Great piece! But I don't think Blair's government has a "terror of moralising". This government is all about controlling the citizenry, and the more dependent you make them on the government for their every little need (including government funded "counselling" for when their lives fall into shambles), the more control you have. The more power you have over the electorate, the more they will look to you as a saviour and be afraid to upset their fragile applecarts by voting for anyone else.

Michael Howard's challenge is how to wean these thousands of dependents away from the "caring", destructive Tony Blair.

While I agree with the point made wholeheartedly, I am concerned about the use of correlation to argue causation. One can say that the set of people who choose to get married have lower rates of offending, of family breakup (and even longer lives) than those who do not do so. The question is, though, whether there is are causal relationships between marriage and these other good things, or whether these other good things *and* the propensity to marry are consequences of other factors. If so, those are the factors we should encourage.

One might argue that these are all the "fruits of virtue", in which case we should be exhorting the life of virtue, rather than its accidents. On the other hand, perhaps imitating the life of virtue is what develops virtue inside oneself?

An interesting thought - if we conclude that the imitation of virtue is better than the absence of any evidence of it, then our current attitude to hypocrisy (which is the the tribute paid by vice to virtue) needs to change radically. Currently, we decry the hypocrisy, not the vice. We will need to rever to condemning the absence of virtue, not the hypocrisy in itself. Now *that's* conservative.

Robert

I also agree with the point made, albeit with more reservations than you. You've hit the nail on the head with the point on correlation and causation. It's a basic error made by those who don't understand statistics or empirical research, and it's frankly appaling that it is being used as an excuse for the kind of social engineering that Melanie apparently deplores. Which is not to say that I think marriage is a bad thing... etc.

Melanie,

Although a happily married life has much to commend it in terms of personal happiness, health, mutual support and care for its immediate members - as well as members of the extended family and community - and is the ideal model for raising children, I cannot believe you endorse the kind of social engineering that Bush is endorsing (even if it is in response to other forms of PC-based social engineering).

Surely such advice is already available - through people called marriage counsellors.

Also, this policy is well set for creating 'unintended consequences' - one can already imagine people who blame their bad behaviour on anyone and anything other than themselves claiming as a defence for wrongdoing 'Well, it wasn't my fault - I wasn't married - that was why I vandalised my neighbour's car, your Honour'.

Such social engineering is at odds with a very long tradition in liberal democracies of holding individual people directly responsible for their actions rather than looking for excuses that remove the responsibility for their behaviour from their own shoulders.

Yes, I know, I know, PC zealots and the Labour government and its establishment friends clearly believe in PC social-engineering or never making any moral judgements at all about people's personal lives. However, surely Bush's move does not just counter that unhealthy trend but actually compounds it - albeit in a different direction.

Finally - where is all this money coming from? This is like the last days of unreformed Socialist Governments' spendthrift ways - although it is a strange sense of priorities that Bush has pledged $1.5 billion in contrast to $170 billion (yes, really!) pledged towards space exploration if you please...

What's with the Calcium, Caroline?

Oh Mel - the sex education policies of the bush administration have been a disaster. I know where you are coming from and I couldn't agree more with you that focusing on giving young people a belief in themselves so that they feel confident enough not to be pushed into sex by peer pressure or society before they are ready is essential.

But the abstinence approach favoured by the bush administration just hasn't worked. Studies looking at rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs have found that at best there's no advantage from using the abstinence approach.

Since welfare reform in the mid 90's the US has greatly reduced its subsidy of illigitimate births, and to the surprise of many, the illigitimate birth rate in the US has dropped signicantly. As for abstinance, it has been 100% effective for everyone who uses it.

The study you cite is interesting. Other studies have shown tht having a father in the household with the mother significantly reduces the chance that the children will engage in criminal activity. The real question is why a study is needed to prove something that should be obvious.

Another good piece. However, I think Bush's attempts will come to nought until divorce laws are changed. It is just too easy for a woman to walk out of a marriage and take everything with her even when her husband has done nothing wrong or even when she is the guilty party. No fault divorces are a disaster and while they exist and the legal system is biased against men, men know that to marry is tantamount to madness. Madness it is when there is a 50% chance of a man losing everything (kids, property the lot) and being robbed of his income for the next however many years. Until a more balanced approach is taken in the future, men will continue not to marry. On top of this women will continue to have children outside marriage knowing that THEIR decision to have the child means they can do without a husband and the father will still have to pay (whether he wanted the child or not). The present system is against all natural justice and I for one will continue to see it as my duty to tell my nephews to steer well clear of marriage and to keep using the condoms. I do not want their rights and freedoms sacrificed on the altar so-called 'women's rights'.

Melanie is absolutely right about the benefits associated with marriage and the social pathology resulting from its decline. But I can't for the life of me understand why the government should be removing $1.5 billion from taxpayers' pockets to give out helpful advice. During the last Presidential campaign many wondered what it meant to be a "compassionate conservative." Apparently it means that "just say no" applies to sex and drugs, but not to any spending boondoggle conceived by the Nanny State.

Another excellant article, however constantly repeating warnings about the perils of the disappearing family are hardly enough.There is an urgent imperative to reverse the trend of the
past forty years and make the omission of formal marriage and the adoption of a 'handshake' marriage as in medieval times a matter for deep shame.Illegitamacy must also be regarded as a matter for shame and disgrace.

Our society is dreadfully short of the sense of shame that was once the binding social gell of a law abiding society. Where there is no shame there is no honour. Shame is about letting down a common trust,and letting others down. The capacity to feel shame is the pre-condition of all the other virtues in society. No society can function in a law abiding and socially harmonious way without it.
How to develop it is the problem. A universal ondemning outright many existing practices such as illegitimacy has to be a start. But who can make such a start? The Church has proved itself useles for many years and is inconsequnces declining still further as a part of society. Parliament appear to be interested solely in a 'bread and circus'style of public relations government. Give them whatever turns them on, and never mind the long term consquences!
It is time someone in parliament realised that to do something wrong and not feel shame is the ultimate proof of a wicked character.

The decline of marriage is not simply due to changing cultural norms and 'progressivism'. Marriage has become a trap for men. A trap they are increasingly learning to avoid.With good reason.

Marriage only works if both parties to the agreement have equal incentive to behave. For the last 40 years women have had very little incentive in this department, given that the legal and social sanctions hardly seem to apply to them: no matter what a woman does in marriage the state, and the legal system, in practice will take her side. This, increasingly, applies even to 'relationships' that are not officially sanctioned-we are already at the stage in which a cohabiting girlfriend can turf a man out of his flat, and take over the tenancy, if she can make sufficiently artful accusations of 'mental' cruelty.

Advocating cultural change, with regard to marriage, is pointless unless this is accompanied by a whole menu of legal changes, bringing genuine equality, not matriarchy, to the married estate.

I am a new reader of Melanie's and find her material well considered and well presented. I am curious how others feel about the comments above from Derek and E. Shaw. As a man, I understand their position that a man would be foolish to enter into marriage with the current attitudes in the courts. A 50-50 chance of getting nailed in divorce court vs just shacking up and reducing those odds. Every man I know has peformed this mental calculus. This is why we are all so surprised and a little saddened when we hear about a friend getting married. We know in our hearts that he taking a terrible chance, hope that this one will work but know what probably happen. Ladies, any comments?

Russell,

"There is an urgent imperative to reverse the trend of the
past forty years and make the omission of formal marriage and the adoption of a 'handshake' marriage as in medieval times a matter for deep shame"

But how would this be done? Who would do it? Why would 'shame' help? What about those in other relationships (ie not married) who care for eachother, are responsible, contribute to their community etc?

Melanie et al are trying to find ways of filling the vacuum that has been left by the post-60s collapse of the 'deferential society' (ie where all individuals functioned in society within well-defined roles and in relation to clearly set limits - and where a largely shared set of values about public and private behaviour was buttressed by the public action of society's insitutions (family, school, work place, police, church, community, government departments etc etc).

There is a large body of experience on which to draw that demonstrates that politicians interfere at their peril in certain areas of civil society. There is also a large body of evidence of politicians' clumsy attempts - particularly those on the left trying to run businesses (at which they are generally useless) and those on the right trying to enter the citizenry's bedrooms (ie the disastrous 'Back to Basics' campaign of John Major's government.

I can see exactly where Melanie is coming from but I cannot see how what Bush is proposing will actually work and maybe it will actually be subject to all sorts of unintended consequences.

This is not the same as former Mayor Giuliani's zero-tolerance initiative which analysed the causes of crime and instituted a set of well-constucted actions that undermined it (ie sucked the oxygen out of the infrastructure of crime and thus prevented crime).

The whole marriage question is so much more complex than that in terms of cause and effect and cannot be solved by such simple solutions.

To the anonymous blob upthread who said that "Bush's" abstinence programs have proven to be a "disaster, " exactly what "studies" are you referring to here? Since the mid-1990s (when I believe the abstinence programs were first introduced, under Clinton and not Bush, the US has seen the rate of teen-age pregnancies decline by 35 percent -- figures according to the Atlanta Center for Disease Control.)

We can argue about whether abstinence programs are responsible for this decline or some other factor, but you cannot say they have been "a disaster." A disaster would mean teen-age pregnancy rates shooting updwards, not downwards.

Are you just another destructive cultural Marxist hoping to see the welfare state continue to expand and Western society to continue to decline?

We get this type of propaganda all the time in California regarding the supposed "ineffectiveness" of the "3 strikes and you're out law" for repeat criminal offenders. Berkeley law professors and what not are always producing "studies" and "scientific evidence" proving that the law does not work. One has to track down the victims rights organizations to find out that the murder rate in California has declined 40 percent since the 3-strikes-law went into effect.

Regarding the marriage support program, I support it and I don't see it as "social engineering." It is simply providing an incentive to single parent welfare recipients (I believe an extra $100 per month) to adopt some structure into their chaotic lives by getting married.

I was a single parent myself for many, many years. My life, my financial security, and my ability to be a good parent both vastly improved after I got married. Those who say that one can do the work of two as well are kidding themselves grotesquely.

The plain fact of the matter is that many of the social values we scornfully threw out from the 60s on were useful and correct. I'm not saying all of them were, but a great many of them were.

E.Shaw

The contract of 'Marriage has become a trap', no more than any other of the multitude of contracts made daily in our society. A contract presupposes willing parties with a clear idea of what they are doing. The problems arise when they disagree and haven't made provisions for dealing amicably with any disagreements. Nothing new in this, the old 'Partnership Act' had a 'Table A' at the back laying out a model partnership agreement to fall back on in the event of failure of the partners to agree. It would be folly to blame the contract of marriage for omissions and failures on the part of the parties.
There are more problems of this nature likely to arise when the situation is one of 'cohabiting' in the absence of a marriage contract.
Simply because the ideas and expectatiuons of the partners may vary through time. There is something of a temporary nature about cohabiting rather than a solemnly declared 'till death do us part'. A simple cohabiting arrangement is untenable if children are involved. A child needs at least 15 years attentive care by two parents and at no little expense if it is to be a well balanced integrated member of society. Ergo 'cohabiting' all too often is a problem family waiting to happen.
You seek 'genuine equality'. Go to heaven. It doesn't exist on earth, and never has, and I dare to say it never will. Usually the women is vastly superior to the man in certain important parts of daily life, e.g. bringing up children, making a comfortable home, tending the sick. Bearing children is something a man can never equal. All the poor chap can do is provide finance, and loving care.
'Legal changes' are a last resort and mean you've probably lost the battle anyway. The broken home has no winners. It's much better if you can settle each day's squabbles by the time you put your head on the pillow at night. All the Courts can do is cobble some sort of compromise among the parties involved, and as any pramatsist will tell you 'compromise' means no one gets what they want and no one is satisfied.

David.
May I compliment you on your approach? A questioning analysis is just what is needed at this stage and in my view long overdue.
Who would spell out the necessary code? Not the traditional source for centuries for this sort of lead, the Church. It is thoroughly discredited. We need a new preacher, or preachers, that is anyone with a well though out set of morals and a clear idea of the message, the commandments to-days society should follow.
If the Government spent as much time and money on moral reform as they do on cigarette advertising using the sameT.V. and Media time with persisitence and continuity then we would be in with a chance. I find it very odd that concern over a particular branch of health care should take precedence over the moral care of society, the immoral and decadent state of which is far more diabolical.
The popular press has always been great opinion formers and educators. Unfortunately side by side with the all too few Melanies of this world there are over-educated buffoons writing socially disruptive rubbish. Sadly the Press is not united on any particular moral stand. They are profit motivated and on balance prefer scandal and titilation to sense and morality.
Shame is the essential lubricant to moral reform.
It brings remorse, it develops a conscience, a sense of right and wrong in an individual. A conscience is the inner voice of reason, it is a special moral sensitivity and as such a great motivator. Conversely a person with a bad conscience cannot act well.
Unmarried relationships may care for one another, are responsible and so on, but the test of time has proven marriage one man and one womento be the best life style
for a mature man and women. Forms of unmarried relationships have been with us since time immemorial butthey are prone to the same problems as heterosexual unions only more and worse.
Comparing the two situations, married and umarried, marriage wins comfortably on grounds of limiting individual and social damage alone, to say nothing about the main purpose of marriage
namely children. Finally and indubitably, no children no future, for any us.

Russell, with respect I find your comments to be diffuse and unclear. The nearest thing I can find to a coherent position, in your comments on marriage, is that a: women are inherently superior to men in family life; b)men should accept this; c)the only answer is to muddle through and hope for the best, perhaps by holding hands and being nice to each other so that we can teach the world to sing, like in the old coke advert from the 70s....

Presumably then all the many, many representations made by fathers over the past few years, from Bob Geldof, to the activities of Justice for Dads, are just the mad fantasies of bitter losers.

Is this what you are claiming? That the courts and the government sponsored agencies are not biased in favour of women? That there is no clear and obvious bias in custody or access arrangements?

And seeing as you adopt such a breezily dismissive tone, in evaluating style as well as content,could I return the favour by asking you to be reasonably clear and to the point?

Calcium,

"This government is all about controlling the citizenry, and the more dependent you make them on the government for their every little need (including government funded "counselling" for when their lives fall into shambles), the more control you have. The more power you have over the electorate, the more they will look to you as a saviour and be afraid to upset their fragile applecarts by voting for anyone else"

Interesting point. Although it refers to the Blair government, I presume that you would also, the on the basis of the same logic, reject the Bush plan given its inherent attempt at social engineering?

Russell,

Government-backed anti-smoking campaigns tend not to be successful as they are seen by younger people as being interfering and nanny-statist.

I think that the point that may have been missed on this thread is one that Melanie didn't overtly point out: lack of marriage starts to cause disproprtionate problems as it slides down the social scale and into the 'underclass' where a whole range of problems (unemployment, bad living conditions and poverty, crime, etc) become combustible in communities where there are a disproportionate number of chidren without fathers (because they have essentially been fathered fecklessly out of wedlock or abandonned because the father cannot cope with the responsibilities of an adult).

This is a very serious problem and one that has been cleverly documented by social commentators like Theodore Dalrymple.

It is not easy to see how a really successful solution could be actually imposed...

E. Shaw

Sorry to read that my presentation was diffuse and unclear, one tries one's best.
I hope the following helps to clarify my position. Firstly marriage is a contract, this makes it very different to a 'cohabitation' situation, which is more of a mutal agreement based on self interests. A contract is legally binding, a simple cohabitation agreement is not legally binding unless the parties agree in advance that it should be so. Marriage has the important legal advantages
that it is evidenced in writing at a public ceremony for that purpose, whereas 'cohabitation' may just happen. This makes the cohabitation relationship somewhat cloudy legally speaking. There are so many possible interpretations to the relationship. Generally speaking the Court will aid the weaker party in a situation where both parties cannot live together especially where children are involved.The bottom line is in cohabitation cases 'expediency' rules
rather than morality. This of course offends the moralising
'Justice for Dads' but minimises social costs. There is only a tenuous link betwen morality and the law. Conflicts between the two are often a source of misunderstanding.

Women throughout the ages have been superior to men in creating a 'family life'. This is simply because men wanted it that way. The man goes out to work and the women does 'women's work'. Most men acccept this prevailing domestic arrangement (until recently).
The man goes out to work and earns the bread, the women stays at home building a home fit to live in. No doubt some men men would prefer to stay at home and be househusbands and some do, but they are the exceptions. It's stil a very masculine world we live in.
And yes !! since you ask, most men will and do accept this arrangement willingly.

"The only answer is to muddle through", do you mean through married life? Most mariages I know are well contolled making the most of what they have and planning a better future for themselves and their children. Family planning is practically universal. There are and always have been families that 'muddle through' but they loose more than they gain by so doing and sadly the children suffer.

I like your idea about holding hands and singing. Unfortunatly my voice is of such a quality as to compel me to mime only in such circumstances. Holding hands offers me altogether better prospects.

Interesting research out today from Catherine Hakim at LSE: many men accept becoming fathers as the price they have to pay for a stable relationship with a woman.

Not sure what to make of this, but I do know that Hakim is an independent thinker who comes up with conclusions that often offend the PC community. Check her out on the LSE website and there is a report of the specific research in the Telegraph.

E.Shaw

My immediate reaction to the first paragraph relating to C.Hakkim's research is that the extract is far too brief to mean much. Many men want to have children. Any appraisal of a prospective wife will contain that desired possibility. A well know T.V. personality divorced his wife because they could not produce children together. The divorce was conducted with mutal agreement and affection.
I asked a small sample of fathers how long they could be absent from their wives and children. Surprisingly most said they could be absent from their wives longer than their children who they would miss soooner.
The subject is fascinating but I believe the desire to have a family affect both sexes.

David,

You made the point made by Melanie quite clearly on the subjectos illegimacy.I am disapointed thatyou did not suggested how this deplorable trend might be reversed.In 2002 the proportion of illegitimate birth in Wales was 51%, 'Land of my Fathers' has taken on a new meaning. England wapercentag not far behind.
I am not happy with your choice of words,
'solution'and 'imposed'. There can only be a partial solution, and one that is not 'imposed'.
Any solutions will have to be by friendly persuasion. The degree of illegitimacy has reached such proportions that a programme of social education is needed.This must be tactful and carefully calculated not to upset whatlooks like 50% of the population.
Put your thinking cap on,suggestions please.

David I fail to see the connection between marriage and space exploration........

It is expensive to undertake scientific research, and very rarely have the masses understood its purpose, but then again few contemporaries valued Einstein or Newton; we must thank God they were not discouraged by the 'panem et circenses' crowd.

BTW. Can you tell me why the E40 is so potholed around Brussels ? I swear this motorway is deteriorating at a rapid pace......the road in the Netherlands is far better.

I agree with your view that cohabitation is inferior to marriage, however you must ask yourself - why are men afraid of marriage? It is a simple fact that a man can loose everything - his wife, his children, much of his property, under current laws.

I think the West should adopt more laws similar to Israel (except it shouldn't involve rabbis, of course) where divorce is only given for legitimate reasons, and the party at fault pays comphesation. That's why Israel has the lowest divorce rates in the West (and the highest marriage rates too). It does this while allowing wives to leave abusive relationships rather easily (well, there are some negatives to it, but the positives overshadows the negatives). Once marriage is no longer gender bias (at least legally), it is far easier to enact gay marriages, for example (under current laws, if a gay couple divorce - who gets the children, apartment, etc?)

As for abstinence education vs. sexual education, I normally take the middle ground. Thailand has proven that sex ed actually helps lower STDs (especially HIV/AIDS). On the flip side, more and more urbanites are willing to loose their virginity early, and in some provinces, textbooks resemble more like a porno magazine than a textbook.

I think the middle ground should be taken. Sex should be taught frankly and clearly, however abstinence should be emphasized. In other words, remove bananas and condoms from the classroom, but don't remove education regarding condoms.

Russell,

"The degree of illegitimacy has reached such proportions that a programme of social education is needed".

Yes...the problems of heterosexuality....only joking!;-)

Melanie suggested in another diary entry not long ago - if I remember rightly - that the Dutch Calvinist schools had good sex education systems - maybe the Brits should look there for inspiration

Romulus,

Can you tell me the connection between marriage, space exploration and the E40??;-)

Well David, I'd better not let you into that secret ! :-)

Still, the E40 is becoming littered with terrestrial debris....I passed the front end of a Peugot in the fast lane the other day with licence plates intact......wonder where the rest of the car is ? and they talk about space debris !

Romulus,

Yes...I know what you mean...Belgim is not known as being a 'surrealistic' country for nothing!...I thought you were based in the UK?? Are you based in Netherlands, Belgium or Germany (the E40 passes through all three) or do you just visit occasionally?

PS - Did you know that the street lights of Belgium (with its over-well-lit freeways) are among the most noticeable things on planet earth as seen by satellite?

Melanie Phillips is right about the costs imposed upon society through high rates of divorce and family breakdown. Yet these social trends won't be reversed unless we deal with the reasons causing them. There are many economic, legal and social forces responsible for the decline of marriage.

It is fairly ridiculous for conservatives who normally ridicule government-sponsored social engineering to be advocating government-as-family-counsellor as the solution to society's problems.

In most developed countries it is women who initiate most divorces, and women who usually do better out of child custody, property settlements, child support etc. The harsh reality is that it is not possible to reduce the divorce rate without reducing women's legal benefits and entitlements. Show me any politician who would be brave enough to do that.

Nick, without wishing to rain on your parade; it is women with children that are costing us all money through support because they do not have financial acumen. There are scheming women, there are deceitful women, and there are really stupid women.

The latter have irregular or temporary or abusive relationships because it is what they are used to, grew up with, expect, seek out, and suffer.......we pay for the consequences as taxpayers; burden it on hospitals and schools, and expect courts and social workers to correct 'learned behaviour'.

They say in the Us if a Black finishes high school he has more chance of having a stable job and family.......it is why Gordon Brown read Plato...he thinks by taking the babies of the 'feckless' into part-time State orphanages (ie. child and nursery care)he can inculcate middle class values and deferred gratification.....it is madcap Fabianism.......and ignores the fact that if you alienate the child too much from a dysfunctional home you make things even worse.

It is simply that the rules have been bent too often; the Diane Blood affair shows how fatherhood can be transmuted such that death certificates are issued before conception.......still Aldous Huxley knew where we were going.

WE live in an era of weak men and women unfitted for their positions of authority......they want to secure popularity because they lack confidence in their ability to lead.......

It is a society of instant solutions and consumerist frivolity not able to recognise or respect quality and indulging in buying empty wrappers repeatedly.

When we speak of marriage do we mean like Britney's?
It's the relationship, not the bits of paper.
If the study on criminals had examined criminals in a long term stable relationship, whether married or not, would the results be different? Food for thought

At long last, America is now grasping the nettle. In a bold move, President George Bush is launching a $1.5 billion programme to promote marriage and help couples stay together.

Is this propaganda?

Melanie are you writing propaganda, why do you believe Mr. Bush, He's being telling lies since he came to office, this you can verify if you bother to look at the facts, instead you seem to believe everything he says.

This is quite extraordinary.

By the way , you owe me £1,000,000 payable sofort.

Thanks.

Nice article Melanie - but I am surprised you haven't mentioned the importance of parralel measures to make marriage a more equitable deal for men. We all know the way fathers are treated generally in the familly courts and until and unless they get a fairer deal there - I shall continue to warn young men to avoid marriage like the plague.

SYSTEMIC PROCESSES MUST BE KEPT IN MIND

There are some comments here critical of US Prez. Bush's marriage promotion plan as "social engineering". Such a plan we all would agree is flawed and is no panacea (how could it be otherwise?) but one of the points I think Melanie was trying to make is that such a plan sets a TONE, one that sees marriage as POSITIVE and SUPERIOR to other alternatives- a much needed counter to the vicious attacks and disparagement of marriage by elites that dominate the media, academia and the entertainment industry.

Historically the promotion of the positive has long been a function of rulers. So what if a modern regime promotes a positive social good? At least Bush is DOING something rather than practicing the cowardly "neutrality" of some British politicians. If this be "social engineering", then by all means let's have more of it, rather than the "social engineering" and subsidization of lawlessness, illegitimacy and family breakdown elite hypocrites have "blessed" us with.

There are those who express doubts about "correlation and causation". This misses the point. There need be no exact "causation" of an individual marriage with the social good mentioned in Melanie's article, nor does one need to isolate "virtuous" elements that more exactly cause good societal outcomes. Individual marriages can be bad or good. Some will no doubt need to be dissolved. As distinguished economist Thomas Sowell pointed out long ago, what is important is systemic social processes. The PROCESS of engaging in marriage, with all its duties and responsibilities, and investments channels energies and resources in ways that are beneficial to society, men, women and children. On the balance, good things happen within this structure. These good thing complement and mutually reinforce each other. So whether the persons entering into the arrangement are good to begin with or whether they change for the better is besides the point. What is important in terms of Melanie's article, is that on the balance, and compared to available alternatives, the systemic process of marriage is a good thing.

It has millenia of superior performance behind it, cutting across cultures in different ways to be sure, but still recognized in its essential form, that is superior to other available alternatives. The empirical evidence shows this without a doubt, no matter how you slice your "correlation" or "causation".

All the above being said, the politicians have a lot more work to do, including reforming the divorce laws that promote family breakup and penalize men as several posters have pointed out. But Bush is right on target and the current time makes it doubly important to promote marriage- specifically hetereosexual marriage, because of the next project the elites are inflicting on families and children- namely homosexual unions.
Politicians will not do the job, nor should we expect much help from the mealy-mouthed and cowardly "men of the cloth" (er, sorry, 'persons of religion'). Only ordinary people with moral sensibilities will get it done, and let's be blunt about it. Kudos for Melanie for taking a stand. May her tribe increase.

Your thing on radio 4 was totally kick ass! I've never laughed at anyone so hard. Do you write this stuff yourself Mel? or do you just take it from script? You should do a show at the komedia in brighton. Me and all my mates would buy tickets for sure.