Archives 2003

Happy Families Cannot Be Legislated For

By Lindsay Mitchell - 15 July, 2003

Anti-poverty campaigners have long pointed the finger at New Zealand's economic reforms and inadequate income redistribution as primary culprits. Too many unquestioningly accept these allegations, perhaps because if they were true, it would then be a simple case of calling on the government to correct them. If these allegations are false then we will have to face up to some truths that many of us find unpalatable, such as that radical feminism, rather than improving the lot of women and children, has visited irreparable harm upon them.

The anti-marriage brigade have "freed" women from the patriarchal trap only to ensnare them and their children in stressful, insecure lifestyles that are characterised by transient relationships and addresses. One of the reasons that more and more single parents are going onto either a sickness or invalid's benefit is they are clinically depressed and incapacitated.

A new report out of the US this week reveals:

On average, a mother who gives birth and raises a child outside of marriage is seven times more likely to live in poverty than is a mother who raises her children within a stable married family.
Over 80 percent of long-term child poverty in the United States occurs in never-married or broken households.
Domestic violence is most common in the transitory, cohabitational relationships that feminists have long celebrated as replacements for traditional marriage.
Never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to suffer from domestic violence than mothers who are or have been married. *
There is no reason to suggest that these findings would differ dramatically if the same research was carried out in this country. Statistically we are a fairly even match for the US. Rates of teenage birth, abortion, divorce and poverty all roughly coincide.

But few are willing to concede that fuddy-duddy old marriage is a worthy institution. The current closest resemblance of an attempt to reduce the number of fatherless children is a proposition to legally appoint same- sex partners as "fathers".

This completely ignores the uniqueness of real fathers. For instance, I will be eternally grateful that my father taught me not to fear. In contrast, mothers teach caution. Fathers teach independence where mothers teach co-operation. OK, I generalise, but these are common experiences.

But, as big a fan of marriage as I am, it remains a matter of choice. If it is to be encouraged and supported then it is family and friends who should fill this role. Just as, if a relationship fails, family and friends should be the first port of call for support.

Heaven forbid that the state should begin actively legislating policy that would discriminate in favour of marriage. State provided incentives always bring unexpected and unwelcome results. Tax breaks for couples who marry would see people marrying for the wrong reasons and result in more, rather than less, separation.

Rather, government needs to summon up the courage to undo policy that has driven the growth of the matriarchal family. Welfare policy which encourages lone parenthood as a viable alternative to the independent family unit, must be the first target for dismantlement.

*Source: Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector and Lauren R. Noyes, "Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage," Backgrounder No. 1662, June 16, 2003, Heritage Foundation.