Marriage for the 99%: Seeing Family as a Social Justice Issue

Evangelicals appear increasingly interested in promoting social justice for the downtrodden and the poor. Caring for the least of these has been a central part of Christian history, since Acts 6 and the church's first seven deacons. Christians started the first hospitals, soup kitchens, substance-abuse centers, and orphanages, and urged the abolition of slavery. The Salvation Army, Youth with a Mission, Mercy Ships, Compassion International, World Vision, and pregnancy centers have strong, noble histories from 20th century evangelicalism.
But an important new angle on social justice is emerging in academic circles that every concerned Christian should understand and acknowledge, a central factor in determining whether one lives in poverty or not. Just 60 years ago, those who had stable employment were seldom poor. Forty years ago, education became the gulf which separated the haves from the have-nots. For the past 20 years or more, though, the unexpected factor in whether our neighbors and their children rise from poverty is marital status. Isabel Sawhill, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institute, explains: "The proliferation of single-parent households accounts for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since the early 1970s."
The Christian's attention to the well-being of marriage among the various strata of society is about far more than mere traditionalism or empty moralism. Marriage is unarguably a central love of neighbor issue.
Bill Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings who served as President Clinton's domestic policy advisor, has explained that an American today must only do three things to avoid living in poverty: graduate from high school, marry before having a child, and have children after age 20. Only 8 percent of people who do these three things are poor, while a stunning 79 percent who fail to meet these expectations live in poverty.
Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute makes important observations of how marital status is related to poverty in his important new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 19602010. In 1960, the poorly and moderately educated were only 10 percent less likely to be married than the 94 percent of college-educated Americans who were married. The comparison between the two groups largely held until 1978. Today, these two groups are separated by a 35 percent margin. According to a recent report from the Brookings Institute, the strong rate of marriage among the highly-educated, top-earning Americans has largely held constant and even seems to be increasing. But the bad news is that marriage is sinking dramatically among low and middle-class Americans, down from 84 percent to a minority of 48 percent today—a dramatic decline over the last 40 years, and no indicators hint at a slowing pace. The stark trend line leads Murray to lament, "Marriage has become the fault line dividing America's classes."
In some ways, the concern about marriage and class mobility is not new at all. In 1965, a young Daniel Patrick Moynihan passionately warned his boss, President Lyndon Johnson, and our nation that the new landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was not likely to be fully successful because the African American family was dangerously fragile and continuing to weaken. On the first page of his infamous report—which was one of the first shots fired in the modern culture war over the family—Moynihan warned of the consequences stemming from the persistent "crumbling" of the African American family: "So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself" among African Americans.
Star Trek Into Darkness

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).












Comments
Displaying 13 of 7 comments
See all comments
Eric Johnson
Living in an under-resourced area that does not have access to many jobs, I can relate to the comments made by Jennifer and Andy. While it makes a lot of sense that marriage is a valuable institution that should be lifted up, I don't see any references as to HOW we as individuals or communities of believers can go about making this path more accessible for those who are least likely to marry. Many African-American woman don't marry because they don't see many good prospects. What is the author and organizations that he is involved with doing to intentionally build up the least of these so that men in these communities CAN take responsibility? How do we address the complex issues of race and class that often keep these individuals out of the best schools and therefore deprives them of opportunities to support their families? On a micro-level, my wife and I have chosen to intentionally live where we do because our church has been seeking to do this work for the past two decades.
Andy Jackson
I find it ironic that an organization specifically focused on reaching middle class white Americans is commenting on social justice and circumstances involving the economically disadvantaged. How is your ministry specifically strengthening poor families in urban and rural areas? And as Jennifer F said, social justice issues, particularly poverty, is a complicated problem that just "strengthening marriages" won't solve. It's not that simple, Mr. Stanton. Again, how is Focus on the Family part of the solution (specifically)? From what I've seen you've opposed health care reform and encouraged your Republican and Tea Party constituents to vote against every piece of legislation (including WIC ...) that would aid families and communities. Perhaps when those involved in social justice see you getting your hands dirty in community as Jesus calls us to in scripture you'll have more cred on these issues. Right now it just seems like partisan talk wrapped up in hip language.
GLENN T STANTON
Jennifer Thanks for the comment. If I had a nickel for every time some one responds to such research with the line "correlation does not imply causation" I would be set for an earlier retirement. And I don't miss your dig of "anyone with some familiarity with statistic knows". Yours is not a revelatory fact. It is easily understood. I do make points from correlational studies, which can be quite useful, but I also make use of causational research like that from the NMP which says that marriage itself is a wealth producing institution. Other research, which cannot all be presented here, explain the same thing. And what you address in the second part of your note addresses what is - I trust you are aware - the selection theory, that those who are financially stronger are more likely selected into marriage, while those who are not, don't. There is some validity to this n the literature, but not total. The protection effect is also valid. This is basic to those familiar with the research.