SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[Steinlight]

The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture.

Such as?

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible

So a nation should avoid prosperity because it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose?

It should try to avoid crass materialism that comes with wealth, which breeds decadence, creating atomization and nihilism. I don't think there is a way for civilization to avoid this, short of putting less value on perpetual economic growth as the ultimate goal for a society. It seems to be the cycle of civilization, where unbridled prosperity eventually sinks into decadence and to the decline of civilization.

Acceptance of same sex marriage isn't a result of materialism or wealth though. It is a result of marriage becoming removed from procreation, and relationships becoming more transactional(about individual convenience and personal happiness). It is no surprise that a society that embraces single motherhood(40% of children are born out of wedlock) and rampant divorce(50% of marriages end in divorce) is indifferent to sam sex marriage.

Good points. I think major social changes in society such as gay marriage are the result of many other changes that preceded it. The civil rights movement and the feminist movement of the mid 20th century certainly encouraged minority groups such as gays to seek equal protection under the law. Likewise those movements were encouraged by women's suffrage, the labor movement, and freeing of the slaves.

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

 

[Stephanie]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

Me thinks the Senator is a tad confused about the First

Oh wait, it's Tammy Baldwin, she is a fucking moon bat

 

[EverCurious]

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.) The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help. Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.

 

[EverCurious]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

Video didn't load for me, so all I got was the clearly biased opinion piece.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

Video didn't load for me, so all I got was the clearly biased opinion piece.

Loaded for me fine and the article accompanying it explained what she said very well

 

[Steinlight]

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.) The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help. Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

 

[Stephanie]

oh lookie,

SNIP:
Not News: Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes' Gay 'Marriage Case
By Tom Blumer | April 30, 2015 | 12:04 AM EDT

Add the following to the "you will be made to care" stories Erick Erickson at RedState began to recognize several years ago.

Those who think that legalizing same-sex "marriage" won't affect them should have received a wake-up call on Tuesday during arguments at the Supreme Court over inventing a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to have such an arrangement. Most of them didn't get it, because, with only one exception I could find, the establishment press covering the proceedings perfectly understood the gravity of the discussion and its implications — and refused to report it, because doing so would give away the Obama administration's, and the left's, ultimate game plan.

The exception was at the Washington Post, via Sarah Pulliam Bailey at the paper's Acts of Faith blog. Even then, Get Religion's Terry Mattingly reports that Bailey's work didn't make the "ink on paper" edition.

Here's Bailey's coverage of what was arguably the most important question of the day:

Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?


ALL of it here:

- See more at: Not News Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes Gay Marriage Case

 

[EverCurious]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

Video didn't load for me, so all I got was the clearly biased opinion piece.

Loaded for me fine and the article accompanying it explained what she said very well

I've gotten through her response to "did you ever think this was possible 11 years later?" then it cuts off and is no more. Maybe they're having bandwidth issues (or my providers working our 1g upgrade heh) I'll have to try again later.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

Video didn't load for me, so all I got was the clearly biased opinion piece.

Loaded for me fine and the article accompanying it explained what she said very well

I've gotten through her response to "did you ever think this was possible 11 years later?" then it cuts off and is no more. Maybe they're having bandwidth issues (or my providers working our 1g upgrade heh) I'll have to try again later.

I did get some message saying they were checking my connection and it took like 30 secs to load after that

 

[Stephanie]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

Video didn't load for me, so all I got was the clearly biased opinion piece.

Loaded for me fine and the article accompanying it explained what she said very well

I've gotten through her response to "did you ever think this was possible 11 years later?" then it cuts off and is no more. Maybe they're having bandwidth issues (or my providers working our 1g upgrade heh) I'll have to try again later.

I did get some message saying they were checking my connection and it took like 30 secs to load after that

yes that does happen then mine went to the site. I don't know what their problem is

 

[EverCurious]

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.) The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help. Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

 

[EverCurious]

oh lookie,

SNIP:
Not News: Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes' Gay 'Marriage Case
By Tom Blumer | April 30, 2015 | 12:04 AM EDT

Add the following to the "you will be made to care" stories Erick Erickson at RedState began to recognize several years ago.

Those who think that legalizing same-sex "marriage" won't affect them should have received a wake-up call on Tuesday during arguments at the Supreme Court over inventing a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to have such an arrangement. Most of them didn't get it, because, with only one exception I could find, the establishment press covering the proceedings perfectly understood the gravity of the discussion and its implications — and refused to report it, because doing so would give away the Obama administration's, and the left's, ultimate game plan.

The exception was at the Washington Post, via Sarah Pulliam Bailey at the paper's Acts of Faith blog. Even then, Get Religion's Terry Mattingly reports that Bailey's work didn't make the "ink on paper" edition.

Here's Bailey's coverage of what was arguably the most important question of the day:

Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?


ALL of it here:

- See more at: Not News Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes Gay Marriage Case

I'm sorry I just had to lol at the hypocrisy of this statement:

"No one should have a reasonable doubt at this point that the left's goal here is to force compliance and to persecute those who won't."

Sounds way to familiar for some reason...

 

[Faun]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

Video didn't load for me, so all I got was the clearly biased opinion piece.

Loaded for me fine and the article accompanying it explained what she said very well

I've gotten through her response to "did you ever think this was possible 11 years later?" then it cuts off and is no more. Maybe they're having bandwidth issues (or my providers working our 1g upgrade heh) I'll have to try again later.

I did get some message saying they were checking my connection and it took like 30 secs to load after that

yes that does happen then mine went to the site. I don't know what their problem is

Sounds like a virus. Glad I didn't click on a link from you.

 

[EverCurious]

I didn't get a "OMG VIRUS!!!" panic alert from any of my virus protection programs for the part that will load, not that it helps tell the story at all...

 

[Flopper]

Such as?

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible

So a nation should avoid prosperity because it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose?

It should try to avoid crass materialism that comes with wealth, which breeds decadence, creating atomization and nihilism. I don't think there is a way for civilization to avoid this, short of putting less value on perpetual economic growth as the ultimate goal for a society. It seems to be the cycle of civilization, where unbridled prosperity eventually sinks into decadence and to the decline of civilization.

Acceptance of same sex marriage isn't a result of materialism or wealth though. It is a result of marriage becoming removed from procreation, and relationships becoming more transactional(about individual convenience and personal happiness). It is no surprise that a society that embraces single motherhood(40% of children are born out of wedlock) and rampant divorce(50% of marriages end in divorce) is indifferent to sam sex marriage.

Good points. I think major social changes in society such as gay marriage are the result of many other changes that preceded it. The civil rights movement and the feminist movement of the mid 20th century certainly encouraged minority groups such as gays to seek equal protection under the law. Likewise those movements were encouraged by women's suffrage, the labor movement, and freeing of the slaves.

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

Regardless of sex, two good parents are better than one. Parenting is not about sex, something the anti-gay crowd can't seem to understand.

It's not that uncommon for two women with kids to live together in a loving relationship to provide a family with two parents for their kids. In these relationships sex is often not a major component.

 

[Steinlight]

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.) The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help. Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

 

[Steinlight]

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible

So a nation should avoid prosperity because it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose?

It should try to avoid crass materialism that comes with wealth, which breeds decadence, creating atomization and nihilism. I don't think there is a way for civilization to avoid this, short of putting less value on perpetual economic growth as the ultimate goal for a society. It seems to be the cycle of civilization, where unbridled prosperity eventually sinks into decadence and to the decline of civilization.

Acceptance of same sex marriage isn't a result of materialism or wealth though. It is a result of marriage becoming removed from procreation, and relationships becoming more transactional(about individual convenience and personal happiness). It is no surprise that a society that embraces single motherhood(40% of children are born out of wedlock) and rampant divorce(50% of marriages end in divorce) is indifferent to sam sex marriage.

Good points. I think major social changes in society such as gay marriage are the result of many other changes that preceded it. The civil rights movement and the feminist movement of the mid 20th century certainly encouraged minority groups such as gays to seek equal protection under the law. Likewise those movements were encouraged by women's suffrage, the labor movement, and freeing of the slaves.

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

Regardless of sex, two good parents are better than one. Parenting is not about sex, something the anti-gay crowd can't seem to understand.

It's not that uncommon for two women with kids to live together in a loving relationship to provide a family with two parents for their kids. In these relationships sex is often not a major component.

I think there would be many that disagree with your position, that a two parent household is by default a better environment for a child than a single parent. That is a moderate to conservative position that is disputed by many sectors of the current Establishment which is liberal. I agree that two parents is a better situation by default, but just keep in mind that is a right of center position in an overton window that is consistently shifting to the left.

I would say to you that you don't seem to understand the differences between the sexes, and that children pick up social cues and an understanding of gender relations from their mother and father. They are definitely socially retarded in this aspect. Not to say they can't learn, but they are certainly at a disadvantage to their peers with a father and mother. And no, a feminine man or masculine woman cannot replicate the experience of mother or father.

I wouldn't really be holding up the example of single women rooming together as a shining example of household stability. Children that grow up without a father in the home are far more likely to be a victim of abuse, of the single mother or the boyfriend.

 

[EverCurious]

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

I disagree with your correlation, do you have evidence of it?

What I see is a loss of personal responsibility due to the lack of parental oversight. However, it's not because of welfare, but because of the two parent working requirement that became established after the feminist movement. Women were falling all over themselves to get to work and subsequently chose their careers over raising their kids, this led to an increase of household income and an increase in costs. My mother chose her career over raising me, fuck I can't even boil water. I was left to tend to myself my entire childhood, luckily I, and my friends, were total geek/nerds and I thus spent my "trouble" years playing D&D and learning to program computers, rather than on the streets causing trouble*. There also were no gangs to "ease my boredom" while sucking me into a criminal culture instead.

(*We did smoke pot at weekend parties, but it was legal and frankly pot just made us debate politics and shit. Not like cocaine and the shit you have in the lower 48. - I'll also note that I wasn't even aware my parents /might/ have a problem with me smoking pot, until they officially made it illegal in like 1992, and my mother made the comment that she was glad I never did that stuff when it came on the news. I laughed silently and wandered off; I'd quit some years before it was made illegal because it wasn't worth my time, and made programming /really/ hard to concentrate on...)

 

[Flopper]

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.) The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help. Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center