Category Archives: Marriage

Political Cures

September 18, 2006

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

There’s nothing like a political year to bring every possible cure out of the woodwork for every social and economic ill that befalls American society.  If America has a problem, there is a politician promising us a political cure to fix it.

Children in America are going to school without breakfast.  So politicians fixed this problem years ago by funding a national breakfast program, a fix that only works, as school nurses can tell you, for the parents who manage to get their children to school early enough to eat before the bell rings.

Children in Arizona today are waiting for taxpayers to vote on funding free pre-kindergarten health screenings for children up to the age of five.  Backers of this ballot initiative “contend that they are only responding to the reality of inadequate parenting.”

A current gubernatorial candidate proposes to fix high dropout rates…with a law extending the dropout age to 18.  This supposedly will fix the problem of aimless young people who lack the education and skills to help them become productive citizens.

At the other end of the spectrum, the same candidate has already put into place full-day kindergartens that keep young children away from home…and their mothers and fathers.   This is supposed to fix the problem of parents who do not have the time, money or interest in teaching their children the basics of learning and living that used to be taught…and learned…at home.

Around the country, mandatory sentencing laws have been passed to hand out stiff penalties to criminals, restoring safe streets and neighborhoods.  But this week in Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Ohio, Judge Thomas Lipps is delaying sentencing of a 15-year-old bank robber.  The “child” was convicted of aggravated robbery with a gun that netted $5000 used to buy drugs and toys for her and her adult companions.

Deliberating over “what is best for society and what is best for her,” Judge Lipps may choose for the “child” either prison time, remanding to the legal guardian, her grandmother, or assignment to a mental-health program.  Each of these options has been carefully crafted by politicians over the years as a “fix” for out-of-control teens.

And when these out-of-control teens graduate to being out-of-control adults, an entire system of prisons and third-strike-you’re-out no-release jail sentences attempt to bring a final solution to the whole mess…

…the whole mess, that is, except for the young children left behind, with fathers and mothers in prison.  Returning full-circle to where we began, these children will receive the dollars raining down from social programs intended to fix the fixes that didn’t work for the parents they don’t have because there’s a hole in the dike.

It might be hopeless except for the dedication of a class of politicians who understand that fixing the problems of society must go deeper than throwing money at the results of the problem.  We must look to the roots of the disease and plant our trees in better soil.

The once common understanding that secure homes are best built on the healthy, caring marriages of mothers and fathers rearing children together to become healthy, productive adults…this understanding is now being reinforced with a wide body of research that should be a wake-up call to politicians and voters alike.

We improve the lives of children when we build a social structure that reinforces healthy marriages.

We improve the lives of children when we teach them that the sex that produces babies belongs inside a healthy marriage where a mother and father are committed to each other and to their family.

We improve the lives of children when they understand that long before teen pregnancy becomes a problem, teen sex is the bigger problem that threatens their health and well-being…physically, socially, emotionally, and financially.

In every way that benefits children, programs and policies that support a restoration of healthy marriages and sexual abstinence for adolescents need to become the measure of a good politician with a plan that will truly make a difference in breaking the cycle of “problems that need fixing.”

Before you vote, be sure to ask your politicians…what problems are you fixing…and how?  If they cannot give enthusiastic support to policies aimed at strengthening marriage and promoting sexual abstinence, this is a sure sign that your hard-earned taxpayer money will end up hanging on the dead branches of a tree with rotting roots.

 

May 14, 2004 – Order in the Courtroom!

April 3, 2005 –  How’s It Working for You?

See Archives for past editorials.

GOWYL

May 1, 2006

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

They offer advice to people in pain.  On the surface, their advice sounds forward-looking, pragmatic, and helpful:  Get On With Your Live…GOWYL.

Psychologists and counselors are dealing with a problem that many in America consider inevitable…divorce.  “We think of a marriage as a crap shoot, with worse than 50-50 odds of finding and marrying ‘the right person,’” writes Diane Sollee of Smart Marriages.  “If we marry ‘the wrong person’, we want the right to exit and try again.”  GOWYL.

It’s hard to imagine a family that hasn’t been touched by divorce today.  The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers say.  Rising radically in the 1960s, since the 1970s, the rate has steadily been inching downward.

Still, even as divorce rates decline, the number of lives impacted is staggering.  In 2003, based on the 45 reporting states (excluding CA, HI, IN, LA, OK), 920,060 marriages were dissolved.  Over 1.8 million men and women will have to GOWYL.

Richard Cohen, Washington Post critic-at-large, speaks for the frustrated majority.  Conceding the damage divorce does to children, he demands that those who preach family values finally come clean and admit there are no solutions.  GOWYL.

As Cohen, and so many see it, we are stuck.  There is no way out.  Without divorce, we are asking people to choose between their own happiness and the happiness and well-being of their children.

”[As] much as we hate the fallout, we’ve become convinced that divorce is inevitable — one of life’s necessary evils,” says Sollee.  “This is due to our attitudes about marriage. And, we want to preserve this right for our fellow citizens. No one, we have come to believe, should have to live in an unhappy marriage.”

Stuck in the negative, and pushed to accept the inevitable, America has developed an extensive support system designed to make divorce easier and happier.  Divorces are no-fault.  Property is divided.  Child support payments are calculated, if not paid.  And life goes on.  Make the best of it.  GOWYL

But wait.  Yes, wait!

We have been encouraged to accept failure as a way of life.  And we have created several divorce industries…lawyers and counselors…generating millions of dollars for people who profit from the failure of others.  It doesn’t have to be that way.  Failure is not inevitable.

As it turns out, we don’t have to choose to be miserable in marriage to make our children happy.  The real data on happy and unhappy marriages tells a very different story.

When you look at a nationally representative sample of married people who say they are “very unhappy” in their marriages, and follow them over time, 60 percent of those who stick it out (about 15 percent do not) say they are “quite happy” or “very happy” in their marriages five years later. Another 25 percent of couples report improvement in their marital happiness.

These couples did GOWYL.  But they did it by staying married.  They were once unhappy.  And, without the help and assistance of divorce attorneys and counselors paving the way, sticking with their marriages, they were able to create a happy marriage once again…not just for the sake of their kids, but for the sake of themselves.

That’s right.  Unhappy couples aren’t doomed to a life of personal misery in their stoic, chin-up choice to stay together for the kids’ sake.   They can actually recover, restore and reconnect.

If these couples can do it, why can’t other couples do it?  And if they can do it, then how?

As sociologists and politicians since the 60s worked to normalize and even elevate the deconstruction of the traditional family, these questions were considered regressive.  Divorce was the solution.  Marriage was the problem.

Today, as we measure the pain and cost of divorce, these questions offer a long-overdue hope to people everywhere.  They create a new focus for GOWYL.  Marriage is the solution.  Divorce is the problem.

Life is more than just matter of getting on with it.  It’s a matter of where we are getting on to and what life will be when we get there.  If you’re headed toward a solution, a happy marriage is still a wonderful destination.

____________________

 

September 24, 2004 –  End of Life as a Fairly Normal Person

 See Archives for more past editorials.

He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not

April 24, 2006

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

Once upon a time, if you wanted to know if he loved you, it was a simple matter of asking a daisy flower.  Pluck a petal, he loves me.  Pluck another, he loves me not. Plucking petal after petal, down to the center of the daisy, love, not, love, not, love…He loves me!  Or, depending on the daisy, He loves me not!

Once upon a time, it used to matter if he loved me or love me not.  Love was the point.  We were looking for love, and we weren’t shy about it.  Lucy loved Desi.  Mr. Cleaver loved Mrs. Cleaver.  And the Beatles celebrated She Loves You…Yeah, Yeah, Yeah…Yeah!

From the simple to the complex, the measure of love was always the measure of value rising from human activity.  On the personal level, love was sanctified in marriage.  On the social level, love was the source of power for great movements.

One can’t imagine Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, leadership of the civil rights movement without acknowledging its foundation of love.  Writing from a jail in Birmingham, he worked to explain his passion for opposing segregation.  Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, King wrote. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

King led demonstrations against segregation.  But he did so in love.  He never aimed to replace one system of injustice with another.  Standing on love, he exemplified his dream.

It is no mistake that King founded his social movement on non-violence.  Wife Coretta Scott King explained that the central element of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s philosophy of nonviolence emanated from “his belief in a divine loving presence that binds all life.  This belief was the force behind all of my husband’s quests to eliminate social evil….”

Love, for King, was the fountain from which flowed justice, dignity, and dreams.  And as co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, King’s writings always turned to the One who epitomized ultimate love.

Christ, in one of his last moments as teacher to his disciples, expressed everything we can say about love, humility and sacrifice with one towel and a bowl of water.  “Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love….he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.” [John 13:1,4-5  NIV]

In the habit of explaining great truths in parables, Jesus created a living parable of sacrificial love, love that grows from humility, a love demonstration of the Golden Rule.  And just to make sure the disciples would clearly receive his teaching, he told them, “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.”  [John 13:14-16 NIV]

He loves me…a humble sacrifice done in love because you love me as you love yourself.  He loves me not…anything less.

A consideration of the fullest expression of human love shines a bright light on the culture of sex in America today.  It helps explain why foes of abstinence education fight with such furor and hostility against those who would raise sexual abstinence until marriage as a noble and expected standard of sexual behavior for young people.

This fight against abstinence education is, at its most fundamental level, an expression of an attempt to keep sex from being subordinated as a function of sacrificial love.  The fight against abstinence education is a struggle to maintain sex as an isolated function of two physical bodies, each seeking personal physical pleasure at the expense of what might be done to the other body.

Abstinence education restores the importance of love, humility and sacrifice as part of the sexual act.  It inspires students to value their sexuality as one dimension of their capacity to be loved and to give love.  This is a much bigger focus for sex than what has been promoted since birth control elevated Hugh Hefner as the cultural icon of human sex.  And it can’t be tolerated by those who pay homage to Hefner.

The sexual revolution was less about birth control than it was about divorcing us from the responsibility for the welfare of other human beings.  We were given permission to use others to gratify our physical sexual urges and ignore the consequences of loveless sex as collateral damage.  Babies in utero were redefined as tissue.  STDs were redefined as treatable illnesses.  And heartbreak was defined as a religious value.

He loves me.  My total welfare, economic, physical, social, emotional, relational, and spiritual is of greater importance to him than any physical shiver of sexual pleasure.

Anything less than that?  He loves me not.

____________________

New International Version (NIV), Copyright (c) 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.  Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

October 24, 2005 –  TEENS AND SEX: How Many? So What?

 See Archives for more past editorials.

How’s It Working for You?

April 3, 2006

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

America, how’s it working for you?

Who wants to know?  Dr. Phil.  That’s who.

Over twenty shows a month, twelve months a year, three and a half years…you can purchase transcripts of over 840 Dr. Phil shows where America gets psychoanalyzed, diagnosed, challenged, prodded, pushed, and changed.

Nasty Custody Battles

“I’m a Slave to My Spouse”

Infidelity Aftermath

Family Chaos

Love, Lies and the Law

Cheaters…and more…

MUCH more!  Each night on public television Americans reveal troubled relationships, enduring exposure of laundry lists of personal secrets, faults, and blemishes.  Why?

Because, after the show wraps up, and everyone goes home, we all cherish the hope that we will find what the human heart hungers for.  Enduring, honoring, forgiving love.

There is a tragic irony in all of this.  We have just traveled through a forty-year time warp of promises sold to us by feminists, humanists, psychologists, sociologists, lawyers, and sexologists…all of these “professionals” cultivated and nurtured by the “higher learning” institutions of our country.  If we just listen to them, liberate ourselves from the bondage of biological and cultural traps, and enter into a new age of self-fulfillment…we will be…well…fulfilled.

Then why are so many of us showing up on Dr. Phil?  America, how’s it working for you?

All this social re-engineering?  Replacing husbands and wives, fathers married to mothers, replacing all of these with cohabitors?  Sexualizing every human transaction?  Fulfilling every fantasy, dragging each bizarre behavior onto a new “reality show”?  Are we having fun yet?

Watching Dr. Phil for even one week, it is clear that the cultural reconstructionists of the past four decades have more work ahead of them.  Because in spite of their best efforts to convince us that we can restructure life to exclude marriage and embrace diversity of every imaginable…and unimaginable…combination…Americans are having a hard time of it.  How’s it working for us?

Single parent homes are on the financial edge.  Children go to bed at night without a hug from their father.  And sex offered to the latest “object of my affection” results in babies, abortions, and STDs that cause Mr. Right to vanish in a puff of smoke faster than magician Lance Burton can snap his fingers.

We don’t need to have “higher education” gurus to research us.  We don’t need reassurances that re-engineering the culture will work if we just give it more time.  We don’t need feminists to fix men, sociologists to fix families, or humanists to convince us we are happy in spite of what ails us.

How’s it working for us, America?  We are searching for love.  And we are ending up on Dr. Phil’s psycho-drama.

_____________________________

 November 7, 2005 – Public Policy Never Mended a Broken Heart

 See Archives for more past editorials.

The Science of Wisdom

February 27, 2006

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

It’s a strange memory, but a vivid memory.  Christmas afternoon 1964, my sister, 11, and I, 13, sat in the family room watching news.  Not because we wanted to watch the news.  But it was the only show my father would let us watch on our new Christmas color television set.  It was the only show in color.

Color television had been available since 1953.  The first commercial television program on color film was an episode of Dragnet, followed by such milestones as a live telecast of the Tournament of Roses parade the following month.  As with all firsts, history tracks the first color broadcast of a president (Dwight Eisenhower in June, 1955), the first color coverage of the World Series (Dodgers vs. Yankees in September, 1955), and the first colorcast cartoons (the Flintstones and the Jetsons in fall, 1962).

Yet, my family along with most other American families continued to watch television in black and white.  The first RCA color sets cost $995, the equivalent of over $6,500 today. In 1954, it was enough to buy a car, and nearly enough to buy a modest house.

By the mid-1950s, every company with the exception of RCA stopped manufacturing color televisions, and few produced color programming. Yet, losing some $65 million over a decade, RCA persisted in developing and marketing the technology.

 

The premier of Walt Disney’s Wonderful World of Color in September, 1961, was a turning point.  It was a magical experience to see the peacock’s tail unfold in red, orange, green and yellow.

 

Finally, in 1964, the tide turned, and RCA began to profit handsomely from its investment in color television.  It had taken 25 years for color television to go from its earliest prototypes to mass acceptance. According to Alex Magoun, director of the Sarnoff library holding RCA history, this is about the time every new technology takes to really catch on.

Today, a teenager is probably unable to conceive of a world where we would not be  able to watch live color coverage of downhill skiing at the Turin Olympic Games from 20 different camera angles.  In a child’s mind, television has always been here.  Like snowflakes, pine trees, and sledding, color television is and was and always has been.

In the short span of one human life, it is hard to maintain the long view.  Technology is easy to follow, with every detail recorded many times over in tech manuals and corporate profit and loss statements.

But televisions, computers, and air travel are not the only “new fangled” inventions of modern man.  Even our ways of thinking are marked by radical shifts that we have lost track of.

One mental shift has made an impact every bit as dramatic on modern life as color television.  It is hard to conceive of a university without a department of sociology, but in fact, no sociologists even existed to set sail and land on Plymouth Rock with the Pilgrims in 1620.

Sociology is actually a relatively new academic discipline which evolved in the early 19th century. It usually concerns itself with the social rules and processes that bind and separate people not only as individuals, but as members of associations, groups, and institutions.

Motivated by an interest in our behavior as social beings, sociologists began to quantify any number of human actions, allowing these academicians to perform their intricate analysis of short contacts between anonymous individuals on the street and to expand their theories to the broad study of global social processes.

A related trend in sociology, emerging since the late 1970s, attempted to make it a more “applied” discipline, applicable in areas such as non-profit organizations and nursing homes.  The results of sociological research have been used by educators, lawmakers, administrators, and others interested in resolving social problems and formulating public policy, through areas such as survey research, evaluation research, methodological assessment, and public sociology.

In other words, if we want to know what’s wrong…and if we want to know how to fix what’s wrong…ask a sociologist.

So, what was the world like before sociologists began to engineer and quantify human behavior?  How did humans seek solutions to human problems?  How did we organize life?

This is not idle speculation.  As a nation, we have nearly stopped thinking and acting unless we can open our briefcase and pull out a 3-inch file of social statistics and research to support our views.  Consider the following.

Solomon’s wisdom is often cited in a famous incident in which two women came before him with a baby, each claiming to the the mother.  Solomon ordered the child be cut in half, and by observing each woman’s reaction, determined the true mother.  Today, we have case workers, MSWs for sure, who interview the entire family and neighborhood, cite studies on mother love and bonding, and make their final report in triplicate.

Or in September, 2004, behavioral research on 1,792 adolescents proved that teenagers who watch a lot of television with sexual content are twice as likely to engage in intercourse than those who watch few such programs.  Katie Couric’s reaction was a brief, “Duh?”

King Solomon was a bit more expressive.  Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.  Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips.  Let your eyes look straight ahead, fix your gaze directly before you. (Prov 4:23-25 NIV)

For all of our numbers and studies and statistics and analysis, have we really advanced beyond the centuries-old wisdom that informed men’s hearts and guided their steps?  And is it just possible that social scientists have found ways to add and subtract research that would justify why a lemming should follow his brother over the cliff?

Sociology has not always existed.  Thankfully, great minds and human wisdom are not modern inventions.  They are, they were, they always have been.  Even before sociology.

October 29, 2004 – Food for the Brain

September 10, 2004 – Duh

 See Archives for more past editorials.