Good article addressing the trend in the lower and lower-middle classes to not marry and develop functional, stable homes, benefiting children and their long term well being.

If we as a nation are going to turn this trend around, can we identify the factors that have caused the weakening of this vital institution?

Is it the decreasing role of religion and associated teachings about our duty to marry and create stable family units? Is there more emphasis in our schools for safe sex experimentation and multiple sexual behaviors than for marriage and happy homes? What about our entertainment and news industries, do we see an emphasis there any different than what we see disseminated in our schools? What of the government, both at a federal and state level, is there emphasis there on marriage and strong families, or on safe sex and abortion?

Where in our cultural landscape should we begin to rebuild the ancient institution of marriage for our nation? It seems we don't have to look to far, and it will require clearing away some garbage first.

As one who has walked in "Grandmother-to-be's" shoes, I can assure her that, unless she lives in an Amish community, her friends won't think anything of the situation. They’ll likely shrug and go right on as if this was normal. After all, it pretty much is, statistically, anyway. Our society has become completely inured of such arrangements so that virtually everyone, while not exactly approving, feels that one-parent child-rearing, with all of its attendant difficulties, comes along with the rest of the brave new world that we older folks find so utterly repellent.

My advice to GTB is enjoy the blessing of the grandchild and try to be involved in his or her life to the extent possible. That kid is going to need all the loving support it can get. It is not the child’s fault that its parents are irresponsible, and load-sharing on the parts of grandparents (not always fun) is the order of things nowadays.

I don’t pretend to know where this will all end up, society-wise, but it cannot be wrong to love and welcome that child with all you’ve got.

C'mon Mona,

The liberal way has always been to reward 'misguided behavior'.

There's always abortion on demand or even better, a free government check and housing can come with the blessed event, except of course if you're married or even if the father is still in the picture.

Bad for the baby? Please.

Good for the democrats for bolstering a constituency.

If these two irresponsible cohabitants are liberal, the baby's chances of survival are slim. Abortion is likely, the parenst split up, over some emotional excuse, contract aids, turn gay, and watch episodes of Opera while collecting welfare. Then they vote themselve more of grandma's money and the colapse of America by voting Democrat. Liberals love the stupid ignorant useful idiots they have indoctrinated in their schools of useless degrees.

If we wish to return to a society based on nuclear families, with one man and one women and their mutual children, let us do so - with EVERYTHING that entails.

No-fault divorce? Has to go.

Spousal support to the person who initiated the divorce? No way.

Presumptive mother custody of minor children? Nope.

State support for unwed mothers? Forget it.

The largely fraudulent "abuse" industry? De-fund it.

Affirmative action for women? Scrap it.

Laws that promote misandry? Repeal them all.

Requiring a DNA match before a man can be named on a birth certificate or forced to pay child support? Let's have that.

Allowing women to have unilateral choice over abortion. (If it's Her body: Her Choice, it also has to be Her Responsibility. If he gets the bill, he deserves a say.)

Let's stop allowing marriage to be a mine-field for young men. Women like Mona want men to abide by the old rules ("Marriage 1.0"), while women get the privileges of it's monstrous feminist offspring ("Marriage 2.0").

Want to promote marriage? I'm all for that. But let's FIX IT FIRST.

I wouldn't be so sure of cause and effect of some of the statistics mentioned. 1) "The illegitimacy rate among women with college educations, while it has tripled since 1960, is still only about 8 percent. " Perhaps because most unmarried girls who get pregnant have to drop out of school and never graduate. By the time they graduate they are re older with a better sense of responsibility and more likely to be already married. 2)"Virtually all -- 92 percent -- of children whose families make over $75,000 per year are living with both parents." Again, perhaps two parent families make more money because there are two of them to share duties, I don't think the parents are together because they have higher incomes, they have higher incomes because they are together. 3) "Only about 20 percent of kids in families earning under $15,000 live with both parents." Most likely these low income families have the mother as the sole wage earner. Since she is not very likely to have completed her education, she is going to make less. Also, with the responsibilities that come with being a single parent, it's unlikely that she will ever get a degree. . . . . There is a lot more to be said about the situation such as the grandparents having to raise the children or that the unwed mother will go on welfare which can go on for generations. . . . We need to be teaching morals and abstinance.

Let me put it this way-

Democraps PAY youngs mothers NOT to marry.

They want to keep them dependant and stupid. That's how they get votes.

You dig?

"... two parents create stability, financial security and the social structure to optimize the chances of rearing happy, healthy and productive new citizens."

" The failure to form families is devastating our schools, exacerbating inequality and diminishing happiness on a grand scale."

"The failure to marry on the part of the lower and lower-middle classes---not the tax code, Wall Street or competition from China---is what is aggravating inequality in America."

WORTH REPEATING! Thank you, Ms. Charen.