Obama Fails the Marriage Test

2007-07-15
By

Like nearly every other 2008 presidential prospect (Republicans included), Barack Obama failed the marriage test today. Speaking to a church congregation, he bemoaned the trend of violent young men “sickening the soul of this nation.”

Barack pointed out that thirty students have been killed in Chicago this year — more than the number of Illinois servicemen killed in Iraq.

Obama’s answers are the classic prevarication uttered by anti-family politicians for the past forty years: more federal programs regulating guns, and after-school programs to keep kids off the streets. He did not mention new criminal law-enforcement programs he certainly has in mind.

Like many politicians in both parties before him, he intentionally ignores the obvious: Marriage is important. Two generations of young men have been raised in broken families, with little parental guidance available. The future was easily predictable then, and it is upon us now.

In 1980, crime in Los Angeles increased by 17%. LAPD Chief Darryl Gates was at a complete loss for an explanation. The answer was behind door number one: increases in divorce and illegitimacy in Los Angeles in the early 1960’s yielded the first bumper crop of fatherless boys. Today, Wade Horn and former senator Kit Bond are finding out the hard way that begging on street corners for fathers does not work.

Marriage is critical. We simply cannot replace in-vivo parenting with federal programs. Washington has done this since 1965, with declining social data every step of the way.

If Obama were serious about reversing the trend, he would call for end of no-fault divorce. He would call for reform of the Violence Against Women Act (which is more of an entitled feminist marriage destruction machine than anything else).

If Obama were serious about ending crime, he would call for funding programs that help spouses work through the normal problems of marriage and aging. He would call for reform of every section of federal code that entitles marital and reproductive irresponsibility. He would call for changes in federal funding to penalize states that do not require shared parenting, in cases of divorce or illegitimacy where a parent is not found unfit.

Marriage is the most important social building block of the future. In this day in age, recognizing the importance of marriage is actually a progressive idea, because conservatives have abandoned it.

Politicians who fail to realize this and aggressively work for change, are sentencing America’s women and children to continuing decreases in social and economic well-being. They are sentencing boys to growing up without a future in American society. They are leaving America to continue living in the longest civil cold-war in American history.

Where Barack Obama is black, he is the first man who should know these things. He is the first who should be working on it. Let us hold him to that standard.

————————————————-

 

 

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

1 views

  • scottkirk

    50 years ago when the feminazi broke up mens social networks such as Elks club, moose club, bowling leagues ect. ect. with their mantra of” breaking up the patriarchy”.. They did not see the unseen long term social consequences…If you take away mens social networks, you effectivelly create more anti-social behavior which manifests in the form of more violent crime, rapes, murders ect, ect. The new feminist has created this chaos, and cannot even see it!!

  • Mike091

    How can anyone take you seriously with a disappointing caption like “Obama fails the marriage test”, that ends up talking about what Obama did not say.
    Obama did not also say “husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church”. Does that also count as failing the marriage test? or does that imply he failed the Christian test? What a silly assumption!

    “.. he intentionally ignores the obvious: Marriage is important.”
    Someone who’s a great father and husband, has experienced growing up without a father, and has an impressive program on Stregthening Familes ‘intentionally ignored’ that married is important? What a silly assumption, David!

    Obama should be held to ‘that standard’ just because he’s black?
    If you are so concerned about issues that concern black people, as president of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, you would’ve done something substantive about it?
    You’re just a rich white man who pretends to care about black people. Otherwise, you would’ve written your great ideas Obama and not seek public attention and accolades in publishing an article instead. How do you like this assumption?

    I suggests you read about Obama’s Responsible Parenthood act and his program on strengthening familes before you make ASSUMPTIONS.

  • Joi

    obama and hillary are both pretty much worthless.

  • David R. Usher

    Mike,

    “husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church” is the same mistake Republicans and Promise Keepers made. They blamed men for not being able to paddle against a sea of federal funds and a voracious legal system.

    Somebody buy this guy a copy of Baskerville’s new book “Taken Into Custody”. He needs it badly.

    Obama should know better. The so-called “welfare system” has been destroying black families since the early 60′s, and locking black men up in droves. The black population has been disproportionally impacted and seen the most obvious damage.

  • David R. Usher

    May I remind ALL users, in this case amfortas, that profanity and vulgar language are not permiitted in comments to my columns. I expect all readers to respect this. If you wish to carry on like street trash, do it in your private discussion group.

  • Mike091

    Another baby who cannot say anything beyond a single meaningless sentence “obama and hillary are pretty much worthless”. Joi, why would you even bother commenting on worthless people if you’re not yourself, worthless?

    David, I know “Taken into Custody” and I agree with a lot of things Dr. Baskerville says. I also understand his pain, eventhough I cannot claim it’s a place I’ve been, because I’ve never divorced and I’m married 20+ years with 4 children.

    Dr. Baskerville would not say Obama ‘failed the marriage test’ because he didn’t talk about something, he wouldn’t say he should be held to ‘that standard’ simply because he’s black. Every politician should be held to ‘that standard’, especially democrats for misleading black people by giving them fish instead of creating opportunities for them to fish for themselves. I’ve read Obama’s program on responsible fatherhood and I think it’s a win-win for families.

    And BTW David, Christian values are not ascribed to by Republicans alone. And for the record, before “husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church”, there is “Wife be humble to your husbands”. If one is a mistake, so are the rest.

    This is a complex issue, and not even Dr. Baskerville has a realistic solution for it. But maybe we would have a fair portrayal if you wrote to Senator Obama with your ideas, and published his response.

  • David R. Usher

    Mike,

    If you merely “understand Dr. Baskerville’s pain”, you don’t get it. Baskerville is not about “pain”. Baskerville is about proving how the machinery destroying marriage works.

    If you think Obama’s fatherhood program has any meat on the bone, you need to read Glenn Sacks column on the bill at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=896.

    Instead of pretending these things don’t exist, perhaps you should give yourself more time to understand the problem before trying to tell us that gravity does not exist.

  • gregalex

    If man truly lived out the whole concept of “husbands love your wife as Christ loved the church” he would truly see that he has a big task at hand. Christ died for the church which means that man must die to his own selfishness and serve his wife and family. Until we make man accountable for this action we will continue to head down the past of self destruction.

  • David R. Usher

    I must say that we have a lot of misinformed Christians here who forgot that men did not invent radical feminism. Feminism is the historical and lineal grand-daughter of the women’s Ku Klux Klan. Many Christians supported the Klan in its day, and many of them today support the federal activities of the latter-day WKKK. See: http://www.dadsnow.org for more information.

    If there is any truth to blaming men, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of hyper-patriarchal politicians who sell out the little guy in giving billions in federal funding to radical feminists and trial lawyers to destroy marriage.

    Any Christian who still does not understand this fact should consider what would happen if Christians supported giving radical feminists billions to fund abortion. Would Christians still blame the common man?

    The only difference between abortion of babies and abortion of marriage is what the federal money is spent on aborting. The feminist excuse for abortion is “Family planning”. Feminists have many excuses for destroying marriage – “Violence Against Women”, “Child Support”, “Child Poverty”, “Welfare”, and “No Fault Divorce” are just four of the words they use to fool Christians into destroying the very foundation of religion — marriage.

    Moral: Christian feminists who apply the bible as a blinder to the point that they cannot even see the evil of radical feminism, call it out by name, and work to put and end to it, are doing the work of evil right alongside radical feminists. If you think I am kidding, ask Mike McManus (marriagesavers.org) or Steven Safranek (Ave Maria Law School).

  • emarel

    Mike 091, why don’t write your own book, since you’ve apparently got this all under control. We’re all dying to read it…

    Idiot.

  • emarel

    “If there is any truth to blaming men, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of hyper-patriarchal politicians who sell out the little guy in giving billions in federal funding to radical feminists and trial lawyers to destroy marriage.”

    Yeah, and Promise Keepers was doomed from the start because it couldn’t possibly resist the politicians. I went to a PK rally years ago in Philadelphia, where men literally filled Veteran’s Stadium…It didn’t fail for lack of men having their heart in the right place.

  • Mike091

    Yes. Baskerville is also about ‘pain’. And so are you, and Glenn Sacks too. Even if you both attempt to deny the pain. Some blogs have even called you ‘disgruntled’, angry divorcees. But I know it’s easy to point fingers. That’s also why it’s easy to accuse me of not understanding the problem.

    I know that gravity exists, I know you have a great point, I agree with the statistics on child custody and I think it’s unfair. But personally, I don’t care about your movement because it doesn’t uplift me in anyway.

    What I need in my life are ‘how can my wife love me more?’, ‘how can divorcees like yourself help me avoid ending up with a broken home?’, ‘HOW CAN I DIE TO MY OWN SELFISHNESS AND SERVE MY WIFE AND FAMILY?’ just like gregalex suggested. Things like that. Not how do I get a fair deal out of my divorce?

    David, you’ve been on this movement for about 20 years and haven’t achieved a thing perhaps because washington sees it as ‘prisoners advocating for better living conditions’. Think about this: the people who make these laws are men, husbands, fathers, human beings who wouldn’t necessarily want their marriages to end in divorce.

  • Mike091

    Fact: married women out there are not desperately seeking to divorce their husbands.
    Fact: when two grown adullts can’t sort their differences, that’s when the trial lawyers come.

    I have three friends who went through an inevitable divorce, but they’re such great friends with their ex-wives that they have no problem with child custody. Another one actually got custody. So pardon me if I differ.

  • Mike091

    And BTW David, emarel just called me ‘idiot’.
    OK, it got me laughing.
    But does that not qualify as ‘profanity and vulgar language’ on your blog?

  • Thomas

    Mike091,

    Give it a break – you need to stop looking through your rosy colored glasses and get in touch with reality. First off this is not just about divorces is it about all children which are currently facing separate household rearing. And the Glenn Sack’s. David Usher’s and Baskerville’s of the world are arguing for a better system for these children.

    Fathers are continually and systematically reduced to financial and emotionally rubble by a system that is way out of control. A system that is clearly draconian and quite frankly, if you’ve been married for 20 years and have not been through this then you don’t get it. Even if you research it, you will not get it. What you need is 20 years of being a good father to a few children who love you dearly and then pop into a family court and watch helplessly as they rip you up, destroy the bonds you had with your children and extract every penny you have in all sorts of perverse ways.

    Your point about the cases that the parents work it out – that’s great, but unfortunately, society has also bred a huge population of women who don’t want to work it out and they know the spoils are all set-up for them. Fact: There are many, many women out there that purposely use and abuse the family court systems to destroy the former man in their lives. There are many more that don’t even have men in their lives but mange to get them into these situations via their stupidity to trust them. Worse yet, boys as they are raised are taught to trust women. The whole thing is a huge cycle of destruction – the victims – children.

    Fact: If two parents can’t work things out, the trial lawyers don’t need to come in and rip them apart. There are better ways – many advocated by the likes of Usher, Sacks, Baskerville, etc.

    The reason why change is slow? – It’s not politically correct for a huge variety of reasons. Clearly the media will not ever air anything even remotely dealing with the actual characteristics of this mess. It is all grass roots. That’s how most major changes in the US have started – but the heat must always be applied.

  • David R. Usher

    Sorry, Mike,

    Your personal opinion and mine do not count. The only thing that counts is the big picture and the history.

    1. Women file 55% of divorces, and get sole custody in about 85% of divorces.
    2. Most men don’t want their divorces.
    3. Only the most irresponsible men walk away from their roles as fathers without fighting.
    4. Women initiate slightly over half of serious domestic altercations, most often after filing for divorce.
    5. One cannot possibly believe that over half of all men in America are slobs who should be thrown out on the street.
    6. Over 40% of women in a Redbook survey said they would lie about use of birth control to have a child out of wedlock.

    If this is what your brand of Christianity believes in, it is not a religion at all. It is feminism (which is not a religion). How dare you bear false witness against the majority of good men. This is my last reply to you. It is up to you to reconcile the facts of the real world against what the Bible says. If you cannot accomplish this, it is you that is lost.

  • cjo

    To Mike091;

    Regarding – Fact: married women out there are not desperately seeking to divorce their husbands.

    With a 50% divorce rate for all new marriages, and 75-85% of all divorces being filed by the wife…what else could you conclude? Divorce today for the wife has an obscene amount of incentives granted to her. Not so for husbands. What Sacks, Usher, Baskerville and others do have great merit – although I have observed minimal progress in the past, if not backsliding?

    In Massachusetts in 2005, a nonbinding state-election ballot initiative, regarding legislating shared parenting in divorce, was overwhelmingly approved with over 80% of voters. Child support reform; Mass has probably the highest support orders in the country which impoverishes men, excludes them from parenting (not just visiting) and keeps men in servitude under threat of imprisonment!! In this state fathers are so marginalized, The Boston Globe decided that the “2005 Man of the Year “ should be a retired family court judge which has judiciously applied his ideology of separating child from father in the best interests of: himself, the state’s child-support bureaucracy and the Boston Bar – for twenty years. Think how many families he broke up – thousands? NOTHING substantive has been done here! Why? It appears men won’t get on the same page. And frankly, asking how one can be a better husband is ridiculous. Just get a lobotomy. Do you sense my frustration?

  • El Cid

    Mike 091 stated”

    “I know that gravity exists, I know you have a great point, I agree with the statistics on child custody and I think it’s unfair. But personally, I don’t care about your movement because it doesn’t uplift me in anyway.

    What I need in my life are ‘how can my wife love me more?’, ‘how can divorcees like yourself help me avoid ending up with a broken home?’, ‘HOW CAN I DIE TO MY OWN SELFISHNESS AND SERVE MY WIFE AND FAMILY?’ just like gregalex suggested. Things like that. Not how do I get a fair deal out of my divorce?”

    If you’d like to know how you can “die to your own selfishness,” you might note that virtually every statement you’ve written above is a variation of “What’s in it for me?” For example, you would like us to give you advice on how you can avoid ending up in divorce court, yet you “don’t care” about our movement.

    And the problem is much bigger than a “fair deal” in divorce–it’s about the systematic destruction of the traditional family and the father’s role in the family by a government and culture that has turned anti-family and anti-father. Absent fathers are a direct result of changes in the law and public policy in the last 40 or so years. They will continue to be absent until family law and public policies are changed. That’s why changing family law and policies is important.

  • DadWith2Girls

    David R. Usher,

    We will probably never agree about your hyper-chivalrous theory that marriage is the panacea for our contemporary social ills.

    Your proposed choices for men appear to be limited to either criminality or domestic servitude. (Although I concede that until VAWA is reformed, marriage is a pretty good indicator that criminality vis a vis a false domestic violence allegation will occur at some point… or be used as blackmail by the dominant “soulmate.”)

    Where in your grand vision for social salvation via matrimony is there any serious consideration about the actual LEGAL LIBERATION OF MEN?

    You completely skirt deeply entrenched issues like economic inequality correlated to race, and naively if indirectly suggest that if only many more desperately poor people (of any ethnicity) would walk down the aisle, then somehow some mystical social progress would occur. (And taxes would be reduced, yes?)

    If marriage is THE ANSWER, then surely you are also in favor of gay/lesbian marriage? After all, your focus is on nurturing and preserving families, right? Including surely the emerging non-traditional kinds?

    What I continue to find most intriguing about your evangelism for marriage is that you consistently neglect to define any advantages of marriage FOR MEN.

    Indeed, men appear only as an abstract commodity in your thesis.

    Why is that?

  • DadWith2Girls

    Errata (note to self) –

    I was too categorical in writing that David “completely skirts deeply entrenched issues like economic inequality correlated to race…”

    He did indeed point out that African Americans have been disproportionately victimized by anti-family, anti-father federal/state systems.

    But it is too simple to say that “the welfare system” is the culprit.

    The welfare system was a response to socio-economic distortions that were the residual deformities of slavery, Jim Crow, generalized racism…. and a simplistic liberal “solution” rooted in the War on Poverty.

    The “welfare reform movement” carried out under Clinton pretty much consolidated the terminal sentence against black fathers.

    If you destroy a man’s access to a viable economic wage and life, then asking him to get married is rather perverse, yes?

    So my main issue with David R. Usher on the economics of marriage as a solution is that the ECONOMIC must come first, because a viable marriage depends upon the man’s (and his partner’s) access to a living wage.

    Anyway, I concede DRU’s attention to economic-correlated-to-race matters, though still examining his analysis…. and I must read more closely.

  • David R. Usher

    Mike: Re: What I need in my life are ‘how can my wife love me more?’, ‘how can divorcees like yourself help me avoid ending up with a broken home?’

    The answers are right here, bud. Your wife does not have to love you more right now. Divorcees like us want to change federal policy so you don’t end up like half the rest of the men in America. Right now she has all the options, and you get to pay for them. That’s what federal funding has stimulated states to do.

    There are some good books to read, such as “love life for every married couple”, by Ed Wheat. But if she doesn’t feel like cooperating, you are sunk no matter what you do.

  • conservativation

    I’m amazed. Amfortas gets deleted, some guy named Mike tells me men are the problem and if we’d just get it right all would be well, he tells me women are not itching for divorce….true…until they are (I’m not divorced either bub) and the DW2G tells me welfare took away black mans access to a livable wage.
    That’s all entirely too much for me to swallow in one setting. Its also depressing, and far more profound to me than any disagreements on an EG column.
    Let me say something controversial. The Mens Rights Movement is a conservative cause.If the version to which you subscribe has federal stink on its sh*t it is nothing more than feminism for men.
    You can lie to yourselves, rationalize and see big brother as the answer, but I’ve seen and heard his answer and it is a no go here.
    On the Christian side of the world Mike, the notion of men fixing ourselves into a right gender balance with the secular state is ridiculous. The church is so screwed up on gender I may prefer to take my chances with the government. That spoken from a believer and member of a very conservative church. I ain’t no Episcopalian! You’ve been listening to too many Fathers Day sermons telling us to step up to the plate. The problem is, she took the plate and the house it was in and the kids who ate off it, not because he was not a Godly man, but because she is human, and he cannot control her, and she can do bad things friend.
    I sometimes wonder if you man blamers feel that women can even think for themselves. Because you seem to think if we would just lead “right” she would gigglingly fall in.

  • amfortas

    Gee whiz, David. What on earth did I say that got you so upset with me. I am a great admirer of your work and wrote supporting your basic thrust.

    I did not use any profanity. I said that politicians follow the money and the votes, with 7 million more female voters than male in the USA and women inheriting the money from men who die 6-7 years earlier. Maybe I was a little crude in referring to politicians testicular attributes but surely not enough to evoke such a nasty reaction from you.

    Are you OK, mate?

    Worried, Australia.

  • bombbombbombbomb

    “You’ve been listening to too many Fathers Day sermons telling us to step up to the plate.”

    Those who avoid the risky behavior of marriage truly are the men that are acting responsibly and are doing a great job providing the impetus for social change. These men should be respected for living in the real world and talking appropriate actions to ensure better lives for themselves. People who advocate stepping up to the plate are advocating risky behavior and the status quo of male oppression.

  • David R. Usher

    The fact that there are so many men who (realistically) see marriage as dead is proof enough that federal laws must change. However, I am also aware there are five groups of men here:

    1. Those who see marriage as unrealistic based on risk

    2. Those who are narcissistic Peter Pans who largely see women as sex toys

    3. Feminist men, who mistakenly believe that maladaptive overcompliance with feminism will somehow insulate them from how other men end up being treated

    4. Those who reconcile the three items above by “living in” with women thinking they can have the best of both worlds.

    5. Traditionalist men who erroneously think that feminism is a nonlethal belief structure, who blindly marry a woman, only to find out too late that feminism has teeth, claws, and venom.

    Feminists love narcissistic men, because they know that sooner or later these guys will get nailed in a paternity suit — which indeed is going on in record numbers. Feminism teaches women to use free sex to get everything they want from men. This is far worse than anything the “Rat Pack” ever inflicted on women.

    I do not advocate men sticking their heads into nooses like fools. I do teach ways to help men of good intent how to avoid relationships with high-risk women. I do recommend that young men consider moving to a country supportive of marriage and staying there (why plant corn in the desert)?

    Most importantly, I demonstrate that there are many men and women sick of what radical feminism and big government has led them into, and strongly suggest they organize with us in establishing a real marriage movement that cannot be politically ignored.

    I do believe that most men, in their hearts, would rather we have a system where they can have love and stability within the context of marriage. The question is whether or not men have enough respect for themselves to go out there and get some respect for themselves.

    The main problem all men face here is to truly understand that it is the billions in federal dollars that are shaping the culture — choices to marry or to do what government entitles. Men who think that culture is the driver of the destruction of marriage merely sentence themselves to roles at the end of bottom of society.

    Both parties have walked away from marriage issues because it means they will have to confront feminism, and stop funding it. It is up to us, in fulfilling biblical roles (and sensible secular roles) as men, to do everything we can to make this happen at the earliest possible moment.

  • DadWith2Girls

    David,

    You said you were aware of THREE groups of men, and then you defined FIVE!

    I think that is why I will always respect you as an excessively logical thinker.

    I have no qualms about your integrity. (Your math — maybe….)

    Even when we totally disagree… approaching needless animosity.

    Hey!

    There is a sixth category of men…

  • The Biscuit Queen

    After the True Equality Congress in DC this weekend Thomas W and I went to Obama’s office and left a packet of infomation about this very subject. I applauded him for at least talking about this issue, but said that he is missing much of the big picture, which includes the family courts, the welfare system, public schools and the media protrayal of fatherhood. I said that blaming fathers alone for systemic social and political problems was not going to help anyone. I suggest everyone send him polite, well written letters showing your concern. Now is the time to do so, before he creates his hard-line stances. If enough people are heard, we could make a difference.

  • DadWith2Girls

    Biscuit Queen….

    I am a little uneasy about how you “… went to Obama’s office and left a packet of infomation …”

    Are you confessing that you are a burglar?

    You Go GIRL! ;-)

  • DadWith2Girls

    BQ…

    More important question….

    Since you claim you “left something” in Obama’s office, did you also “borrow” anything?

    Training dogs has gifted you with may stealth tactics!

  • DadWith2Girls

    Mr.Usher is editing this thread…

    Deleting posts…

    Correcting his comments…

    So …. ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

    silly?

    Gosh, if I could just take back every sentence I ever typed, maybe I could be God!

    At best, it’s very simply minimally ironic comedy.

    Mike LaSalles’s Club, yes?

  • scottkirk

    david..excellently stated position!!

  • scottkirk

    david..I meant specifically comment # 25…right on!!!!

  • The Biscuit Queen

    Boy was that confusing-am I just too tired to see you were joking, or am I too dense to recognize an insult when I see it? (honest question.)

    What would dog training have to do with stealth tactics-am I missing something?

    I simply handed the aide working at the front desk a packet outlining the issues and my contact information-nothing stealthy about it. I think maybe I need to just get some sleep. If you were joking and I missed it, sorry!

  • Mad_Dad

    David,

    Excellent commentary! As you stated, all of these politicians are missing the point when they try to blame the problems created by single parent famlies soley on men. While it’s true that there are some men who willfully try to avoid their responsibilities as parents, it is absurd to try and blame the current bumper crop of single parent families soley on “deadbeat dads.”

    First and foremost, government policies and social programs of the last 40 years are largely to blame for many of these problems. Second, many of the women who have these “unplanned” pregnancies or file for divorce on the flimsy grounds that they “no longer feel loved or appreciated” share just as much of the blame, if not more, than any so-called “deadbeat dad.” It’s no coincidence that we are now experiencing all of the problems that result from having so many children raised without a father involved in their lives, after our society has created so many laws and policies that drive men out of their children’s lives. Like the wise man said, “you shall reap what you sew.”

    I once saw statistics on the number of black famlies that were intact prior to the enactment of welfare laws versus the number of black single parent famlies after these policies were put into effect. Does anyone have any information on these statistics?

  • mruffolo

    “An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 (S. 1626) recently introduced by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN). The bill mentions “child support” 65 times, but not once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial. ”

    http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/july07/07-07-25.html

    The bill also highlights domestic violence issues for women.

    http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01626:






Search