Tag Archives: Parenting

Polemics

Why did 77% of young unmarried women vote for Obama in 2008?

2 Comments

Consider this analysis from a left-wing site of the 2008 election.

Excerpt:

On Tuesday, the nation made history. It made history in electing the first African American president; it made history in building a bigger margin for the first female Speaker of the House; it made history in delivering the biggest Democratic margin since 1964; it made history in sending a record number of people to the polls and the highest percentage turnout since the 1960 election.

[…]But one thing is immediately clear. Unmarried women played a pivotal role in making this history and in changing this nation. They delivered a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin to Barack Obama and delivered similarly strong margins in races for Congress and the U.S. Senate. Although unmarried women have voted Democratic consistently since marital status has been was tracked, this election represents the highest margin recorded and a 16-point net gain at the Presidential level from 2004.

In particular, note the chart that shows that younger unmarried women voted 77-22 for Obama. 77-22 for Obama. This is actually in keeping with my previous post on this topic, which documented how women have continuously voted for bigger and bigger government since they started voting. The problem with big government policies is that they drain money from the family which is then redistributed outside of the family.

To have a strong family, you need more than just money. You need independence so that you can keep your vision distinct and separate from the vision of the government. If a family depends on the government, then they are beholden to the government’s values. The government can even overrule conscience rights and religious liberty. Keeping the family strong and separate from government is especially important for Christian parents who have a specific goal of passing on their faith to their children.

Here are just a few of the things I thought of that help make a marriage strong: (there are many more)

  • low taxes so the household has more money to spend on the things we need for our plan
  • access to low cost energy provided by domestic energy production by private firms
  • access to low cost, high quality consumer goods through increased free trade
  • the ability to choose homeschooling or private schools (and the more school choice, the better)
  • the ability to fund a retirement plan that covers the family – not anyone else
  • the ability to purchase a health care plan that covers the family – not anyone else
  • the ability to own firearms for protection of the home and the family
  • the ability to pass Christian convictions on to children without interference from the state
  • the ability to speak and act as a Christian in public without reprisals from secular left special interest groups
  • low threat of being the victim of criminal activity
  • low threat of being bankrupted by the costs of divorce court
  • low threat of being arrested on a false domestic violence charge (e.g. – verbal abuse)
  • low threat of never seeing your children because of loss of custody after a divorce
  • low threat of being imprisoned due to failure to pay alimony and child support after a job loss

It seems to me that a vote for Obama is a vote against all of these things. So then why did unmarried women (especially Christian women) vote for him? It seems as thought they are less interested in marriage and family and more interested in having the government provide incentives for anti-child, anti-family behaviors like pre-marital sex, contraceptives, abortions, welfare for single mothers, divorce courts, government coercion of husbands, state-run day-care, government-run schools, in-vitro fertilization, etc. I don’t mind if people need these things, but they should pay for it themselves. but I don’t see why unmarried women should favor family money being spent on government programs that help other people to avoid the cost and consequences of their own decisions.

News

Obama vows to repeal Defense of Marriage Act in speech to gay activists

1 Comment

Story here at LifeSiteNews.

Excerpt:

In his speech to the homosexualist Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Saturday evening, President Obama again professed loyalty to the homosexual agenda and criticized people who hold to “old attitudes” about homosexuality. The President also vowed to repeal the “so-called Defense of Marriage Act” and praised the U.S. House’s approval of homosexual hate crimes legislation on Thursday.

[…]”Despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open,” Obama told the cheering crowd.

“There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking.”

[…]On Saturday, President Obama called the movement’s quest to normalize homosexuality on various fronts a quest for “basic equality.”

“I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight,” he said.

Obama also praised the passage of homosexual hate crimes legislation in a House defense policy bill on Thursday, and said he was preparing to sign the law after it passes Congress.

[…]Addressing the lobby’s concern over Obama’s perceived lack of zeal in dismantling federal marriage laws and other such issues, Obama said Saturday: “I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.”

He assured the group that “my commitment to you is unwavering,” and pointed out that he has called on Congress to “repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.”

[…]The President expressed broad support for HRC’s mission to drastically alter America’s cultural perception of marriage and the family.

“My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see … a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman,” said Obama.

LifeSiteNews also reports on the new hate crime bill. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

The United States Senate approved an amendment yesterday adding “hate crimes” legislation to the annual Defense Authorization bill, which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of federally-protected classes.

[…]Critics have warned that the bill has a chilling effect on religious free speech against homosexuality, pointing out that similar laws in other nations have facilitated the prosecution of Christians who speak against homosexuality, particularly in Canada and the United Kingdom. More importantly, they charge, “hate crimes” laws violate the guarantees of equal protection under the law by creating preferential classes for justice.

“‘Hate crimes’ laws contradict the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and create unequal justice by elevating some groups of victims at the expense of others,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Wright pointed out that under the proposed law, “Victims who engage in homosexual, transgender, or other sexual behavior get special treatment over victims who are military officers, police officers or veterans,” such as the military recruiter who was slain in June by a Muslim convert at a shopping mall in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This is what the many Christians who voted for Obama have achieved. They voted to “tax the rich” and to “bring the troops home” based on ignorance of economics and foreign policy. But what they achieved was the silencing of Christian moral convictions on marriage and family in the public square. And the children who will now be raised without mothers or fathers will reap the whirlwind.

Here’s a refresher on why people oppose same-sex marriage.

News

New study shows that children of working mothers live unhealthier lives

3 Comments

Story here from the Ottawa Citizen. (H/T Ben)

Excerpt:

Children whose mothers work are less likely to eat healthily or exercise as often as children with stay-at-home mums, according to a British study that is likely to raise the hackles of working mothers.

The UK Millennium Cohort Study looked at the dietary habits and physical activity of more than 12,500 children from the age of nine months to the age of five.

It found that, regardless of ethnicity, maternal education or job level, children whose mothers worked part or fulltime were less likely to eat fruits or vegetables at meals or as snacks.

They would also sit in front of the television or the computer for more than two hours a day while children of non-working mums would watch TV or be on the computer less than two hours.

The study also said these children were more likely to drink sweetened beverages such as sodas in between meals, snack on crisps and be driven to school, compared to walking or cycling.

One more reason that we should be cutting taxes and encouraging women to stay home with children if they want to do it. Children really are far more important than work or money. Work and money have value for giving donations to charity, but every child has the potential to change the world for Christ and his Kingdom. As a result, we should be enacting policies that make it easier for Mom to stay home.

Related posts

Share