A Tarnished Silver Anniversary
What is destroying marriage in the West — and what has sustained my husband and me through several potentially marriage-destroying events.
by Christine A. Scheller-->Christine A. Scheller
A silver anniversary isn’t what it used to be. I know this from experience, having celebrated mine last month, but the data speaks for itself. According to a 2005 U.S. Census Bureau report, only 33 percent of us reached the milestone 10 years ago, whereas 70 percent of those who married in the late 1950s did. For previous generations, a 25th wedding anniversary was as much a simple consequence of time as it was cause to celebrate. Surrounded by as many divorcing and non-marrying loved ones as I am, I was a little embarrassed to draw attention to our special day. And like the older brother in the story of the prodigal son, I harbored some resentment about this fact.
My husband and I have been through a series of potentially marriage-destroying events in recent years, and I would have appreciated some salutations acknowledging our accomplishment. On Facebook, where I shared photos from our wedding day to mark the occasion, only a few long-married female friends and one never-married person posted well wishes. We received one card in the mail, from my parents. Perhaps we should have thrown a party, but that would have been insensitive given that two of our siblings finalized divorces in 2009. Of the 15 middle-aged siblings and step-siblings in our combined families, only 4 of us are currently married.
A recent Pew Research Center / Time magazine study indicated that over the past 50 years, “a sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race,” with lower levels of income and education correlating with lower marriage rates.
The executive summary further states that “even as marriage shrinks, family — in all its emerging varieties — remains resilient.” But wait. More respondents said they would feel “very obligated” to help a parent (83%) or adult child (77%) in need than said this about a stepparent (55%) or a step or half sibling (43%), and only 39% would feel similarly obligated to a best friend. The old definition continues to have traction when it matters most.
The key finding of a 2010 study conducted by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia is that divorce, non-marital childbearing, and unmarried cohabitation have led to a dramatic increase in “fragile” and “typically fatherless” families over the past five decades. The executive summary includes this dire warning: “Today's retreat from marriage among the moderately educated middle is placing the American Dream beyond the reach of too many Americans. It makes the lives of mothers harder and drives fathers further away from families. It increases the odds that children from Middle America will . . . lose their way.” As marriage increasingly becomes an institution aligned with wealth and eduction, the divide “threatens the American experiment in democracy and should be of concern to every civic and social leader in our nation.”
In a blog post about the Pew study, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler declared, “Marriage was given to us by our Creator as the central institution for sexual relatedness, procreation, and the nurture of children. But, even beyond these goods, God gave us marriage as an institution central to human happiness and flourishing. Rightly understood, marriage is essential even to the happiness and flourishing of the unmarried. It is just that central to human existence, and not by accident.”
I believe this. So, although my 49-year-old husband is unlikely to ever work again because of a physical disability that has fundamentally changed both our marital and financial health in ways I didn’t anticipate, divorce is no more an option than it ever was. What is a daily choice is how we live together in light of these and other challenges. Not only do love and faith constrain us, so do the above cited personal and professional stats.
I am simultaneously compelled to resist the encroaching pressure of the easy out and feel a deep obligation to model fidelity and stability to the next generation in light of it. This is no easy task. I vowed to love my husband in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer and can say unequivocally that rich and healthy is a whole lot easier than sick and poor. I can also affirm that hardness of heart is the fastest route to marital decline (Matt. 19:8).
Penn State sociologist Stacy J. Rogers is co-author of Alone Together: How Marriage in America Is Changing. She explained the National Marriage Project findings to the Huffington Post by saying that education, first marriage, no children from previous relationships, and financial health produce fewer external stressors. She also concluded, “We put a lot of emphasis on the marriage to make us happy, and fulfill our lives. We're victims of unrealistic expectations.”
As much as I affirm lofty marriage ideals like Mohler’s, I believe discipleship in our age inevitably involves putting unrealistic expectations to death. Consider how we enthusiastically memorize a verse like Psalm 37:4 because it tells us that if we delight in God, he will fulfill our desires. We would do well to keep reading. Verses five and six add, “Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn, your vindication like the noonday sun.”
When my husband and I were in pre-marriage counseling, our pastor noted our mutual realism as an indicator of relational health. Twenty-five years later, reality is much more insistent and the truths of 1 Corinthians 13 are much more compelling.
Posted by Katelyn Beaty on January 4, 2011 9:30 AM
Mastering the Mysteries of Love (MML)
Program Leader Training
April 15 and 16, 2011 – Bethesda, Maryland
July 6 and 7, 2011 Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mastering the Mysteries of Love (MML) is a research-validated Relationship Enhancement® Program developed by Dr. Bernard Guerney, Jr. and Mary Ortwein, MS. You will be qualified to teach the 8 hour MML program to couples in community, faith based, or professional practice settings:. In this workshop you will learn:
· Five core RE skills (Listening, Expression, Discussion, Problem Solving, Conflict Management)
· Use of the Experience Diagram and Couple Coaching
- Creation of education sessions that are fun for both you and your participants
- Mixing experiential learning and skills training activities
- Adjusting and adapting curriculum to your community
Who should attend: Community and faith-based marriage and relationship educators, clergy, students in the helping professions, professionals who want to offer an educational approach to couples.
Bethesda: National Institute of Relationship Enhancement, two blocks from Bethesda metro. $225 per person includes leader manual participant workbook, snacks, and certificate of completion ($150 for spouse w/one leader manual and 2 workbooks) or CEU's for professionals. For more information or to register, contact the National Institute of Relationship Enhancement at 301-986-1479 or nire@niremd.org or www.nire.org
Albuquerque: see Better Marriages Fiesta at www.bettermarriages.org for registration, cost and description of the leader training.
Workshop Presenters: Joan Liversidge, MS, LCMFT and Rich Liversidge, 240-678-3929, joanlive@earthlink.net
The CT InterviewSex Economics 101Mark Regnerus, the early-marriage sociologist, shares his latest research on young adults' sexual attitudes and behavior.Katelyn Beaty | posted 2/18/2011 10:15AM
No News Flash: The West is facing an economic collapse whose effects will stretch on for decades. News flash: The West is also facing a challenging marketplace economy in sex and marriage, at least according to Mark Regnerus. "Neither a strong gender constructionist nor a strong gender essentialist, but a sociologist" (at the University of Texas-Austin), Regnerus describes the traditional marriage economy this way: Most men want sex more than do women and have traditionally gained access to sex via marriage. In turn, most women have given sex for marriage, which has brought economic security and commitment.
Now, says Regnerus—whose 2009 "case for early marriage" in Christianity Today made quite a splash—women are expected to commence sex early, with little promise of commitment. And this hurts everyone, but especially women. Speaking with CT associate editor Katelyn Beaty, Regnerus explained this and other findings from his new book, Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press), coauthored with Jeremy Uecker.
You frame your research using sexual economics theory: Sex is a transaction in which men pay, via economic stability or education or as little as dinner, to get access to sex, while women pay with their sexuality to get goods that men can offer. Describing sex this way seems pretty cynical. Why use this theory to explain your research?
Because it's accurate. There are lots of lenses to use to evaluate how people make decisions about sex and relationships. Some of them are far more idealistic than realistic. I find the economic theory [developed by psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs] to be remarkably astute in its general description of how people make such decisions. My students—who can spot a pathetic argument on this stuff a mile away—almost always confess that this way of understanding relationships is consonant with their experience.
People will cringe to listen to it, but when they think about it, it's remarkable how accurate it can be. It works because it's rooted in basic differences between men and women and basic different interests in sex, marriage, and long-term relationships. As a Christian, none of it surprises me or discourages me. There's an inherent good and functional tension between men and women in this domain. Historically, sex was a key motivator for men to marry. Try to reduce that tension, that function, and all hell breaks loose—which is what we are witnessing.
That tension has been reduced, in part, by the fact that women now have much greater chances to pursue higher education and financially support themselves compared with 50 or even 20 years ago. But you say that women's education and the sex ratio imbalance it's created on college campuses comes at a cost.
Relationships that form under the current conditions of imbalance tend to become sexual more quickly than when they form under more balanced gender ratios, or when there are a lot more desirable men than women. Because whoever is the minority gender, so to speak, has more power, and especially in this sense, because women want marriage more than men do. So when there are more women in the pool, it lends itself to women competing for men rather than the other way around.
The imbalanced ratio indicates remarkable achievements for women's continued push for social and economic equality with men. But it spells something altogether different for their romantic relationships with men, which have become considerably more difficult to generate and maintain. As women who are highly educated and successful outnumber men, this drives down the "market price" of sex. There are plenty of women who are in sexual relationships that they aren't crazy about, who would like to be legitimately asked out, but they feel like they can't get it. He texts, and they "hang out." How lame is that?
]]>--> 3 more pages here http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/february/sexeconomics.htmlFebruary 2011, Vol. 55, No. 2
We fell in love by writing letters. In fact, this giving and receiving of hand-written letters, a piece of original art that mirrors the mind and heart of the writer, became an integral part of our dating relationship. Naturally, after Rachel accepted Chad’s proposal to be married, our minds turned toward incorporating written correspondence into the fabric of our engagement and marriage. At once it was decided that, as a lasting testimony to our marriage, we would sit down to write letters to one another describing the many things we looked forward to in our married life. Alongside our dreams about a home filled with children and friends, pursuing hospitality and courageous artistry, we described the sanctifying work God would surely accomplish through our marriage:
Rachel:
“What does this mean, to learn to love someone fully, abandoning all barriers, overcoming all fears…realizing more and more my own selfishness while simultaneously becoming more and more aware of God’s grace?”
Chad:
“We stand on the threshold of a grand adventure…so many memories, stories and future friends await us. I am confident in the Lord and his provision for us, and that through one another, he will continue to make us obedient and holy.”
We had wonderful mentorship throughout our dating relationship and engagement. Through the counsel of wise couples who had preceded us on the road of marriage, we were taught to adopt the right set of expectations:
“Marriage is going to be hard work.”
“You need to invest in your spouse, especially during your first year of marriage.”
“Serve one another and put your spouse’s needs above your own.”
We had been taught that marriage, (thanks to God’s infinite wisdom and mercy) is one of the most effective relationships for renewing us in the image of Jesus Christ. And while we understood that we were entering marriage together with the best possible advice and preparation, we did not yet fully understand the sheer gravity of what marriage requires of us. Just as the apprentice may study a craft but not become skilled until he actually begins practicing the craft, so too we were filled with knowledge yet lacked the opportunity to put our wisdom to the test.
We have not been married long. In every sense of the word, we are still newlyweds. And so we don’t pretend that our advice or insights into the married life have much credibility. What we can share, though, is the lesson we continue to encounter as we happily walk through these first months of marriage. Time and time again, we have found that our marriage is the means by which we are discovering our true selves.
This implies that upon entering the marriage covenant we were clinging to false selves: our counterfeit characters. As a consequence of our past sin and circumstance, we had both created identities in which we could hide, feel safe, and pretend that we “had it all together.” Because we were so focused on self instead of other, it became impossible for us to see ourselves as we truly are. We had come to believe that the world we had constructed in which we were the most important character was reality itself.
In defiance of this self-created and perpetuated reality, on January 8th we chose to stand at the altar as living sacrifices, vowing to die to self and be an agent of God’s love and grace in the renewal of our spouse. To put to death the world of shadows we had constructed for ourselves and to begin contending with the world and one another as we really are.
Though the wedding ceremony is past, we continue to stand on the altar. Sunrise to sunset, day after day, we are requiring and required to sacrifice our defenses and paper-thin identities for the real, weighty and glorious self given to us in Christ. By submitting to one another out of love and in humility, we reveal to one another the vices from which we need to repent and the virtues in which we need to deepen our roots.
There are two vices that we continue to run against in the beginning of our marriage. As the barriers continue to come down in the Glazener home and we continue to invade the formerly impenetrable kingdom of the ego, we find that we hold these two falsehoods as gospel truth:
1) I am the most important person.
2) I am self-sufficient and perfectly capable without you.
Our marriage has revealed these particular sins as first inclinations. But marriage also is providing the means by which we can repent and be healed of this selfishness. In our marriage, we have agreed that love and submission are two sides of the same coin: you cannot submit to that which you do not love, and if you are not willing to lay down your life then you cannot claim to love.
This mutual submission reminds us that our will is not the end-all; we live in accordance with the will of one wholly other than ourselves. And to live saying “not my will, but thy will be done” quickly reveals that we are incapable of perfectly conforming our will to the will of another.
This complete renewal we are after will cost us everything. On our wedding day, we stood hand and hand on the altar, vowing to sacrifice ourselves to our love. Our vows “until death do us part” still ring in our ears; death is not merely our final separation. Death, that total surrendering of body, mind and soul to another person created in the image of God, is also the place we begin. For as our master teaches us, it is only in giving that we receive. It is only in death that we receive a whole and happy life. And in God’s great mercy, he has given us to one another to be the agents of this renewal. Surprising us in those small moments in which we hear the voice of God through our spouse, or we see his loving gaze in the eyes of the beloved. We taste his love, his mercy, and his forgiveness through one another. And so we rejoice that our old, selfish selves are being killed by love, because we steadfastly cling to the hope that our final renewal is coming.
|
| |
|
NCBM » African American Healthy Marriages Initiative The US Department of Health and Human Services launched its African American Healthy Marriage Initiative through its Administration for Children and ... ncbm.org/.../african-american-healthy-marriages-initiative/ |
| | ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
||||||||||||
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dave and Liz Percival <dave.percival@btinternet.com>
...
From: Dave and Liz Percival <dave.percival@btinternet.com>
...
Government and Political
· Couples should be encouraged to marry, says Iain Duncan Smith
Young couples are being actively discouraged from marrying and ministers should start championing families rather than celebrity culture, a leading Cabinet minister will say today said the front page of the Telegraph this week (and the Guardian, the Express and the Daily Mail), In what is the Coalition's clearest pro-marriage intervention since it was formed, Iain Duncan Smith will say that it is "absurd and damaging" for ministers not to extol the benefits of marriage for fear of stigmatising those who choose not to marry.
The Work and Pensions Secretary will argue that the current system of benefits is "crazy" because it stifles people's genuine aspirations to build and commit to a strong family. He believes marriage has become the preserve of the better off. Mr Duncan Smith will say: "We do a disservice to society if we ignore the evidence which shows that stable families tend to be associated with better outcomes for children." He will add: "There are few more powerful tools for promoting stability than the institution of marriage."
Mr Duncan Smith, a former Conservative Party leader, has embarked on a radical overhaul of the benefits system and he warns that the Government needs to understand better the costs of family breakdown. In a speech as part of Marriage Week UK, he will say: "Over the years the political establishment has frowned if a mainstream politician mentions marriage. The prevailing view was that to extol the virtues of this most fundamental institution somehow meant that you were going to stigmatise those who were not married. This is an absurd and damaging assumption. Government must understand the effect that family breakdown can have on the well-being of both adults and children.
"The financial costs of family breakdown are incredibly high. But what is most painful to see is the human cost – the wasted potential, the anti-social behaviour, and the low self-esteem.” Mr Duncan Smith’s comments will be welcomed by many Tory supporters and MPs who are still waiting for David Cameron to show any sign that he will make good his promise to recognise marriage in the tax system.
The Work and Pensions Secretary will point to surveys of young people showing they aspire to marriage but often find it financially difficult. He will add: “We have to ask ourselves: if people from the youngest age aspire to make such a commitment in their lives, what stops them doing so?”
Mr Duncan Smith warns that those on low incomes are often encouraged to stay single or live together but not commit to marriage, because of the benefits they will lose if they marry. Research by the Centre for Social Justice, a think tank founded by Mr Duncan Smith, shows that a majority of people who are out of work or in part-time work think low-earning and unemployed people are better off living apart than as a couple. The minister will add: “Government cannot and should not try to lecture people or push them on this matter, but it is quite legitimate to ensure people have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations.”
Mr Duncan Smith will also criticise the “celebrity focused media”, where film stars, professional footballers and television soap stars are given awards but fail to identify marriage as a good thing.
He will say: “Fashionably dismissed or taken for granted, the commitment of two people to put selfish interest to one side for the sake of each other and the children they raise is simply the very best of us as human beings. Furthermore, marriage is perhaps the best antidote to the celebrity, self-obsessed culture we live in, for it is about understanding that our true value is lastingly expressed through the lives of others we commit to.”
· State approves marriage again
Married couples were given state approval yesterday when Iain Duncan Smith moved to push back Labour’s tide of political correctness reports the Express (and the Daily Mail). The Work and Pensions Secretary announced the phrase “marital status” and the word “marriage” would again appear on official forms. They were removed by Labour eight years ago to promote gay equality. All tax, benefit and immigration paperwork from Mr Duncan Smith’s department will now ask people if they are married, instead of referring to “civil status” or “cohabitation”.
The move was welcomed by pro-marriage groups. They said Labour’s removal of official references to wedlock was an attempt to downgrade the institution of marriage. It also meant data on marriage was no longer available to researchers. Dave Percival, organiser of the current Marriage Week, said: “This is a major step forward. The vast majority of independent research shows that whether you are married, rather than just living as a couple, makes a big difference to your life chances and those of your children. By conflating the two terms the Government has lost a lot of valuable insight into what works and what doesn’t. Their decision to recognise the difference is a very positive step in gathering data to help people understand the benefits that being married brings in life.”
Michael Trend, of The Relationships Foundation, said the failure to mention marriage wrongly suggested that cohabitation was legally equal to marriage. He said: “Mr Duncan Smith has set a strong lead. I look forward to his cabinet colleagues following suit.”
Think-tank Civitas said: “Marital status on official documentation should not be considered political – recognising marriage has nothing to do with promoting it.”
· Marriage makes us all richer – not poorer
The cost to the nation of family breakdown is immense. It is time for politicians to act, argues Jill Kirby in the Telegraph . Is marriage dying of neglect? In a forceful speech yesterday, Iain Duncan Smith suggested as much, arguing that politicians must speak out in order to halt its decline. While promising to invest £30 million in "relationship education" and to tackle the "couple penalty" in the welfare system, the Welfare Secretary insisted that political timidity on this subject has had damaging – and expensive – consequences.
Marriage certainly seems to be going out of fashion. In the UK last year, fewer people got married than ever before, and nearly half of all babies were born outside wedlock. There is a popular assumption that this is a natural process of social evolution – that couples living together are replicating marriage without the formality, so that the label attached to their relationship is irrelevant. This, though, is a myth.
The reality is that among cohabiting parents, the rate of relationship breakdown is more than double that of married families; in Britain, one in five children is born in a home with no father present. As a result, more than a quarter of all children live with just one parent (90 per cent of whom are lone mothers). This figure is way ahead of the European average, and nearly twice the figure in France and Germany. And research shows that children who experience family breakdown, or who grow up without a father in the house, are at far greater risk of disadvantage.
David Cameron is only too familiar with these statistics, and has made powerful speeches in praise of marriage. Indeed, his support for it was at the core of his leadership campaign in 2005. But his own political cohabitation, with Nick Clegg, has led to a toning down of his rhetoric. Clegg's view, articulated most recently in a speech to the think tank Demos, is that government support for marriage amounts to telling people how to live their lives, and that politicians should keep out. That view is supported by most of the Opposition, as well as a few on the Tory benches.
This, however, ignores several important arguments. The first is the cost to the public purse of family breakdown. A report this week by the Relationships Foundation estimates this at
£41 billion a year, taking account of welfare expenditure, legal and care costs, and demands on education, health, and justice spending. Spending £30 million on marriage support and relationship education sounds like a modest but worthwhile investment.
Second, the Left-wing reluctance to recognise and endorse marriage has, perversely, led to much greater state intrusion into family life. This is not just because the steep increase in family breakdown has created greater demand for interventions by the courts and social services. It is also because the decline of marriage as an official description of family status means that the state has to concern itself with the exact nature of couples' relationships – in order to allocate benefits, or to determine the legal redress available to cohabitees who split up.
With the departure of marriage from official language, this problem will only grow. The expansion of parental rights in the workplace, especially paternity leave, has been extolled by both Cameron and Clegg as "family-friendly". But where unmarried households are concerned, such rights can be complex. Should a father living apart from his children be entitled to paternity leave? If so, must he provide proof of fatherhood? The removal of child benefit from households where there is a higher-rate taxpayer poses more questions: if the taxpayer is living away from his own children but sharing a home with another woman and her children, then which mother loses the benefit?
The fact is that when marriage ceases to underpin family life, parental interdependency becomes a complex problem, the solution to which involves detailed government interaction. So putting marriage back into the script should appeal to every true liberal as well as the socially conservative.
A further compelling argument for government to support marriage is to bridge the gulf between aspiration and reality. A surprising number of young people still want to get married, yet it is an ambition they are increasingly failing to achieve. This is not a problem for the wealthy, as Duncan Smith pointed out, but one for those for whom the costs and benefits of family life are finely balanced.
Removal of the "couple penalty" was a Tory election pledge, which IDS plans to put into practice through adjustments to the new Universal Credit. If he retains control of the welfare agenda, he will be tenacious in dismantling such disincentives. He will also be a persistent voice in Mr Cameron's ear, urging him to make good his promise of a tax allowance for marriage.
None of these measures will be enough to propel marriage rates up to their 1970s peak. But the evidence from other countries shows that public policy does have an impact on family formation. Britain is unique in subjecting marriage to a double whammy: support is heavily slanted towards lone parenthood, yet there are no compensating tax allowances for couples. As the Coalition takes its first modest steps towards redressing the balance, IDS's attempts to put marriage back on the agenda deserve the support of all his colleagues, both Liberal and Conservative.
· Rabbi and Bishop demand marriage tax changes
Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks and a senior Church of England bishop have joined forces to call for the tax system to be used to support marriage reports the BBC.
The Bishop of Chester, the Rt Rev Peter Forster, who tabled the debate, called on the government to introduce tax breaks for married couples "without delay". He said: "Apart from the UK only 18% of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) citizens live in states which do not recognise marriage in their tax systems - and most of those 18% live in either Mexico or Turkey. In 2008-09, a single-earner married couple with two children and on the average wage bore a tax burden which was a third greater than the OECD average. The comparative figures for 2009-10 will show a further deterioration."
Crossbench peer Lord Sacks said only "political correctness" prevented people recognising that marriage was crucial for strong families and "in the best interest of the child". Focusing on the benefit of marriage for children, Lord Sacks, who has been Chief Rabbi since 1991, said: "If the Jewish experience has anything to say to Britain today, it is to recognise marriage, not just cohabitation, as in the best interests of the child. Do so in the tax system, do so in the educational system, do so in relationship support." He went on: "Without stable marriages we will not have strong families and without strong families we will not have a big society."
Towards the conclusion of the Bishop of Chester's speech, he reminded the House of the commitment to marriage made by the Prime Minister who said during Prime Ministers Questions: ‘I am an unashamed supporter of families and marriage, and I simply do not understand why, when so many other European countries ... recognise marriage in the tax system, we do not.'
A number of peers reminded the Government of its commitment to recognize marriage in tax system which can be found on page 30 of the Coalition Agreement. Peers also expressed concerns about the failure to make any reference to marriage in the new round of relationship support funding.
Chief executive of the couple and family relationships charity Relate, Baroness Tyler of Enfield made her maiden speech in the House of Lords on Thursday 10 February in a balloted debate on the role of marriage and marriage support in British society.
Declaring an interest in the debate as Relate’s chief executive, Baroness Tyler of Enfield said the charity, which ‘fully recognises the reality of modern-day relationships’, was ‘optimistic about the future of marriage as a strong public manifestation of commitment’ which works well for many people.
‘What matters most is the quality of a relationship, rather than its formal status,’ Baroness Tyler said. Discussing their attitude to marriage, child-rearing, work-life balance and, in-laws, prepared engaged couples for ‘inevitable bumps along the road.’ Couples needed to be aware of ‘these pressure points, to know what support is out there, and to be encouraged to seek it early before things reach a crisis point.’
A Hart report for this decade might ‘usefully investigate how best to incentivise people into accessing relationship education and support before they commit to a relationship, particularly before they have children, as well as when they start to hit problems. Some people are now using light-touch relationship support—perhaps a befriending or mentoring arrangement—simply to maintain or to strengthen their relationship. It is a bit like taking your car to the garage annually for an MoT or having a regular check-up with the dentist. I should like to see that become the norm,’ she said.
A new report should also look at local and national funding for relationship support. Many local charities, including Relate centres, were facing a grim future as local authorities finalised their budgets. ‘For me, it is a matter of profound social justice that relationship support is available to all our fellow citizens, particularly the most disadvantaged and those on low income. High-quality relationships—we might call them happy relationships—lead to the best outcomes for adults and children,’ Baroness Tyler said. ‘Supporting marriage and relationships should and must mean supporting happy marriages, and making sure that support is there for couples to help them get back on track when they need it most.’
The Minister responding on behalf of the Government, Lord Hill, welcomed the Debate and made positive comments, promising that the Government would push things forward in favour of marriage.
· Mental health strategy fails to address family breakdown, says think tank
The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has criticised the government for failing to address the problem of family breakdown in its mental health strategy reports CYPNow (and the Daily Mail). In the report Mental Health: Poverty, Ethnicity and Family Breakdown, the think tank states that family breakdown is strongly associated with poor mental health in adults and children but has been overlooked in the government’s strategy. A poll of more than 1,000 people with experience of mental illness conducted as part of the study, found 50 per cent of respondents believe family breakdown is a major cause of poor mental health.
The report states: "Family breakdown and conflict were considered to have the biggest adverse impact on children’s wellbeing. Children with separated, single or step-parents are 50 per cent more likely to fail at school, have low self-esteem, experience poor peer relationships and have behavioural difficulties, anxiety or depression." The centre is now calling for treatment to be more focused on helping the whole family unit as a way of preventing mental illness among children....
Best wishes,
Technical Stuff
Keep us informed - Do keep us posted on your news, and in particular please let us know details of your project(s), either present or planned. Either post it at the forum, or e-mail us and we'll put it out there for you.
Subscribe - If this email has been passed on to you by a friend, you can request your own copy by replying to this email with 'subscribe' in the subject line and your name in the body of the email and we will then send further information about the UK Marriage News and access to the Forums to the address you reply with.Unsubscribe - If you have received this message in error, or do not wish to be contacted by 2-in-2-1 using email in the future, please simply reply to this message with 'unsubscribe' on the subject line of your reply.
Contribute to costs – Although we don’t charge for the newsletter, we do invite you to contribute to our costs. You can do so online or by sending a cheque made payable to 2-in-2-1 Ltd to 11 Lamborne Close, Sandhurst, Berks, GU47 8JL.
Change of Address – If you change e-mail address please let us know! We automatically delete addresses after two weeks of unsuccessful delivery attempts. Simply reply to the Newsletter using your new address with the words change of address in the subject line and we will update your records accordingly.
Access the forums - To start using the system for the first time simply go to http://www.2-in-2-1.co.uk/forums/. Scroll to the bottom of the page where you will see a Login box. Put in your username and password as above and then press the Log in button. You will only need to do this login the first time you visit - from then on the system will recognise you each time you return (unless you use a different computer).
This Newsletter is published by 2-in-2-1 Ltd, Company No. 3792423 Registered office:- 11 Lamborne Close, Sandhurst, Berks, GU47 8JL, © 2010. All rights reserved.