Child’s Future Requires Father’s Presence

Jonathan Rauch’s May 29 commentary, “The National Divide Centers on ‘I Do,’ ” describing the importance for a child’s future success of his or her parents’ marriage, is both profoundly correct and misses the point. More important than race or income, Rauch argues, are the marriage vows of a child’s parents; he cites a vast empirical literature that supports this result.

There is no doubt but that this conclusion is what these studies show. Unfortunately, Rauch, along with many others, stops there and does not ask the next question, which is, what is it about marriage that is so important for a child’s future development?

The answer, of course, is that marriage represents the ancient institution that binds a father to his children. And it is the father’s presence rather than merely the marriage of the parents that leads to the beneficial results. My own research demonstrates that it is the father’s presence that is so important, and marriage is simply a proxy for this more essential factor.

William S. Comanor

Professor of Economics

UC Santa Barbara

“Liberals and many moderates believe that marriage is a good thing,” Rauch wrote. I wish that were true.

Among practitioners of political correctness, marriage is not a good thing. Feminists hold that marriage, while good for men, is bad for women.

Social services are dominated by feminists, and they continually try to break up marriages among those in their charge. That marriage is an exception rather than the rule among the poverty-stricken is testament to their success in driving men out of families.

Rauch asks, “What might a marriage-based remedy look like?” Well, for starters, have social services quit breaking up marriages.

Jim Austin

La Habra