-affirming movement is. Those who don’t visit homosexual websites and blogs don’t fully realize that the movement to normalize homosexuality is at its core anti-Christian and unloving.  

In the ubiquitous cultural efforts (including of even orthodox churches) to emphasize “relationship,” “dialogue,” and “conversation” (all, by the way, good things), it’s easy to forget the magnitude of the evil that inheres this movement. Just as it’s difficult to fully grasp the evil of the pro-abortion movement without at least occasionally seeing photos of aborted babies, one cannot fully grasp the homosexuality-affirming movement’s enormity (i.e., the degree and seriousness of its depravity) without occasionally hearing what they say in their own words. 

Of course, not all homosexuals or their ideological allies would say the things that were said to me in this email just as not all conservatives would say the things Fred Phelps says. But obscenity, profanity, blasphemy, sexual perversion, and hate are common in the homosexual community. 

Conservatives have a troubling willingness to insulate themselves from this reality. Just telling them that many on the Left say ugly, obscene, blasphemous things is insufficient to rouse them from their moral slumber. Unfortunately, often only a close encounter with this kind of corruption can overcome the apathy, lethargy, or fear that paralyzes them. 

But God is good, and IFI received far more positive responses than negative. I will close with this eloquent response from Dr. Daniel Boland who sent me this edifying (and amusing) message about marriage, which refutes those cultural critics who are absurdly arguing that Beyoncé and Jay-Z have made a valuable contribution to the reputation of marriage by making it look “fun”: 

Your article on Beyoncé and that Jay-Z person was excellent and much to the point; I hope they read it.

Not surprisingly, the few commentators I have read on this issue entirely miss the point, as did those who produced and applauded the tawdry, hollow spectacle.

I would also add (in my usually timid and tremulous manner) that the commentators who write of such matters as “marriage” so often define it as some sort of dreadful servitude by which people are enchained to an uphill wheel of drudgery and wretchedness. They see marriage as a condition redeemed only by the prospect of occasional periods of enthusiastic rutting unleashed by such events as Beyoncé and Mr. Beyoncé occasion: namely, those moments when women wear sexually absurd and revealing clothes, and men (most appropriately clad in a tux which, one is led to believe, is somehow suited to the stimulation and resurrection of affection and other related concerns) clutch at their women with exhibitionistic abandon.

Rarely do cultural critics—such as this one—have the common sense, the emotional maturity, the personal experience of, or the intellectual discernment to realize or ponder the fact that a stable and dignified marriage has little to do over the years with such sickly-fantasized sexual performances.

One customarily grants showbiz people a degree of leeway and the benefit of idiosyncratic renderings which imaginative artists must have. In this present instance, however (as in so many cases these days), the messages of modern “art” not only invade and distort social and political reality, they assault our deepest traditions, offend our intelligence and seek to re-define the boundaries of cherished moral and cultural reality. Art has become a socio-political weapon for the dismantling of our culture’s finest ideals. Our society is made worse by this reckless, invasive interweaving.

Anyone with a modicum of honesty realizes that a true and lasting marriage (as does life itself) rests not on sickly superficial, crotch-centered fixations but on the deeply demanding discovery and decades-long exercise of a multiplicity of virtues involving self-restraint and mutual sacrifice. The first and most essential of these costly virtues is personal humility which begins not with one’s wardrobe or the trappings of seduction but by recognizing and admitting one’s own weaknesses.

A marriage which is superficially defined by the deceptive, fleeting allure of sex is a marriage suited to moral midgets who habitually distort and eschew—rather than celebrate and elevate—reality. Thus, those stunted critics who celebrate Beyoncé and Her Mate for somehow ennobling the modern notion of “marriage-as-sexual-side-show” deserve no credit. Indeed, they reinforce the escalating shallowness of our culture and exhibit astonishing ignorance about the nature of marriage and, for that matter, the realities of human nature itself.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

There’s a recent study out reporting that not only are divorce rates higher in parts of the country where there is a large concentration of Conservative Protestants, but that these people are also influencing their neighbors to be more divorce-prone. Very bad news indeed.

That is, if it were true, which there is good reason to conclude it is not. Here is a very good analysis of the study itself from the folks at the Institute for Family Studies.

It seem implausible that one could deduce a causational link between Conservative Protestants and higher divorce rates in a community. This has been done before by others and incorrectly. Many scholars have asserted that it is more of what I call a “mobile-home belt” problem, than a bible-belt problem. The authors of this study said they controlled for income/poverty, but I don’t think it can be dismissed that easily. Also it is, as this study admits, it is a “couples marrying and having babies very young” problem – which does increase likelihood of divorce – and they connect this with being consistent with Conservative Protestant teaching. This is a pretty creative leap.

And a side note worth mentioning: Jennifer Glass, who is a fine scholar, is also a leading scholar with the Council on Contemporary Families, a group of academics founded to explain that the married mom/dad/children family triad is certainly “not-all-that” and nearly all alternative family forms are worth being really excited about. This has no impact on how this particular study should be judged – as it should be on its own merits – but it does reveal clear partisanship of the author to a particular family ideal: traditional is bad, new alternative is good.

Anyway, the study has been in the news, so thought I would offer some additional insight that students of the family should know about.

This article was originally posted at the GlennTStanton.com blog.

Written by IllinoisReview.com

To use medical marijuana in Illinois, patients would be fingerprinted, undergo a background check and pay $150 a year to get a special photo ID under proposed regulations unveiled Tuesday.

Rules for dispensaries and cultivation centers still are being drafted by other Illinois agencies. Those rules also will be posted before they are submitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Morgan said.

Under the proposal, individuals would pay $150 a year to apply for a medical marijuana registry identification card. People receiving Social Security disability income could pay a lower fee of $75 a year. And caregivers of qualified Illinoisans could also apply for a card for $125 a year.

Caregivers with cards could obtain marijuana from a licensed dispensary on behalf of a patient. They could prepare and administer the drug to a patient, but they couldn’t use the marijuana themselves or sell or give it to others. Caregivers would be required to notify the health department within five days of a patient’s death.

State officials expect a flood of applications. The state’s medical marijuana program website has received more than 12,000 unique visitors and more than 2,000 people have signed up for email notifications about the program.

Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-New York) has arrogantly proclaimed that “extreme conservatives” have no place in New York. And who are these “extremists”? Those who Cuomo hopes will leave New York include those who believe that women do not have a moral right to murder babies in utero, those who believe that homosexual acts are immoral, and those who believe marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity.

I assume that Cuomo seeks voluntary relocation of those who dissent from his “progressive” dogma, but who knows what presumptuous “progressive” oppressors will desire for untouchable “conservative extremists” in a few years.

What’s really rich in Cuomo’s statement about “extremism” is his apparent ignorance of history and logic. Cuomo seems to be implying that the number of people who hold a particular moral belief determines the truth or rightness of the belief. So, if most New Yorkers believe in the absolute right of mothers to murder the babies growing within them, then dissenters are wrongheaded extremists and have no place in states in which their views are in the minority. 

A few questions for Cuomo:

1. What if the majority of people in every state were to believe that women have a moral right to murder their babies in utero? Where then do dissenters belong? Where is their place?
   
   
2. Which moral and political beliefs must one hold in order to have a place in New York? Is it just conservative beliefs on feticide, assault weapons, and homosexuality that abrogate one’s right to live in New York, or are there other ideological litmus tests for New York residency?
   
   
3. Historically, Cuomo’s perverse views on feticide and homosexuality have been the extreme views. During those periods of history when Cuomo’s views were extreme, were they objectively wrong as well? And during those periods of history, did extreme “progressives” lose their “place” in all the states in which conservative  views dominated?

Some, including Cuomo, are now trying to argue that Cuomo was merely describing a political reality in New York. They’re arguing that Cuomo was simply saying that since New York is a liberal state, conservative “extremists” will have a difficult time effecting their desired political ends. But here’s what Cuomo actually said:

Are they these extreme conservatives…right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are….Figure out who you are, and figure out if your extreme conservative philosophy can survive in this state. And the answer is no.

Does Cuomo apply this pragmatic philosophy consistently? Does he think extreme progressives have no place in conservative states? Should all extreme “progressives” exit predominantly red states, counties, or cities?

“Progressives” have been fashioning their re-education camps for some years now (i.e., public schools), but perhaps the resistance of “conservative extremists” to curricular propaganda and censorship, and the increasing number of free-thinking “conservative extremists” who are exiting government schools is leading anti-intellectuals like Cuomo to entertain the fanciful idea of sequestration of non-compliants.

Seven years ago as a member of the English Department at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, I was working in the writing center. At that time, I was urging colleagues who introduced students to homosexuality-affirming resources also to expose students to the work of dissenting scholars. A colleague in the writing center—who, by the way, claimed to be Catholic—told me that she was so sure my views on homosexuality were wrong that she didn’t think they should be allowed to be presented in public schools. This is the astonishing view that dominates public schools around the country. Teachers simply assume that their unproven, non-factual moral and political assumptions (as well as re-definitions of terms) are true and arrogantly censor competing assumptions—all the while proclaiming their impassioned commitment to diversity, tolerance, and intellectual inquiry.

Cuomo inadvertently let the dirty, flea-bitten, nasty cat peak its head out of the extreme “progressive” bag, but he’s far from alone. Remember when Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel said, “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values…. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,”? Chick-fil-A was unwanted in Chicago because its president Dan Cathy believes that marriage is inherently sexually complementary.

The pernicious reality is that many “progressives,” particularly those in positions of power and influence (e.g., those in the mainstream press, academia, Congress, and the entertainment industry), violate virtually every one of their shibboleths: They hate diversity of ideas; they censor with carefree abandon; they’re arrogant and elitist; they’re intolerant; they hurl epithets, and they’re illogical. And they reserve for themselves the right to decide who gets to speak, work, live, move, and have their being in America. 

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

If you would rather write a check, please make it payable to Illinois Family Action or Illinois Family Institute, and mail it to us at: P.O. Box 88848 Carol Stream, Illinois  60188. 

We also accept credit card donations by phone at (708) 781-9328.

Correction: Macy’s has stated that it was the victim of a “prank” that involved a flyer falsely advertising an event involving Santa in “kinky boots” to be held at the State Street store in Chicago. IFI regrets including a discussion (since removed) of that flyer in this article about the troubling Kinky Boots performance in Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade.

Like many Americans, you probably spent Thanksgiving Day at home with your family engaged in any number of family traditions, including watching the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade.  So, did you enjoy the drag queens in “kinky boots” during the parade? For those who didn’t see the parade, take a few moments to watch this video clip of this controversial parade performance.

Macy’s invited the cast of the musical Kinky Boots to be part of their parade this year, apparently thinking the world needs to see kinky drag queens dancing in their boots in order to fully grasp what equality, tolerance, and Thanksgiving are all about.

The show centers around a drag queen who helps turn a shoe factory around with, you guessed it, kinky boots. In case you’re unfamiliar with this award-winning musical, you can click here to learn more. 

The musical has limited family appeal as most parents don’t want to take their children to see drag queens, so it was both curious and controversial when Macy’s invited the cast to take part in the Thanksgiving Day parade. Surely Macy’s management knew there would be many young children watching live and from home. Did Macy’s management care that exposure to drag queens would compel parents to talk to their children about a topic that many consider age-inappropriate? It’s one thing to put gender confusion on display for adults who at least have enough experience to understand what they’re seeing. It’s another thing to expose children to this confusion,  many of whom will have questions about why men are dressed as women.Is there no musical that Macy’s could find to illuminate the message of and spirit of Thanksgiving other than one that celebrates a behavior that God condemns (ie., cross-dressing)?

As with sympathetic portrayals of homosexuality, this effort is not about promoting tolerance of people. It’s about exploiting the concept of tolerance in order to expose children to the perverse sexual activities of adults in an effort to normalize such perversion.

Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade also serves to inaugurate the Christmas season with an appearance by Santa Claus. Macy’s is willing to profit from the day set aside to celebrate the birth of Christ, while blaspheming God and insulting the beliefs of those whose hard-earned money they want. The hard-earned money of Christians is being used by Macy’s to normalize gender confusion and cross-dressing and to insult our God — who will not be mocked.

This is bad business and bad policy on the part of Macy’s. They are pushing mature adult conversations about psychological and moral issues on families at a time when families want to focus on celebrating Thanksgiving and the advent of the Christmas season.

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to send an email or a fax to Macy’s President and CEO Terry J. Lundgren.  Let him know what you think of their decision to include a Kinky Boots performance in the Thanksgiving Day parade, then shop elsewhere.  You can also call their customer relations number at (513) 570-7000. 

It’s always offensive to push corrosive social and sexual agendas on children, but doing so during celebrations of religious holidays may be most offensive time of all.

Additional Contact Information:

Terry J. Lundgren, President 
Macy’s 
7 West Seventh Street
Cincinnati, OH  45202 
Phone: 513-579-7000
or: 513-579-7764
Fax: 513-579-7555

From now until the end of the year your tax-deductible gift to Illinois Family Institute will be doubled, up to $25,000 due to the generosity of some long-time supporters.   

Click here to double your tax-deductible donation to IFI today!

Written by Kathy Valente and Laurie Higgins

Marriage “progressives” ridiculed opponents of homosexual “marriage” when they suggested the next logical step would be the legalization of plural unions. The conservative argument is that if natural marriage is allowed to be redefined by jettisoning the central defining feature of sexual complementarity, the next feature to be jettisoned will be the criterion regarding numbers of partners. It’s been a little less than two weeks since Governor Patrick Quinn celebrated the signing of SB 10, which redefined marriage to allow two people of the same sex to “marry,” and the media are once again eager to give voice to yet another group seeking to further dismantle marriage: polyamorists. 

Polyamory: Married & Dating is a cable television program that’s gotten a wink and a nod from ABC’s formerly serious program Nightline. Polyamory: Married & Dating follows the exploits of a Peter Pannish husband, Michael, and his foolish wife, Kamala Devi, a “sex coach” and “goddess,” who share their home and bed with assorted sexual partners. Oh, yes, the goddess and her husband are also raising their six-year-old son in the midst of this sexual anarchy. They defend their bed-hopping by repeating the Left’s favorite cliché about raising children: “It takes a village to raise a child.” 

One of the goals of this couple is to “speed up acceptance” of polyamory, a cultural change which they believe is within ten years of realization.  A professional “psychologist/sex therapist” interviewed for this Nightline episode wants people to believe that “polyamory…is about creating love and lasting relationships.” As Michael’s and Kamala’s sexual partners move in and out of their bed, home, and son’s life,  it would seem that the “lasting” part of relationships is not even on their relationship radar. Unfortunately, people who have no grounding in the truth of Scripture will be enslaved to their fallen natures and will believe anything that allows them to indulge in sin. 

“It’s quite normal already,” Michael quips. He’s right. Sin is normal for the unregenerate. 

Whether he realizes it or not, this child-man has been affected by Alfred Kinsey’s book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Kinsey, whose so-called “research”—much of it now-debunked—from the late 1940’s paved the way for the sexual revolution, found that most married men have and naturally want extramarital affairs, children are naturally sexual and should be allowed to engage in what comes natural, and that ten percent of the population is homosexual. This “research,” aided and abetted by the most infamous of child-men, Hugh Hefner, became the catalyst that eventually drove comprehensive sex ed curricula into many government-run schools (Illinois’ elected officials recently saw fit to mandate it for our children as well). 

What people don’t know is that Kinsey’s pool of study participants was composed mostly of incarcerated men—not your average family man. His “research” on children involved using pedophiles who experimented on children as young as 5 months old. Some of the data were obtained by “Rex King,” an Arizona rapist of 800 children, and the Nazi pedophile, Von Balluseck. Dr. Judith Reisman has spent decades exposing Kinsey’s criminal junk science.    

When a lie is repeated often enough, it is eventually accepted as true. Just ask the 95 Illinois lawmakers who bought this lie: “When two men love each other, they should have the same right to marry as a man and a woman.” Liberals who view the autonomous self as the center of the moral universe will not cease their attack on society’s most important cultural institution until nothing of it remains but the empty shell of the word “marriage.” We cannot remain silent as the Left promotes these lies.

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation to support IFI.

The George Soros-funded marijuana movement has achieved enormous “progress” in the various states, especially Colorado, and the results are now starting to get some media attention.

“Pot problems in Colorado schools increase with legalization” is the headline over a Denver Post story by Nancy Lofholm. She reports, “…school resource officers, counselors, nurses, staff and officials with Colorado school safety and disciplinary programs are anecdotally reporting an increase in marijuana-related incidents in middle and high schools.”

President Obama’s Department of Justice has decided to let Colorado and Washington’s new marijuana legalization initiatives go into effect without a challenge, even though they undermine global drug control treaties signed and ratified by the U.S.

In an email alert to its supporters, the Soros-funded Center for American Progress said, “This Is What Progress Looks Like,” citing four cities voting on November 5 to remove penalties for marijuana possession.

Calvina L. Fay, Executive Director of the Drug Free America Foundation and Save Our Society From Drugs (S.O.S.), told Accuracy in Media the trend “is very troubling to all of us in prevention, treatment, and law enforcement.”

In Colorado, the situation is out of control, perhaps by design. As I noted after a visit to Colorado in April, a Colorado resident can get two ounces of marijuana a day (at an average of $150 an ounce), and “self-medicate” for almost any reason. Even a heavy marijuana user goes through only a quarter of an ounce a day. State “regulation” of the industry has been a tragic joke.

The group Smart Colorado now reports that 700 medical marijuana licenses have already been issued in Denver and that legalization means each of these license holders will now be eligible to apply for a recreational license as well. “To put that number into context,” the group reports, “there are approximately 201 liquor establishments and 123 pharmacies located in the city of Denver.”

Tina Trent, a blogger on crime and justice issues, says “the reality of legalization” will be a wake-up call to people in Colorado and other places. The reality will include “people smoking pot in public and every third storefront in the tourist district turning into a head shop,” she says. “How do you address bus drivers legally smoking pot before their shifts start, and all sorts of people smoking ‘medicinal’ pot all day long, then getting behind the wheels of their cars?”

Trent, the author of a major report on the drug legalization movement in California, urges the public to get involved and counter the propaganda from the “professional pro-drug groups funded by George Soros.” She adds, “Legislators need to seriously consider the facts about marijuana abuse by young people.”

Janelle Krueger, program manager for Expelled and At-Risk Student Services for the Colorado Department of Education, tells the Denver Post, “We have seen a sharp rise in drug-related disciplinary actions which, anecdotally, from credible sources, is being attributed to the changing social norms surrounding marijuana.” The paper said Krueger believes the jump is linked to the message that comes from legalization of the drug—that marijuana is a medicine and a safe and accepted recreational activity. In addition, she says, legalization has increased the availability of the drug.

Following up on the Denver Post article, Lindsey Sablan of the local ABC television station reports that new state education statistics “show marijuana is the number one reason students are being kicked out of Colorado public schools—and pot expulsions dwarf all other causes, like alcohol, disobedience and weapons violations.”

But now that Colorado and Washington State have legalized the drug, the Soros-funded movement to legalize marijuana and other drugs is going global.

Speaking in Denver in October at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference, Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance said it’s “because of what Colorado and Washington did and what Uruguay is going to do “that the world has hit a “tipping point on marijuana.” He was referring to Uruguay’s decision to legalize marijuana cultivation and distribution. The president of Uruguay is a former Marxist-Leninist guerrilla named Jose Mujica.

Calvina Fay says people can respond in several ways:

• Educate themselves more about the problems with marijuana and what has worked in the past to reduce its use such as societal disapproval, showing youth that it is harmful, and strong laws against its use that are actually enforced.
• Start speaking up by letting their city, county, state, and federal public officials know about their concerns. When people remain silent, the advocates on the other side of the issue are able to create an illusion that this is what the majority want. Demand fair but tough laws that are consistently enforced.
• Start holding drug users accountable for harms they cause. If a person is harmed in any way and it can be determined that the person who did the harm was on pot, legal action should strongly be considered.
• Support efforts in the schools to teach kids to reject drugs.
• Support drug-free workplace programs that both deter and detect drug use and implement interventions on drug users.
• Engage in advocacy, participate in town hall meetings, and get involved in the issue.
• Donate generously to groups that are battling drug legalization on a daily basis. This is an important battle, but it takes money to sustain it and we need more donors. 

Dr. Paul R. Chabot, President of the Coalition for a Drug Free California, said, “We need a parent revolution in America. Drugs destroy families and the progressive agenda is doing just that. We need real leadership in America and at this point, our best hope is years away with a new president, attorney general and secretary of health and human services. We hope this matter becomes the central point for the presidential campaign.”

The statistics are clear and the data is overwhelming, children often suffer traumatically from choices adults make.  The number one determinant of whether a child will reach adulthood with a healthy chance at a normal life is the presence or absence of a father in the home.  Trace young people’s problems such as drug use, gang involvement, depression, high school drop-out rates, and  promiscuity and the number one factor will be absentee fathers! 

Just as the Earth circles the Sun, so children do best with their biological mother and father.   There is no debate.  This is not mere consensus.  It is fact.  No adult “wants” should ever eclipse a child’s needs.  The “alternatives” raise the risks to children so dramatically that other than tragedies and unavoidables, every effort ought to be made to insure children have both parents present during their critical formative years.   

However, this is not only not occurring in America, it is strenuously resisted.  Our cultural environment is decidedly anti child.  Whereas we ought to be stigmatizing anyone who makes choices that are detrimental to children, we rather stigmatize those who point out the destructive behavior of adults.  One would think that destroying the lives of innocent, helpless and powerless children would earn one the scorn of the community, but no!  The greatest scorn is reserved for those who oppose the conduct which destroys children’s lives. Children desperately need and quite literally plead to have both parents in their lives, but individuals and groups who fight for children are publically castigated and given labels which are not fit to be printed. 

Americans have become so hedonistic, narcissistic, and feelings oriented that it difficult to find any who will actually consider the long-term consequences of what we now tolerate and even glorify.  Adults’ “feelings” trump children’s very lives.  The facts are unequivocal: divorce and single parenting do life-long harm to the children involved; and multitudes of children victims have turned to drugs, gangs, and suicide as a result.  Yet, to attach shame of any kind to these adult’s failures is not tolerated!  Why is it acceptable to injure children and unacceptable to criticize adult’s bad choices which cause the injuries?  

While it is appropriate to protect from scorn those adults who find themselves as single parents through tragedies or events not of their own doing, it is worse than deceitful to act as though all or most single parenting situations are due to such things.  Most single parents are thus because of their own poor choices. 

When considering all the conducts toxic to children in America, it is difficult to determine which is worst.  Is it divorce?  Is it teen promiscuity?  How about the violent and sexually charged music and media?  But, when you think about it, does it really matter which is worst?  I find it difficult to believe that Americans do not simply put their foot down and declare that ANY behavior detrimental to things essential to the well-being of innocent and helpless children will not be tolerated! 

This is a primary reason why I also oppose same-sex marriage.  It is merely one more thing that undermines the best environment for children: a home with mother and father.  

Let me illustrate further.  Ask yourself if the following is not true right now in America.  We tolerate lying and we get less truth.  We tolerate corruption and find few honest politicians.  If we tolerate cheating we will get less character in our graduates.  When we tolerate laziness we will get fewer hard workers.  Therefore, because we have tolerated “alternatives” to “mother and father” we now have fewer mothers and fathers.  It just makes sense.    

I am told that same-sex marriage will not affect my marriage.  So what?  I am not here to protect myself.  If I were, my perspective would be no better than the other side’s.  I am here trying to protect those whom our culture refuses to value, America’s children.  Anyone who demands that they get whatever they want without regard to the consequences to children does not deserve an audience. 

It is tragic when children suffer unavoidable trials. It is evil when a culture intentionally inflicts the suffering upon them! 

Written by J. Warner Wallace

It’s not unusual for police officers to be called to domestic violence scenes. I’ve responded to many such calls, both as a patrol officer and a detective. My first concern on arrival is the safety of everyone at the scene. Who, if anyone, is hurt? Does anyone need medical attention? Once the situation has been stabilized, I can take the time to figure out if a crime has occurred.

As I survey the scene to make sure everyone is okay, children are my primary concern. It’s my duty to make sure the kids are safe and unharmed. I’ve sadly seen my share of neglect and abuse over the years. I’ve also had to remove children from the custody of abusive (or simply neglectful) parents on more than one occasion. I take my responsibility in this regard very seriously. I respect and honor the rights of parents, but I always try to address the rights of children first because they often lack an advocate.

I thought about this foundational duty recently as I read an article written by British journalist Kate Thompson. She proudly describes herself as the world’s worst wife (as the “anti-wife,” in fact). Kate admits she rarely helps her husband, and seldom cooks, cleans or helps with laundry. She even confesses physical “intimacy is reserved only for [her husband’s] birthdays—and then just the ones with a zero.” Although Thompson’s husband works full time, he does nearly everything to take care of their home and their two young boys. In fact, when he leaves on a business trip, he makes sure he’s hired nannies to care for the kids. Kate is not just the “anti-wife,” she’s also the “anti-mom.” Under her direction, the kids are simply “running amok.”

Thompson attempts to excuse her behavior by arguing she has a right to be happy: “After a day of writing, I feel happy and complete; after a day with the children, I am frazzled.” In addition, Kate says her husband knew what he was getting into when he married her. She was a committed workaholic from the day they first met. “You might think me self-obsessed,” says Thompson, “but that’s a price I’m willing to pay for my happiness.” Her husband seems equally willing.

While I certainly think couples have a right to live together as they please, the responding patrol officer in me couldn’t help but look at the sad picture of Thompson’s husband holding their two boys. Neither child looks happy. While Kate’s husband had a chance to make a choice about his wife, Thompson’s children didn’t have a choice of mother. Thompson’s story is yet another example of the desires of adults trumping the rights of children. Her case sounds so extreme that one can’t help but wonder if it’s some kind of hoax. Tragically, though, it’s undoubtedly true that we often neglect the rights of children in our society in favor of our own self-focused wishes.

It’s impossible to deny the fact that children thrive best when raised by two engaged, loving biological parents in a low-conflict home. While other forms of family are also capable of raising children well, statistics continue to demonstrate what we already know intuitively: Kids do best (by every relevant form of measurement) when they are raised by the mother and father who conceived them. Many researchers have come to this conclusion, regardless of their political or philosophical association. According to Child Trends, a non-partisan research group, “An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents. . . .” The Center for Law and Social Policy agreed: “Children do best when raised by their two married biological parents. . . .”

We know, for example, that children raised by their two biological parents are far less likely to become sexually active at a young age compared to every other form of family unit, including stepfamilies. Children who are not living with both biological parents are 50 to 150 percent more likely to abuse drugs than kids who are raised in other types of family units, including stepfamilies like those formed in same-sex unions. In a similar way, studies indicate “children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents. Risk of maltreatment death was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents.” Although adoption is a wonderful and important thing, studies repeatedly confirm the same reality: Children do better when raised not only in two-parent family units, but in two-biological-parent family units.

Even the United Nations has come to recognize this truth about childrearing. In 1989, the United Nations (UNICEF) crafted the foremost human rights document related to children. It is called the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” and it guarantees children the right to be raised by their two biological parents whenever possible (UNCRC Article 7). The ideal form of a family for childrearing (a loving, engaged, low-conflict, two-biological-parent household) is recognized by this internationally accepted human rights group.

Even though we might acknowledge these foundational rights for children, we don’t often provide them to our kids. I came from a broken home; I was not raised by two biological parents. My mom is an amazing woman, and I am truly grateful for her devotion to me as a parent, but our situation was clearly less than ideal. Maybe you had a similar experience.

But I’m concerned that our culture is moving even further from the very form of family we recognize as optimal. We champion many forms of parenting and many models of family as though they are equally valuable when they clearly aren’t. We also seem less and less willing to promote the one traditional form of family that best protects the rights of children.

Kate Thompson, assuming her account is true, isn’t all that different from the rest of us. I see many of my own selfish desires in her story. How many times have I placed my own career goals over the best interests of my children? How many times have I given less to my family while overachieving at work? It’s easy to focus on our “right” to happiness and lose sight of the rights of our children. Every time a friend tells me he’s leaving his family because he isn’t happy, I can’t help but think about his children. In a similar way, every time I see our culture embrace yet another form of marriage as equally valuable, I can’t help but think we are once again placing the desires of adults over the rights of children.