Good discussion overall. I have to point out one correction, however.
Brown vs. Board of Education was NOT about busing or school funding. It simply outlawed purposely creating and maintaining the "separate but (un)equal" school system in the United States. The rulings and laws on govt. funding of schools as related to race came much later. The 1954 ruling said the segregation should end "with all deliberate speed"---and then gave no guidelines or deadlines for it, which is why we had all the civil rights struggles and acts of the 1960s. You can look it up.
As a black female, I can testify about being upright and dateless--and so can some of my relatives in similar positions! I can also testify how those that were "players" in their younger days are starting to inquire after those of us who were labeled as "unhip" in our younger days---it seems that the wild ones they ran with earlier are dead, in jail, or have lives that are otherwise so full of drama that even "players" don't want to get involved with them! Unfortunately, most of these players just want to HAVE a good spouse, not BE a good spouse. When they get rejected for that reason, they get angry and go back to the accusation that we who seek to honor God with our lives are ---fill in the blank--too goody-goody, sellouts/trying to be white (they've bought the lie that only Caucasians are educated, live moral lives, etc.)
We don't let it get us down. I'm working on using my skills to educate and liberate the next generation. And according to my nieces and nephews, I make a mean batch of sugar cookies!

"Sadly, I know several black men who want to get married, have never been players, and have degrees. Nobody wants to marry them. Not even from their church."
Chances are, they've probably already been labelled as "Uncle Tom" types. Sort of a turn-off in the 'hood. A sad thing, really.

That's all right, SDG. I am not making much sense in English today. I am having to clarify all day, even when speaking, and do not know why. :)

It was girls who were making the comments about "college for boys" and yes, there were very few women from our circumstances going to college back then.

Whoop, sounds like that was a better example than I thought. I misconstrued "stupid jerks." I'm the one who's sorry, really. Your point. I'm done.

SDG, I'm very sorry my example didn't make sense to you. It was girls who were making the comments about "college for boys" and yes, there were very few women from our circumstances going to college back then. I still think my example is relevant because a) children make all sorts of assumptions that have nothing to do with adult reality and b) using a that statement as the center of my discussion of sex and college education would be foolish. I'm probably still not very clear. So sorry.

Sadly, I know several black men who want to get married, have never been players, and have degrees. Nobody wants to marry them. Not even from their church.

I read Joy Jones's column when it first came out and all I could think was, "Why is a grown woman using a 12-year-old boy's comment as the crux of her argument?!?" Just because a 12-year-old said "Marriage is for white people" doesn't make it true.

Um. It is not the author's thesis that the 12-year-old's comment is TRUE. Quite the contrary. Rather, this is anecdotal evidence regarding a cultural attitude toward marriage among many in the African-American community.

I guess when I was a teenager and some stupid jerks said, "College is for boys", I should have stopped right there, eh?

And that would be a relevant example if it were a white boy who said "Marriage is for white people."
Alternatively, your example would be relevant if (a) it were a girl saying "College is for boys" and (b) girls were the minority on college campuses -- rather than the majority, as they are.

Bravo, MissJean! That's exactly what I was thinking! I was surprised to not see more comments with that gut reaction to the article. Marriage isn't about weighing pros and cons of your life situation. It is a SACRAMENT.
Why do you think couples for thousands of years have had successful lifelong arranged marriages? They don't view divorce as an option. They take their vows seriously. They actually commit to their spouse. It's not all about me, me, me. There's all this talk about extended adolescence in modern America, but it's not just the teenagers. Adults in this country need to just grow up.

I read Joy Jones's column when it first came out and all I could think was, "Why is a grown woman using a 12-year-old boy's comment as the crux of her argument?!?" Just because a 12-year-old said "Marriage is for white people" doesn't make it true. I guess when I was a teenager and some stupid jerks said, "College is for boys", I should have stopped right there, eh?
But the real problem is that Jones - and so many other people - seems to have no idea what a marriage is about. She talks about it like a financial boost at best and a lack of freedom at worst. (The latter just kills me. Most adult women realize that ANY personal relationship - being a girlfriend, being a daughter to aging parents, etc. - requires curtailing our personal freedom. Women who don't are still dreaming of irresponsible adolescence.) She wrote that marriage "will have to offer an individual woman something more than a business alliance, a panacea for what ails the community, or an incubator for rearing children". Since when is that all there is to a marriage?

Good points Paul. Unfortunately all is going to Margaret Sanger's plan of eugenics against the black population -- which is affecting all of us, but currently the black population the hardest.
Some interesting quotes from the article:
"A number of my married friends complain that taking care of their husbands feels like having an additional child to raise."
"the girls who are in the most trouble and who are abused the most -- the father is absent. And the same is true for the boys, too."
So it looks like a vicious cycle. Less marriages result in more out-of-wedlock pregnancies, which result in more abortions or fatherless children, which result in more husbands that just seem like an extra child for the wife, which results in less marriages and more boys and girls in trouble, and round and round we go.
Combined with other attacks that seek to redefine marriage, and pop-psychology that makes marriage all about the glorious me (http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200605/20060509/sl...), things are looking grim. We need to pray and act. Is there such thing as unnecessary protection of marriage? I don't think so.

There are a numerous causes for this problem (and it is not limited to black families). However, I can't think of three bigger reasons for this crisis than the following:
1) abortion~the eugenicists of the early 20th century sought to use abortion as a means to exterminate blacks. PP and their ilk have whitewashed the message, but it is still there. In their eyes, black children (and by extension all blacks) are not as valuable as whites and the use of abortion, contraception and "sex education" to cull the black population is still their No. #1 weapon. By separating the procreative aspect of sex from the pleasure of having sex, there is much less reason to get married.
2) welfare programs~the ADC program started by LBJ required that in order for poor families to qualify for aid, both parents could not be in the home. Even after the program was modified, two-parent families qualified for much less benefits than single parent families. These types of aid programs further ensured the decline in blacks getting married. Besides why get married when the gov't will take care of the kids?
3) Brown vs. Bd. of Education decision also damaged black families. While it was laudable in pointing out that the govt. failed to provide equal funding for schools in black neighborhoods as opposed to white neighborhoods, busing wasn't the answer. This cop-out solution destroyed the role that schools played in uniting neighborhoods and communities which are merely an extension of family. [It is ironic that some school districts are now re~evaulating this stance.]
Our gov't has played a big role in destroying black families and discouraging blacks from getting married. As a religious people, it's our job to encourage and support the institution of marriage any way we can.

Hey, Jonathan, not everyone can be bothered to actually READ the post before commenting on it.
Come on...
Racist.
;-)

And besides, it wasn't Dobson who made the "Marriage is for White People" comment, it was a black student.

It's great that people find love, but accusing Dobson of racism without source or citation is not the act of a loving person.
PVO

enough of the racist marriage advice from Dr. Dobson. shame on him!!!

Um, what the heck?????
What is racist about saying that there is a marriage crisis in the African-American community?

In Belgium (where my in-laws live), co-habitation is almost preferred. The reason is advantageous tax policies that hurt married couples. I don't know all the details (the Belgians have a complicated system; or at least I can't understand it).
Among young couples (I'm 35-years-old) few people are getting married.
Plus, there is even less stigma on divorce than here in the US (if that's possible).
Our Lady of Banneux, pray for us.
Our Lady of Beauraing, pray for us.

Over all I'd say marriage is losing ground no matter what the race. Weddings used to be a huge business up here at the lake but in recent years quite a few wedding chapels have gone out of business. The "gettin' hitched" business just ain't what it used to be.