family

You are currently browsing articles tagged family.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Especially if you came from Mormon Archipelago as it only includes my major article posts.
Thanks for visiting!

What are these parents thinking?

For reasons likely to puzzle baby name experts around the world, American parents have become infatuated by names, particularly for their sons, that rhyme with the word “maiden.” These names for boys include: Jayden (No. 18); Aiden (No. 27); Aidan (No. 54); Jaden (No. 76); Caden (No. 92); Kaden (No. 98); Ayden (No.102); Braden (No.156); Cayden (No.175); Jaiden (No.191); Kaiden (No. 220); Aden (No. 264); Caiden (No. 286); Braeden (No. 325); Braydon (No. 361); Jaydon (No. 415); Jadon (No. 423); Braiden (No. 529); Zayden (No. 588); Jaeden (No. 593); Aydan (No. 598); Bradyn (No. 629); Kadin (No. 657); Jadyn (No. 696); Kaeden (No. 701); Jaydin (No. 757); Braedon (No. 805); Aidyn (No. 818); Haiden (No. 820); Jaidyn (No. 841); Kadyn (No. 878); Jaydan (No. 887); Raiden (No. 931); and Adin (No. 983). This startling trend was present, but less pronounced, with girls names: Jayden (No. 172); Jadyn (No. 319); Jaden (No. 335); Jaiden (No. 429); Kayden (No. 507); and Jaidyn (No. 561). Social Security spokesman Mark Lassiter indicated that the agency would resist any legislative efforts to standardize the spelling of these names.

It’s an interesting and amusing press release, especially coming from a government agency.

[via The Corner]

27 May 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

Marriott meets with anti-porn family groups:

“Marriott told us they are about to unveil a new chain of hotels called Nickelodeon, aimed at families, where there will be no pornography,” Minnery said. “We thanked them for that and we praised them for that. We’d like to proclaim from the rooftops steps in the right direction. We’d rather be their friend than their enemy.”

Marriott says it will offer a formal response by July 1.

15 May 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

LDS Church statement on California gay marriage decision:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Today’s California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate.

15 May 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

Same-sex marriage is coming to California.

In a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court opinion finds [PDF]

limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

The LDS Church took part in arguments in hopes of preventing this kind of decision.

So goes the rest of the country? It will be interesting to see how this affects the presidential campaign. While all remaining candidates officially oppose same-sex marriage, the introduction of a potentially damaging wedge issue can’t help Democrats.

On the other hand, Sen. McCain opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment and has not been eager to engage the issue. While McCain may be lukewarm, already flailing Republicans are at risk of overeaching while voters are more concerned about the war and economy.

It is expected that there will be a November ballot initiative (again) to amend the state constition and overule today’s decision.

UPDATE: Gov. Schwarzenegger approves of the ruling:

“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said within minutes of the ruling. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”


Advertisers: Men Are Not Idiots” A message that is sadly necessary.

While the advertising industry’s negative depiction of fathers certainly isn’t the cause of fatherlessness, it is part of the problem. In a TV culture like ours, the fact that the only fathers one can see on TV are buffoonish (at best) does influence young people’s perceptions of fathers.

For young men, it makes it less likely they’ll aspire to be fathers, see their own value as fathers or, as Mr. Pitts explains, want to do the “hard but crucial work of being Dad.” For young women, it means they’ll be more likely to be misled into thinking that their children’s fathers aren’t important, that divorce or separation from them is no big deal, or that they should, as is the increasing trend, simply dispense with dad altogether and have children on their own.

16 April 2008 by David H. Sundwall | 3 comments

China’s New Empty Nest and rethinking the meaning of family in China:

Family is the bedrock of Chinese society, at least in theory. But three decades of gut-wrenching change are testing those old bonds. More kids than ever are leaving their hometowns—even the country—in search of jobs. This generation is the first to grow up under the one-child policy, rolled out in 1979. They are “more likely to be spoiled and self-centered,” says demographics expert Cai Feng. “As adults, children of this generation lack the inclination to support their parents.” Forty-two percent of Chinese families in 2005 consisted of an old couple living alone, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.

It’s amazing how relatively quickly a government policy can reshape family behavior (see also Spain’s quickie and temporary divorces). 

In the aftermath of the one-child policy, more Chinese prefer daughters as they are more loyal (an improvement) while elderly couples are adopting middle-aged “children” to provide them the company they miss with their own (”We’re not looking for a maid, but someone to be with us until we’re dead”). 

25 March 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

Parents in Spain are getting divorced “for the children” in response to a combination of easy, no-fault divorce, high-demand for elementary school placements, and school preferences for children of divorced families.

Apparently parents have caught on to the incentives involved: Some parents are filing for divorce in January and February (the legal costs of a divorce are very low), with the divorce becoming final in the summer, so that their kids then acquire top priority for entry into a desirable elementary school. The parents re-marry shortly after the child is safely in a desirable school in September; and once in a school a child has the right to remain there.

[via IMAPP]

24 March 2008 by David H. Sundwall | 1 comment

The decline of faith’s link to the decline of families or Europe’s “slow-motion suicide.”

[C]hildren are expensive. They require you to sacrifice your time and your interests and your own comfort. If your highest good is pleasure, if your highest good is a sophisticated life, then children get in the way. Why would you spend so much money and so much energy on children if your highest good is simply material well-being? That’s sort of the spiritual dimension of the problem.

13 March 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

CoolestFamilyEver on “Outsourcing The Family“:

We have to be careful how much we delegate to others, however. It seems that these days, we expect others to take care of far too many things that were once the domain of the family. We send our children to schools expecting them to learn without our help. We send them to church to learn positive morals and good social behavior without reinforcing those values at home. Some families even unnecessarily delegate the basic task of spending time with our children to daycare centers and caretakers.

20 February 2008 by David H. Sundwall | 2 comments

On March 4, the California Supreme Court will hear a challenge to state law that upholds traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The Church has joined with other churches in filing a friend of the court brief asking the court to uphold the current law

On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as “the lifeblood of community, society and the state” and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create “deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution.”

On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state’s stamp of approval on “the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry.”

The brief on behalf of the Church and its allies was written by Kenneth Starr (of Clinton impeachment fame) and argues that, regardless of religion, traditional marriage is essential for a healthy society.

“We have seen at close range the enormous benefits that traditional male-female marriage imparts,” he wrote. “We have also witnessed the substantial adverse consequences for children that often flow from alternative household arrangements.”

The “inescapable truth,” Starr said, is that “children need their mothers and fathers, and that society needs mothers and fathers to raise their children.”

His clients’ argument is not based on their religious beliefs, he said, but on “historical and sociological facts about what marriage has always been across time and cultures,” and on the doctrine that courts must let the people and their representatives decide such fundamental questions.

The brief can be found at the court’s website here [PDF]. It’s nice to see that although there were 50 some briefs files, the Church was joined by like-minded Catholics, Evangelicals, and Jews.

Also, Evergreen International, an LDS-supportive group for dealing with same-sex attraction filed a separate brief with similar organizations affiliated with other denominations [PDF]. 

Opponents of the California law claim that same-sex marriage has been around much longer than believed and that the law violates religious freedom.  The brief for religious organizations joined in opposing the law can be found here [PDF].  Despite the SF Chronicle’s highlighting that “dissident groups of Mormons” signed on to the opposing brief, I only recognized one Mormon-affiliated group (Affirmation) among the long list of religious organizations.

The CA Supreme Court has a special page for the case, In re Marriage Cases, with all the briefs and filings.

[edited for clarity, I hope]


Explanation on the Mormon emphasis on family to the very end.

Hinckley’s funeral was an unlikely but impressive mix of the sacramental and the mundane, in large part because it observed Mormonism’s custom that families bury their dead. The family designs the memorial program, participates actively in it, and performs the ordinances that send their loved ones off to the next life. . .

Hinckley’s sons and daughters with their spouses led the casket out of the hall and between an honor guard of church authorities. Cameras followed the mourners, focusing on his five children, twenty-five grandchildren and sixty-two great-grandchildren who formed the cortege to the cemetery. There, possibly most surprisingly, the eldest son dedicated the grave without fanfare. Notwithstanding the presence of the entire church hierarchy, the son stepped forward to pronounce: “By the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood, I dedicate this grave for the remains of Gordon B. Hinckley, until such time as thou shall call him forth.” Then, church leaders were “dismissed,” as Monson put it. As the church teaches is the case in the afterlife, only the family remained.

Families are, as Latter-day Saints like to say, forever. What they don’t say is that the church is not forever. It is only the instrument for endowing families with the right and duty to mediate the gifts of the gospel to their members, thereby sealing the willing among them as families in the life to come. This was Hinckley’s message as a prophet. As he would have it and as the best Mormon funerals do, his message was embodied and enacted by his family who blessed him in death, no less than in life. This is how the Latter-day Saints, at least, bury a prophet.

[via T&S]

7 February 2008 by David H. Sundwall | 2 comments

Mormon nannies’ recommendations are hard to beat“:

“All the LDS nannies have to have a recommendation from their bishop and they are strict about who they recommend,” said Kari Shafer, the non-Mormon owner of Your Child’s Nanny, an agency that pairs caregivers and families.

Shafer said 90 percent of the requests for LDS nannies come from non-Mormon families and have helped boost traffic on the company’s Web site, yourchildsnanny.com.

In the DC area, Mormon nannies have been popular too. But I’ve never heard of getting a Bishop’s recommendation?!? Does that need to be renewed? Some friends of mine have had good experiences being a nanny but it always struck me as counter to the Church’s teachings, such as the Proclamation.

27 December 2007 by David H. Sundwall | 8 comments

The Salt Lake Tribune does its best to keep stoking the controversy by revisiting the bloggernacle furor over President Beck’s talk.  And tries its darndest to rebut her.   Usuallly newspapers ignore blogs.  UPDATE:  Good commentary at Messenger and Advocate.

11 October 2007 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

Here’s a twist, a British columnist suggests looking to Utah as a model for dealing with the UK’s alcohol problem. The usual trope is that Utah has byzantine and oppresive alcohol regulations where Europe is much more progressive and trouble free.  During the 2002 Olympics, Mayor Rocky Anderson biggest concern seemed to be showing that not everyone in the state was as “uptight” and took reporters bar hopping.

And while government officials in Russia are asking people to take a day off and make babies, the U.S. Census just announced that Utah has the highest rate of married couples with children in the U.S.


Salt Lake City Mayor, Rocky Anderson, wrote an editorial yesterday expressing concern that one of the candidates running to replace him wouldn’t be able to be both a good mayor and mother.   Jenny Wilson, Anderson wrote, “would either not be able to spend much time with her children, ages 2 and 5, or put in the time necessary to fulfill the duties of mayor.”

As disagreeable as I often find Anderson, he makes a legitimate point that few people, conservative (disappointingly) or liberal, seem to care about.   The New York Times had a very interesting article a few weeks ago on young children of the current presidential candidates.  And it’s not just John Edwards.

No fewer than five presidential contenders — Mr. Edwards, Senators Christopher J. Dodd, Sam Brownback and Barack Obama, and the almost-candidate Fred D. Thompson — have children under 10, a circumstance historians say has no recent precedent.  

I was surprised how many 2008 candidates had small children, especially Dodd (age 63, with two girls, six and two), Brownback (50, with two nine year olds) , and Thompson (65, with a four year old and nine month old!).  (Of course, this raises another issue of some of these men who start new families so late in their lives).

One gets understandably squeamish when holding politician’s families up to scrutiny.  It’s a hopeless paradox where most want to respect the private lives of politicians and their families, but we can’t help but take a hard look at how their familes have fared.  Politicians know that and deftly flaunt their families as best as they can without exposing them to serious scrutiny.  The difference is that while Mitt Romney’s work as a father is mostly done with five grown sons.  John Edwards has run for president twice during his son’s seven years of life.

I care about family values and when they are bandied about by politicians, its inescapable that I look to their own families to get some measure of their sincerity.   I’m not a one issue voter but it hurts a candidate’s credibility if their words are out if step with their lives.  And it makes me question their judgment that they consider themselves so important that only they can lead the country right now, while leaving their most important time with their children mostly to others. 

Children can’t elect new parents, and candidates can wait a few years for the next election.  Why the rush?