Political Divides: Marriage and Fertility

Thanks to the US Family Research Council, who identified two important articles:

1. Marriage gap could sway elections

Updated 9/27/2006 9:19 AM ET

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

The wedding band could be crucial in this fall’s congressional elections, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census data.

House districts held by Republicans are full of married people. Democratic districts are stacked with people who have never married. This “marriage gap” could play a role in the Nov. 7 congressional elections. Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats to take control of the House of Representatives.

FERTILITY GAP: Political divide explained

Twenty-seven of the 38 Republican-held districts with seats considered vulnerable by independent political analysts have fewer married people than found in the average GOP district. The USA TODAY analysis also shows that:

• Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people.

•Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married.

The political tug-of-war is between people who are married and those who have never been….

(Full Story)

2. ‘Fertility gap’ helps explain political divide

   Updated 9/27/2006 7:36 AM ET

   By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

   House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic mother of five from San Francisco, has fewer children in her district than any other member of Congress: 87,727.

   Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children: 278,398.

   These two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide between the congressional districts controlled by the major political parties.

   Republican House members overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of married people and lots of children, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census Bureau data released last month.

   MARRIAGE GAP: Elections could sway on status

   GOP Congress members represent 39.2 million children younger than 18, about 7 million more than Democrats. Republicans average 7,000 more children per district.

   Many Democrats represent areas that have many single people and relatively few children. Democratic districts that have large numbers of children tend to be predominantly Hispanic or, to a lesser extent, African-American.

   This “fertility gap” is crucial to understanding the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These childbearing patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education and child tax credits, he says….

   (Full Story)

It is simple, isn’t it? Both, conservatives and liberals, do everything “in the best interest of the child”.

• True conservatives promote actions that will strengthen the family, so that children can thrive emotionally, spiritually, physically and socially. That course of action is in the best interest of children and gave us a thriving civilization.
• True liberals promote actions that will further sexual freedom and weaken the family, so that children become emotionally, spiritually, physically and socially impoverished, thus providing a never-ending need to do more socially destructive things “in the best interest of the children.”

“Sexual freedom” is newspeak. Marx and Engels promoted it as “free love“, but the price for “free love” is high: the destruction of society.

Which way things will evolve depends on what we, the parents, think is best for us: children within or without families, fathers within or without families, and mothers within or without the comfort and security of the family.

It’s a no-brainer and as old as the hills.

The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after. It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.

— Dale O’Leary, The Gender Agenda, p. 24,
original source: Allan Carlson,
What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’?
in The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3

This entry was posted on September 29, 2006 at 9:25 am and is filed under Family, The New World Order. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print