When in 1992 Dan Quayle, then Vice-President of the USA, criticized a popular TV character, Murphy Brown, played by actress Candice Bergen, for choosing to become an unwed mother, he brought upon himself the wrath of the entire liberal establishment. Far from condemning Murphy Brown for her decision to bear a child out of wedlock, millions of TV viewers admired her for her courage. Faced with an accidental pregnancy and an irresponsible lover, she agonized over her plight and, after much mental anguish, she made the decision to have the baby and raise it by herself. On the night Murphy gave birth to her child on prime-time TV, 35 million North Americans tuned in and most cheered approvingly. The show did not stir significant protest and lost not a single advertiser. One prominent person, however, had the courage to speak up: Vice President Quayle. He thought the show promoted single parenthood and undermined the traditional two-parent family structure which in his view is the normal, divinely-ordained framework for raising children. His criticism was aimed at the increasing number of women who choose single parenthood as the preferred method of child-rearing. This trend, he warned, if it continues, will have disastrous consequences for the nation's children.

The Vice-President was viciously attacked by the media for daring to denounce single parenthood and for suggesting that the traditional family was the only legitimate environment for children to be born and raised.

This violent reaction shows how far our society has departed from Biblical norms and values. With respect to the family, many people actually believe, not only that the traditional family is on its way out, but that this is a good thing! Increasingly, the media depict the married two-parent family as part of the problem rather than the solution to society's woes. The married-parent family, according to some sociologists, often harbours terrible secrets of abuse, violence and incest. As many as 96% of American families, we are told, are dysfunctional and children growing up in such households are more likely to have unhappy marriage relationships themselves than those nurtured by a single parent.

So instead of lamenting the demise of the traditional family, the "experts" are actually welcoming it as a positive development which in their view will prove to be of great benefit to our children.

What we are seeing today is the culmination of a process started in the mid sixties and which gained momentum in the seventies and eighties and which today seems to be enjoying "politically correct" status. Until that time most people believed that the only proper environment for children was a two-parent family. Divorce was generally regarded as a tragedy, not only for the spouses involved, but especially because of the harm done to their children. Consequently, the advice given to partners in an unhappy marriage was to make every effort to stay together for the sake of the children. Those who were unable or unwilling to "stick it out" often were subject to either pity or disapproval from loved ones and friends and bore the social stigma of being "a divorced person."

By the mid-1970's, however, a majority of Americans rejected that view and this shift in thinking was reflected in advice offered by marriage counsellors. Whereas a book on divorce published in the mid-1940's still asserted that "children are entitled to the affection and association of two parents, not one," a similar book written thirty years later claimed "that a two-parent home is not the only emotional structure within which a child can be happy and healthy," and that "parents who take care of themselves will be best able to take care of the children." Not surprisingly, it was during that same period (the mid-70's) that the long-standing taboo against out-of-wedlock childbirth also un­derwent a radical revision. A poll taken at the time revealed that three fourths of Americans believed that it was not morally wrong for a woman to have a child outside marriage.

With such a drastic shift away from child well-being to adult well-being, it was to be expected that divorce and non-marital birth became not only more and more acceptable, but were even recommended as positive steps towards mental health.

Today many people see divorce as an escape from a troubled and abusive relationship. Painful and distressing as it may be to go through the process of separation, at the end of the emotional turmoil, not to mention custody battles over children and financial disputes, lies the promise of freedom and the chance of a "fresh start." For many women single parenthood seems to offer the best of both worlds: avoiding marriage to the wrong man while yet enjoying the pleasures of motherhood.

But what about the children? Well, everyone will admit that divorce is quite a harrowing experience for children. There is usually some pain experienced when someone so dear to a child as a father or mother steps out of his or her life. That takes some adjustment, naturally, but eventually all children will get over it and the experience may even be good for them in the long run. The same is true of single-parent children or children brought up by one or more step-parents. In fact, step-parenthood is seen by many as providing a more extensive kinship network than the nuclear family, as it supposedly envelops children in a "web of warm and supportive relationships."

This is becoming the conventional wisdom on this subject, a "wisdom" relentlessly being promoted by TV shows which rarely portray a normal two-parent family situation, woman's magazines and, yes, even by greeting-cards industries as Hallmark which today offers a line of cards commemorating divorce and single-parenthood as liberating experiences. "Think of your former marriage as a record album," says one card. "It was full of music both happy and sad. But what's important now is…YOU! the recently released HOT, NEW, SINGLE! You're going to be at the TOP OF THE CHARTS!" Another card reads: "Getting divorced can be very healthy! Watch how it improves your circulation! best of luck!"

But what are the facts? Recent studies show that the above rosy picture of happy divorcees and well-adjusted children of single-and step-parents is a complete myth. Divorce is not nearly the liberating experience, sociologists would have us believe. While in some cases remarriage may mark an improvement over the failed one, there are always scars that remain. As for single- and step-parenthood, the evidence indicates that for most people it is a negative, rather than positive experience. For example, one of the leading assumptions of feminists has been that it is economically viable because of available government support.

The fact is, however, that the vast majority of single mothers in the U.S. and Canada are having a rough time financially. Divorce almost always brings a decline in the standard of living for the mother and children, and her economic problems are likely to be permanent rather than brief, as many single mothers never marry or remarry.

But traumatic as single-parenthood is for most mothers, the worst effects of it are experienced by their children. With mother working, often at night, with babysitters coming and going and boyfriends moving in and out, children are bound to suffer. Children are very conservative creatures. They like things to stay the same. Especially when it comes to family relations, friends, neighbourhoods and schools, children tend to be set in their ways. So when a family breaks up, the resulting changes are almost al­ways devastating for them. Not only is there the pain of dad or mom leaving, but often the divorce or separation means moving to another house or apartment in a different part of town and having to at­tend a different school. That's why it is not only children of lower-class families who suffer from divorce, but also those raised in affluent circumstances are negatively affected by it. Studies show that divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth are affecting middle and upper-class children just as much.

According to Judith Wallerstein, one of the pioneers in research on the long-term psychological impact of family disruption on children, the evidence is overwhelming that almost all children suffer greatly as a result of being raised by one instead of two parents. In her book, Second Chan­ces: Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce (1989) she reports that when she and her colleagues set out in 1971 to conduct clinical interviews with 131 children from the San Francisco area, they thought they were embarking on a short-term study. Most experts at the time believed that divorce was like a bad cold. There was a phase of acute discomfort, and then a short recovery phase. Yet when Wallerstein interviewed these children again the following year, she discovered to her amazement that they had not recovered at all; in fact they were feeling worse. Subsequent interviews after five, ten and fifteen years only confirmed her findings. Divorce caused moderate to severe depressions in a third of the children studied, aimlessness and underachievement in a significant number of teenagers, while many young adults experienced great difficulties in establishing strong love relationships.

The news that children did not "get over" divorce was not welcome at the time. Wallerstein recalls getting angry let­ters from therapists, parents and lawyers insisting that her conclusions were all wrong. Children were much better off being released from an unhappy marriage and divorce was a liberating experience and that was that. But the new research completely overturned this optimistic view. As Wallerstein puts it:

"Divorce is deceptive. Legally it is a single event, but psychologically it is a chain, sometimes a never-ending chain-of-events, relocations, and radically shifting relationships strung through time, a process that forever changes the lives of the people involved."

Family disruption, however, does not only affect individual children and families. Its impact is far broader. In fact it is the primary cause of most of our current social problems such as poverty, crime, im­morality, violence and declining school performance.

In light of the results of these recent studies it is surprising that the news media continue to perpetuate the myth that divorce and single-parenthood are basically good and acceptable alternative lifestyles. What accounts for this refusal to face the facts? Some scholars point to the American spirit of freedom and individual choice as a factor. Just as America broke away from the oppressive regime of Great Britain in the eighteenth century, so many of its freedom loving citizens today seek to escape from the "tyranny" of the traditional or nuclear family. The family represents the corrupt past; it is seen as an institution guilty of the abuse of power and the suppression of individual rights. Breaking up the family, therefore, is like breaking away from Old World tyranny. Liberated from the bonds of the family with its patriarchal authority structure, the individual, especially the wife, but also the (frequently abused) children can achieve inde­pendence and experience a new birth of freedom.

At first glance this theory seems far fetched, but upon further reflection it offers some interesting insights. It is remarkable that everybody today talks about personal freedoms and individual rights: freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be gay or to have an abortion, the right to sue, equal rights for women and even the right of children to divorce their parents!

As William Galston, a political philosopher at the University of Maryland, explains:

The founding of the United States set in motion a new political order based to an unprecedented degree on in­dividual rights, personal choice, and egalitarian relationships. Since then these values have spread beyond their original domain of political relationships to define social relationships as well. During the past twenty-five years these values have had a particular impact on marriage and the family.

What we are seeing today is that political principles of individual rights and choice are increasingly shaping our understanding of family commitments and solidarity. Family relationships are no longer viewed as permanent and binding but as voluntary and terminable. So long as these relationships are seen as conducive to individual happiness they are valued, but where this goal is not reached the institution loses its meaning and is discarded in favour of some alternative relationship which is thought to serve this objective better.

It cannot be denied that this modern view of marriage and the family has brought some benefits. Many wives today enjoy relationships with their husbands that in some ways are better than those which obtained in the past. Victorian type marriages where the husband was the boss and the wife had nothing to say are disappearing and few of us would regret this. And that some divorcees feel liberated after suffering years of abuse, who can fault them for that?

But whatever advantages a divorce or separation may bring to a husband or wife, at least temporarily, there are none for the children. Because they are biologically and developmentally immature, children remain needy dependents for years and cannot express their choices or act as negotiators in family decisions, even those that most affect their own interests.

About a century and a half ago Alexis de Tocqueville, a French philosopher and statesman who made an extensive tour of America, a country he greatly admired, made a very astute observation. He said that an individualistic society like the United States depends for its existence on a communitarian institution like the family. The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entire­ly by democratic principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues re­quired by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of inde­pendence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized.

Application: We in North America take it for granted that to succeed in life we need independence, freedom, equal opportunity, the right to work and conditions favourable to exercise all of the above. We assume that most of us will be able to work, take care of ourselves and our families, think for ourselves and inculcate the same traits of independence and initiative in our children. Our society and our nation depend on families to teach every succeeding generation of citizens to do these things.

But this will only work if our families are healthy and function as they are meant to function, as God intended it. Today we face for the first time in history the grave danger that such healthy, well functioning families are disappearing with all the disastrous consequences this will have for society. The erosion of the two-parent family undermines the capacity of families to impart this essential knowledge. Children of long-term welfare-dependent single parents are far more likely than others to be dependent themselves. Similarly, the children in disrupted families have a much harder time forging bonds of trust with others and passing on the torch to their offspring. This, in turn, will lead to greater dependence on the resources of the state (e.g., day-care and government-controlled education).

"Dan Quayle was right," writes Barbara Dafoe Whitehead in an article in Atlantic Monthly (April 1993), an article from which I have borrowed extensively for this editorial. Ms. Whitehead is one of a grow­ing number of social scientists who are ringing the alarm bell so Americans (and Canadians) may wake up and face some very unpleasant facts. None of her conclusions will surprise us. I'm sure that as you read this editorial you said to yourself: I've known this all along. Of course, for we who have grown up with the Bible don't need to be told that the two-parent family is the key to a healthy society. Let us, however, be sure never to forget this! May especially our young people who are in danger of being influenced by the secular, humanistic God-hating and Bible rejecting environment in which they are growing up, stand firm in defense of the family as ordained by God. What our society needs, more than anything, is to see young Christians building God-centred and God-governed homes in which both father and mother love and obey the Lord and seek to bring up children for the Lord and His service as well as for the good of society and the nation.