How many times have we heard about our tax dollars paying for government workers who spend their days watching porn at work?

Which city in the United States is home to the most pornography viewers? The answer is Washington, D.C., the seat of the nation’s power players. Do you ever wonder why the Department of Justice does not enforce obscenity laws? Could the viewing habits of D.C.’s denizens influence the lack of enforcement?

The source of this information is PornHub, a XXX website. The New York Daily News carried the story about the study and noted that the rate of online pornography watched in D.C. is 14.18 videos per person in a year. While that may not sound like a lot to some, consider that the D.C. rate is nearly twice the rate of the second highest porn viewing state, Hawaii, where it is 7.57 per person.

We know that not everyone watches pornography, so that means the people actually watching online pornography in Washington are watching a lot more videos than 14.18 each. Who is watching them, and are they doing so at work? Does it influence their work?

How many times have we heard about our tax dollars paying for government workers who spend their days watching porn at work? One Washington Times article lists these agencies that have employees with porn problems: Pentagon, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Missile Defense Agency. The article quotes a cyber-security expert who warns, “Many pornographic websites are infected and criminals and foreign intelligence services such as Russia’s use them to gain access and harvest data.”

You would think that national security nugget would be a good enough reason for prosecuting obscenity producers and purveyors, but evidently it is not.

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder shut down the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, which was established under Pres. George W. Bush’s Administration. A Politico article quoted Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in reaction to this move:

“Attorney General Holder told the Judiciary Committee last year that this task force was the centerpiece of the strategy to combat adult obscenity,” Sen. Hatch told POLITICO in a statement Friday. “Rather than initiate a single new case since President Obama took office, however, the only development in this area has been the dismantling of the task force. As the toxic waste of obscenity continues to spread and harm everyone it touches, it appears the Obama Administration is giving up without a fight.”

According to the PornHub statistics, obscenity blankets Washington. The lack of adult obscenity prosecutions is harming everyone. While the Department of Justice focuses on prosecuting cases of child pornography, those who are watching adult pornography may turn to child pornography when the adult material no longer excites them. If adult pornography prosecutions are non-existent, a gateway to child pornography is left in place to ensnare new viewers.

So, while some of D.C.’s denizens turn a blind eye to punishing the producers and distributors of obscenity, others are glued to their porn-filled computer screens. The key to why obscenity, while illegal, thrives in D.C., and beyond may be one mouse click away on screens hidden behind closed doors and cubicle walls in offices throughout Washington.

Few people have had such a profound influence on American culture, yet Judith Wallerstein was not a household name.  When her book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (2000), was published, it prompted a national debate over the effect on children when their parents divorced.  Beginning in 1971, Mrs. Wallerstein interviewed 131 children from 60 divorced families every 5 years for 25 years.  She found, not surprisingly, that the children were “extremely distressed” after their parents’ divorce; she also found that the children’s problems continued for 10 to 15 years with half of them suffering permanent damage.  She found that the grown children of divorced parents often become “worried, underachieving, self-deprecating, and sometimes angry young men and women.”

More recent research by Elizabeth Marquette and others has corroborated Wallerstein’s analyses. In addition, Wallerstein continued to write about the affect of divorce on children, publishing 70 articles in professional journals and five books. In a PBS interview in 2000, she said, “It’s hard for me to believe that 45 percent of marriages are so bad that they really need to divorce, and that’s what’s happening in this country.” Among her findings: children of divorce have a harder time forming intimate relationships (half the rate of those in the general population) and were more likely to divorce than are children from intact families.  In her second book about divorce, Second Chances: Men, Women and Children a Decade After Divorce (1989),  Wallerstein offered advice to couples who divorced, including ensuring that custody arrangements were beneficial to the children rather than convenient for the parents.

With divorce rates relatively stable, but still too high and no-fault divorce still an option in many states, Wallerstein’s research (and that of numerous others corroborating her findings) needs to be introduced to a new generation who have grown up hearing that divorce is better than living in an unhappy family.  Wallerstein showed, through her careful longitudinal research, that casual divorce is not always the best solution for children.

We’ve all heard the taunting tune.  Many of us sang it in kindergarten, ribbing older siblings and starry-eyed lovers with its lyrics:

“—– and —– sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G!  First comes love…then comes marriage…then comes the baby in the baby carriage.”

Looking back, it’s amazing how much our simple nursery rhymes taught us about life, including the natural progression of relationships.  Intuitively, we knew these axioms to be true and passed them down throughout the generations.  But these days, as conventional wisdom is increasingly convoluted, it isn’t surprising that many have rejected the order of romance first, marriage second, and finally childbearing, instead creating their own rules of the game.  Indeed, gone are the days of Brady Brunch families and June Cleaver-style households; they have morphed into ABC’s “Modern Family“ — a show promoted as “redefining what family means,” and portrayed as “one big straight-gay, multicultural, traditional, happy family.”  Hence, every day it seems, a new tide of case studies surfaces on the shores of our Hollywood-esque world of hook-ups, shack-ups, babydaddys, and babymommas, attempting to prove how “liberated” we are, unbound by the shackles of tradition.

Riding on this bandwagon is Russian tennis star and Biggest Loser trainer, Anna Kournikova, who claimed in the latest issue of Women’s Health magazine, “[Marriage] isn’t important to me. I’m in a happy relationship — that’s all that matters.”

While this creed sounds good to some, realistically, it isn’t true.  On the contrary, marriage does matter!  Social science research and demographic data make the case that marriage matters and has far more impact on adults than most people acknowledge.  Researchers indicate that married people have better health, longer and more productive lives, greater general happiness, and better mental health than non-married individuals.  Further, they agree that marriage performs a critical function for society.

Cultures globally consider marriage the link that unites parents with their children and families to their communities.  In fact, as author Caitlin Flanagan proclaims, “There is no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage.”  Marriage provides the context within which the next generation establishes lifelong habits and develops character, preparing young people to become well-adjusted, productive adults and involved, law-abiding citizens.

Still, the overwhelming message for youth today is that marriage can wait or be disregarded entirely, as the Anna Kournikovas of society suggest.  It’s time for the reams of research and the common experiences of teachers, social workers, and law enforcement officers, who daily observe the outcomes of family breakdown, to penetrate the media fog to change the attitudes of the public and convince young people that marriage matters — for each of them and for all of us.

Some experts like to debunk the idea of a dad’s importance and talk about the “myth of the perfect family.” Such thinking, however, merely sets up a straw man and is erroneous.  There is a voluminous body of research that is clear and unambiguous: The very best family for a child’s positive development and good outcome is a married mom and dad. As Time magazine put it: “Growing up in a home in which different men cycle in and out is not good for a child’s health or well being.  Think of these families as having ‘domino dads,’ with each one’s departure putting pressure on the next.”

This is no small problem.  The negative consequences for both the mother and the child are so well documented they have almost ceased to register on the public’s radar.  The number of young women who are cohabitating instead of getting married is increasing; the number who have children before getting married is increasing; and the number of children who live in blended households as a result of divorce or prior cohabitation is increasing, as my research and writing reveals.

Single moms of children from multiple fathers are far more likely to be “under-employed, to have lower incomes, and to be less educated.” The children in these households live with enormous stress: “Everyday decisions are more complex and family rules are more ambiguous.” Just figuring out logistics, such as “whose turn it is to spend time with the kids and who gets more attention,” and dividing up time, responsibilities, and finances — who lives with whom when, who is responsible for what when, and who pays for food, clothing, and incidentals, as well as who pays child support for what child — is daunting and sometimes impossible.  Sadly, and most damaging to the children, is that the conflicts that lead the parents to separate in the first place tend to go on and on, with the kids often caught in the middle.

Cassandra Dorius, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, presented her findings from a recent study at the Population Association of America. She studied data from up to 20 interviews with each of 4,000 women over a 27-year-period.  The data for the study came from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.  Dorius called the trend an “intergeneratic transmission of disadvantage.”  She said, “Juggling all the different needs and demands of fathers in at least two households, four or more pairs of grandparents, and two or more children creates a huge set of chronic stressors that families have to deal with for decades.”

While opposition to the findings was immediate, others believe the situation is not “inherently bad or good” and, in a flight from reality, they argue that any group of people can successfully parent.  They contend that the larger problem is whether the dad plays a role in his child’s life, whether married or not.  Yet research is clear and unsurprising: When a mother finds a new man or has a child by another man, fathers typically become less involved financially and emotionally, and they are far less likely to be a physical presence in their children’s lives.

Only by facing facts and addressing problems realistically can we hope to see a brighter future and the inherent potential of the next generation realized.

Proverbs 4:23 tells us, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.”

We Christian women are called to be confident in the love that God provides.  With our self-esteem constantly targeted by the media, it is sometimes difficult to remember that the Lord created us to be a treasure won by a determined and respectable man.  Unfortunately, our society encourages women to be the hunters instead of the hunted.

Nine out of 10 males I personally interviewed say that when a woman pursues them, it highlights two very unattractive attributes: insecurity and desperation.  So why do women do it?  Is it because we are impatient and unwilling to wait for Mr. Right to come our way or because we are craving male attention?

Both of these reasons are a result of not trusting the Lord.  He has provided a way to fulfill each of our needs.  When we feel uncared for, He assures us in places like Jeremiah 33:11 that His love is always with us.  When we feel that unattractive, He whispers through Psalm 139:14 that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

So when a man pursues us, we need to remember who God designed us to be.

1. We show obedience to the Lord by investing time and emotion only in solid Christian men.
2. We show respect for ourselves by giving our time only to men that have the courage to ask us for our number and not cowardly giving us his in case we want to hang out sometime.
3. We show value by accepting dates that require time and thought and not accepting “we can do whatever you want to do” pseudo-dates.
4. We show loyalty by humbly going to God in prayer concerning each gentleman that requests a relationship with us.
5. We show honor to God by saving sex for marriage and dating only men who are dedicated to following this command.

Even though movies like No Strings Attached and American Pie give a degrading view of male and female relationships, this should not be the reality in Christian dating relationships.  We must all guard our hearts from the lies with which we are daily bombarded and combat them with the truth God has made clear to us: He loves us, we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and He is faithful to provide.

After all, we are supposed to be loved as Christ loved the Church.  So why would we settle for less?

Our guest author is Amy Royall.  She is a junior at Liberty University and an active member of the LU chapter of Concerned Women for America.

Or not.

According to the New York Post, former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey has been denied his request to join the priesthood of the Episcopal Church.  McGreevey, you might remember, resigned as governor in 2004, declaring himself to be a “gay American.”  After leaving public office, McGreevey also left the Catholic Church and enrolled at General Theological Seminary in Manhattan to earn a master’s in divinity.  He and his partner, real estate agent Mark O’Donnell, live together openly in Plainfield, New Jersey.    

But none of that is at issue.  Apparently, the church that has proudly embraced, ordained, and promoted homosexuals was “bothered” by the former governor’s “bitter divorce” from Dina Matos McGreevey.  Apparently, divorce itself is not a problem for the Episcopalian Church –– Gene Robinson, both divorced and homosexual, was appointed a bishop.  Ah, but McGreevey’s divorce was “bitter.”  Hence the rejection. … over a “bitter” divorce. … not divorce per se and certainly not unnatural, dangerously unhealthy sex preferences. 

Hey, a church has to have some standards!

The New York Times recently published an article noting the significant increase of divorce in rural America.  Their polls revealed that, for the first time in history, rural Americans are “just as likely to be divorced as city dwellers.”

The rural Americans of Sioux County, Iowa, ponder the causes of this cultural shift in their town and cite education, class, and women in the workforce as reasons for the changes in values and the town’s culture.

As county residents told their stories and viewpoints, higher education was blamed for one couple’s rift and eventual separation.  Upon receiving more education than her husband, a wife claimed, “I grew more confident.  We were totally different people.”

As that attitude — we became totally different people than we were when we married — justifies divorce, we must understand that it has huge ramifications not only for the individual but for families and society as well.  Education itself is not the root of divorce, of course; it is simply a means by which women feel more empowered and confident.  As wives become more self-sufficient (and sadly, therefore, sometimes become overly assertive, opinionated, and have less respect for their mates), many husbands, who traditionally have been the provider and the head of the household, are sometimes at a loss about their role and how to be the leader of the family, thus leading to divorce.

Maria Kefalas, a sociology professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia told the New York Times, “It has hit the whitest, most married, most idyllic heart of America — Iowa.  The cultural narrative about marriage — you get a job, you marry your sweetheart, you buy a house, you educate your kids — has been torn to shreds.”

Though overall divorce rates remain relatively stable; they are too high.  The facts surrounding divorce are sobering with “121 million married adults and 26 million divorced people in 2009, compared with about 100 million married and 11 million divorced people in 1980.”

These findings and observations on divorce reflect a dramatic attitude shift: The traditional view of marriage — divorce is not an option, a black-and-white perspective that the commitment is for “better or worse” for a lifetime — has faded to a wide swath of gray, where numerous causes, including “no fault,” can rationalize a divorce.

Click here to view the New York Times article.

Writing in the Southern Baptist Texan, Glenn T. Stanton reports on the popular myth, “Christians divorce at roughly the same rate as the world!”  Not so, claim several sociologists, including W. Bradford Wilcox from the University of Virginia, who directs the National Marriage Project.  The research is clear: those who “seriously practice a traditional religious faith — be it Christian or other — have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.”  The factors that ensure a long and happy marriage are clearly delineated — attend church nearly every week, read the Bible and/or spiritual materials regularly, pray privately and together, take your faith seriously, and live as a serious disciple.

Stanton quotes sociologist Bradley Wright, who found that the divorce rate among those who self-identify as Christian but do not practice their faith is 60 percent, while the rate among those who attend church regularly is only 38 percent.  Wilcox’s research found that church attendees are 35 percent less likely to divorce, compared to nominal churchgoers, who are 20 percent more likely to divorce than secular Americans.

The Oklahoma Marriage Study, led by University of Denver sociologist Scott Stanley, found the positive result of church attendance and active faith held consistent across the variables of income, education, and age at first marriage.  Stanley found, “those who report more frequent attendance at religious services were significantly less likely to have been divorced.”

As Stanton wrote, “Faith does matter and the leading sociologists of family and religion tell us so.”

You can read the entire article at:  http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=34656