A report by the Marriage Foundation, the think-tank set up by the High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge, concludes that there is “no evidence whatsoever” that recession either increases or decreases the incidence of divorce overall.
The most recent divorce figures from the Office for National Statistics, published in December, showing a 1.7 per cent fall for the year 2011 were greeted with surprise by some law firms which had been predicting a rise.
Several explained that they are still bracing themselves for a post-recession surge in divorces when economic recovery arrives pointing to evidence that many unhappy couples are putting off the split until their assets rise in value.
But a five per cent rise the previous year also took commentators by surprise, promoting the ONS to remark that it was simply “too early to say” whether there is a link between recession and break-up.
But after analysing divorce patterns during years of recession and strong economic growth, the report concludes that there is no particular connection either way.
Written by John Bingham. To read the full article, click here. For more information on family law attorneys, visit our website http://www.jwbrookslaw.com
A great many of our fellow citizens see demands for homosexual marriage as just one more step in the democratic struggle against injustice and discrimination, a continuation of the fight against racism. It is in the name of equality, of open-mindedness, of being progressive and right-thinking that we are asked to accept this challenge to the foundations of our society. It seems, moreover, on the basis of public opinion polls, that this challenge is already accepted by a majority of our fellow citizens and thus the question of its establishment as a matter of law has not provoked a debate worthy of the momentous issues at stake.
I believe, on the contrary, that it is a matter of the greatest importance to make clear the true implications of the negation of sexual difference and to debate publicly what is at stake rather than falling back on principles, such as equality, that flatter those who set themselves up as their standard bearers, even though the way these principles are invoked to justify the homosexual-marriage agenda does not stand up to critical scrutiny. This subject deserves better than the court of political correctness, whose authority, advocates of homosexual marriage hope, will prevail until the law is voted on—a tribunal they defend by means of disqualifying caricatures against anyone who dares to question their project and their motives.
Written by Gilles Bernheim. To read the full article, click here. For more information on family law attorneys, visit our website http://www.jwbrookslaw.com
EDITORS NOTE: In lieu of the Champion’s weekly “From the Desk” article, we present a debate on the topic of same-sex marriage. Along with the recent Supreme Court deliberation of the Defense of Marriage Act has come credible arguments from both sides. Though both of this article’s contributors are members of the Champion staff, the views presented are solely their own and do not reflect the official viewpoint of the newspaper or Liberty University itself.
Christians are called to love, not to judge
With the recent news that two same-sex marriage cases made it to the Supreme Court, people have been angrily voicing their opinions on both sides of the debate.
As a Bible-believing Christian, I feel much pressure from my conservative friends to begin protesting against the “atrocity” of homosexual marriage.
However, as an independent thinker, my mind leads me elsewhere.
I support same-sex marriage. While this notion might get me shunned in certain circles that would otherwise welcome me with open arms, I stand firm in my opinion.
Before you gather your pitchforks and quote the Bible, let me explain.
Believing that homosexuality is correct and allowing two people to sign a contract claiming that they will not separate are two different matters.
Written by Kyle Harvey, Tabitha Cassidy. To read the full article, click here. For more information on family law attorneys, visit our website http://www.jwbrookslaw.com
The family is not a static institution. In recent decades, marriage rates have fallen, divorce rates have risen, and the defining characteristics of mar- riage have changed. The economic approach to the family seeks to explain these trends by reference to models that can also explain how and why families form. Gary Becker’s (1981) Treatise on the Family proposed a theory based on “production complementarities,” in which husband and wife specialize in the market and domestic spheres, respectively. Production complementarities also arise in the production and rearing of one’s own children. However, production complementarities—at least as initially described—are decreasingly central to mod- ern family life. Increased longevity and declining fertility mean that most of one’s adult life is spent without one’s own children in the household. Also, the rise in marital formation at older ages, including remarriage, means that many families form with no intention of producing children. Moreover, increases in female labor force participation suggest that household specialization has either declined or, at least taken on a different meaning.
These changes have come about as what is produced in the home has been dramatically altered both by the emergence of labor-saving technology in the home and by the development of service industries that allow much of what was once provided by specialized homemakers to be purchased in the market. The availability of birth control and abortion has affected the potential consequences of sex both in and out of marriage, while changes in divorce laws have altered the terms of the marital bargain. These forces also have important feedback effects, changing the pool of marriageable singles across the age distribution, thereby affecting search, marriage, remarriage, and the extent of “churning” in the marriage market.
Written by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. To read the full article, click here.