• Skip to main content
Daily Citizen
  • Subscribe
  • Categories
    • Culture
    • Life
    • Religious Freedom
    • Sexuality
  • Parenting Resources
    • LGBT Pride
    • Homosexuality
    • Sexuality/Marriage
    • Transgender
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Contact
  • Donate

parenting

Jul 27 2026

Children Are the Future of Every City

Back in 2012, Kathy Keller – now the widow of the beloved Dr. Tim Keller, author and founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City – wrote a popular article for the Gospel Coalition with a counterintuitive headline: 

“Why the City is a Wonderful Place to Raise Children.”

Here’s how she began the piece:

In 1988 when Tim first mentioned the idea of us going to Manhattan to plant a church, I reacted by laughing. Take our three wild boys (the victims of below-average parenting, as well as indwelling sin) to the center of a big city? Expose them to varieties of sin that I hoped they wouldn’t hear about until, say, their mid-30s? My list of answers to “What is wrong with this picture?” was a long, long one.

Kathy went on to tell the Kellers’ happy story of not only surviving the move and the subsequent years in Gotham, but actually loving and thriving as a Christian family amid the darkness and light of an urban area.

But Monday’s Wall Street Journal, points to a developing trend suggesting families are fleeing cities in record numbers.

A Journal analysis of U.S. Census data has found that the total number of children in America’s largest cities is down 6% over the past decade, but especially so when it comes to families with boys and girls under the age of five. The number of toddlers is down 15% in cities, compared with a nationwide decline of 7% among children overall.

“In all, the number of children declined in about two-thirds of the 38 U.S. cities with more than 500,000 residents,” reports the Journal.

Given the overall declining birthrate in America, you’d expect fewer children everywhere, but mothers and fathers are giving up on cities for a variety of reasons and some for very specific ones.

The cities suffering the most significant loss include San Jose, Calif. (-20%), Los Angeles, Calif. (-16%), Albuquerque, N.M. (-15%) and Portland, Ore. and San Diego (-14%). 

Of course, mothers and fathers with children have to go somewhere, and you can probably surmise where many of those wanting to remain in urban areas apparently have relocated – cities in “red” states. Of the top ten cities that gained children, nine of them have more conservative representation. Fort Worth, Tex., and Jacksonville, Fla. (+11%) top the charts.

Other cities in “red” states enjoying modest growth include Columbus, Ohio, Charlotte, N.C., Kansas City, Mo., and Oklahoma City.

Parents fleeing big cities often cite the high cost of living. Despite Kathy Keller’s ringing endorsement of raising children in New York City, I knew someone who once quipped it was great to do likewise, but a whole lot easier if you had someone following you with a wheelbarrow full of cash. It’s easy to see why. Rent for a three-bedroom apartment in Manhattan can be as high as $10,000 a month.

The decline of children from major metropolitan areas is triggering devastating consequences. Fewer children lead to lower tax revenue and an aging population that increasingly draws on government benefits while fewer workers are paying into the system. This spiral has caused New York City’s socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, to call for “free” childcare as an incentive to keep younger families with children in the five boroughs. 

But the fallout isn’t just financial. 

Fewer children lead to a less dynamic and energized environment and a far more selfish and self-centered population. Children elicit wonder and creativity. Without lots of children, churches and organizations become stale and lose vitality. Traditions fade and the entire vibe of the city shifts. Instead of seeing couples walking with children, you see singles and couples walking their dogs. 

Kathy Keller concluded her essay in 2012 by highlighting a laundry list of reasons to love city living. She prefaced it by stating:

My sons loved the city growing up, and love it even more now, not just New York, but all cities. London, Hong Kong, Berlin, Singapore all excite them, whereas a quiet, empty suburb bores them to tears. They love the density of people, the diversity of culture, even the sounds and bustle. While they have an appreciation for mountains and the sea, for camping and hiking, they always want to return to the city, with its needs (one son is a pastor) and its possibilities (one is an urban planner). Having them nearby is just a bonus.

Whether you have chosen to raise children in a city, suburb, or rural setting, we can all be in agreement that every area desperately needs young people – and that the Lord has a perfect plan for each one regardless of where they may live.

Written by Paul Batura · Categorized: Family · Tagged: parenting

Jul 24 2026

3 Ways to Pass Faith on to Your Children

Recently distilled and released research confirms what generations of mothers and fathers have discovered to be true: parents remain the strongest influence on the current and long-term faith of their children.

Earlier this summer, our friends at the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) pored over mountains of data and came to the following conclusions:

• Religious practice in childhood is highly predictive of religious practice in adulthood

• Higher parent–child relationship quality in childhood is associated with stronger retention of religious belief and practice in adulthood

• Higher parental marital quality is associated with greater faith transmission

• Congregational involvement on the part of both parents and adolescents is linked to higher levels of faith commitment when children reach adulthood

In short, our children are watching and taking mental notes. How mothers and fathers behave today has a lasting impact on how their children live and what they believe tomorrow.

It was belief in this fundamental and foundational principle that drove Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson to begin the ministry in 1977. He talked and wrote often about the influence his parents, especially his father, had on him personally as he grew in his Christian faith. In fact, it was in a Sunday evening church service that his pastor dad was preaching when he was just three years old that he walked the aisle and committed his life to Jesus.

Here’s how he recalled that pivotal incident:

[My father] invited those who wished to do so to come forward, and I joined them. I recall crying and asking Jesus to forgive my sins. It is overwhelming for me now to imagine the King of the universe caring about an insignificant kid barely out of toddlerhood!

Not all children will heed a call to faith that early or dramatically, of course—nor should they be expected to. Yet it is important to note that my own conversion at that young age was possible because of my parents’ example. From my first days, I saw them on their knees, praying and talking to the Lord. They later told me that I attempted to pray before I learned to talk, imitating the sounds I had heard.

If you set a faithful example beginning with the day your sons and daughters are born, they will never forget what they have seen and heard. Even if they reject God later, the remnant of those early memories will be with them for the rest of their lives—and may well bring them back to the fold. As parents, this is our privilege and duty as outlined in Scripture: “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4, KJV).

That conversion occurred nearly 90 years ago, and its impact continues to shape Focus on the Family today. Without James and Myrtle Dobsons’ example, would their son have served the Lord and years later launched a global ministry? 

Team members here share a magnificent obsession that was seeded in that small church service—to encourage and equip mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, to pass on their faith to the next generation. It’s the most important task of parenting, and it would be impossible for us to overemphasize its importance.

IFS concludes their report with practical recommendations for mothers and fathers on how best to pass on their faith in Jesus Christ to their children:

1. Be your children’s role model for faith: If you’re not serving the Lord, don’t expect your children to behave any differently.

2. Prioritize a strong marriage and parent-child relationship: Be certain your children know how much you love your spouse and make sure you’re not putting work or social events ahead of time with your sons and daughters.

3. Make faith formation a joint effort and build it into everyday family life, including making it a regular topic of family conversation: The Christian walk is not simply a Sunday exercise but instead a seven-day-a-week adventure. 

IFS didn’t invoke the wisdom of the Bible, but Moses’ admonition in the book of Deuteronomy applies here:

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise (Deut. 6:6-7, ESV).

Focus on the Family considers it a privilege to serve mothers and fathers and families by equipping and cheering them on when it comes to passing the baton of faith on to the next generation.

Written by Paul Batura · Categorized: Family · Tagged: parenting

Jul 23 2026

Guy Benson: Can We Celebrate His Baby News?

Guy Benson, a Fox News political analyst, recently announced he and his “husband,” Adam Wise, are bringing home a newborn baby girl to join the boy they acquired through surrogacy in 2023.

Benson’s celebratory Instagram post shows him and Wise bottle-feeding the newborn, each of them doing so on a hospital bed. The first child, Conrad, was acquired through the two men hiring a surrogate. It is assumed this second child was created and born the same way.

Because neither man is interested in women or motherhood, they had to hire a womb to get the babies they desired. They also paid the child’s mother to relinquish her natural maternal rights. There is no glossing over that blunt fact.

This means both children are being intentionally denied their natural mothers, assuming the biological and gestational mothers are two different women, which they likely are. That is how messed up things get when we redefine what family and parentage are because of the legality of same-sex marriage. Same-sex relationships are human cul-de-sacs. That is not a judgement. It is a fact. They don’t lead anywhere humanly by themselves. They are naturally sterile, non-life-producing.

So, when two (or three+) men want babies, they must go knocking at the door of heterosexuality to obtain the necessary eggs and wombs from women. They pay the woman to relinquish her natural maternal rights to her own child. This is what Guy Benson and Adam Wise did. Lesbians must do the same, further obliterating the importance of fatherhood.

As a result, the children born to such arrangements lose their natural mother or father.  All because some adults want kids in wholly unnatural and problematic ways. Intentionally creating children to deny them their natural mother and father is never ethical. It is never loving. It is never progressive, but regressive. It can never be celebrated or congratulated. Yet, it is now increasingly done to satisfy adult wishes.

This is why no one should ever congratulate any family form that mechanically manufactures children and separates them from the father or mother whose DNA they came from and share. The adults deeply desire a biological connection to their child and spend a small fortune to create that. Yet, they casually deny their child the same. They say biology doesn’t matter … until it does.

Benson, in his announcing Instagram post this week, said, 

She’s here, and she’s perfect. We are blessed and overjoyed to welcome Madison Halsey into the world and into our family. Our hearts are filled to the brim. A baby girl. We are just so thankful.

No doubt she is perfect. All life is worth celebrating. 

But not all human configurations are worthy of the same celebration. Madison is perfect, but she will grow up without a mother. There is nothing “perfect” about that. And she will because two men want it that way. The word for that is “selfish.”

Madison will have no mother to bond with in that special, wholly unique motherly way. Guy can’t do that. Adam cannot. All of the love, care and material resources in the world cannot make either of them a mother. Grandma won’t be able to fully fill that role. Madison is a girl, and she will always wonder who her female parent is. Why? Because seeing one’s similar and distinct image in one’s mother and father is literally one of the most natural human developmental experiences in the world. Benson and Wise have taken that away from Madison and that is nothing to congratulate.

The legalization of same-sex marriage by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015 created this by radically redefining the family and parentage. The legal innovation of Obergefell v. Hodges de-sexed the family by removing the essential quality of male or female. If the Benson-Wise “family” is just as laudable as the natural male-female family, then the feminine in humanity simply becomes optional, merely preferential like vanilla or chocolate ice cream. It also says designing intentionally motherless and fatherless children is something to celebrate.

Do not miss that the argument for same-sex “marriage” created the de-sexed “same-sex family.” Both are human impossibilities and violations of what it means to be human.

No amount of congratulatory happy talk can mask this fact: Madison is denied her mother because two wealthy men want it that way.

Written by Glenn T. Stanton · Categorized: Culture, Family · Tagged: parenting, Same-Sex Marriage, surrogacy

Jul 14 2026

Could Taylor’s Marriage Spark a Global Swiftie Baby Boom?

So Taylor and Travis are married, finally. What took them so long?

The mega-famous power couple wed in a sweltering blaze on July 3 in Madison Square Garden, just to make sure there was enough room at their star-studded celebration. She walked down the aisle to an instrumental version of her own song “Love Story.” Adam Sandler officiated the ceremony. Kansas City Chiefs coach Andy Reid said Sandler’s best advice to the couple was “keep kissing.”

So now they settle into family life. Will a baby be coming soon?

At the news of their engagement last August, American Enterprise Institute fellow Timothy Carney posted on X, “Pregnancy is contagious. Familism and Natalism are conveyed culturally.”

He added, “If Kelce and Swift have kids and quickly, this could trigger a Baby Boom.”

We should all hope it will because the world’s most pressing long-term need is many more babies being born today so that we have a tomorrow. Two-thirds to nearly three-fourths of humanity live in a nation well below replacement level which translates into what one leading global analyst called “mass extinction numbers.”

So, the question is certainly worth considering: Could impending news of a little Swiftie in the oven trigger a baby boom, or at least a bump? Possibly. 

First, it is important to recognize that Carney is correct. Pregnancy is indeed contagious. Academic studies here, here, here and here demonstrate that pregnancies happening within a woman’s personal network can stimulate her entry into motherhood. The decision to have a baby is less individualistic than most assume. The behaviors of others affect our own.

In an interview with the Daily Citizen, Carney contends, “Pregnancy is contagious on a local level, among extended family circles and on a cultural level.” How does this happen? Carney explains, “People are motivated by what fills their imagination, what they see, what they are exposed to.” He notes, “If you were the CIA and you wanted to drive up birthrates, you would simply expose people to the rewarding experiences of lots of families with lots of kids.”

So yes, familism and natalism are conveyed culturally. Carney told Daily Citizen, “What I articulated in my X post was a hope, not a prediction, not an expectation.”

But he admitted, “I think celebrities having kids, especially married celebrities having kids, raising them in a happy family, enjoying life together — that is analogous to actually seeing kids running around on your street.” He confessed, “It is not as good as that, but certainly analogous.”

As Veronica Clarke noted over at First Things last August, Taylor’s “engagement signals to Swifties and lovelorn women worldwide that finding love in the twenty-first century is not a fairy tale.” If she and Travis welcome a wedding baby, that news could have the same effect.

Lyman Stone, director of the Institute for Family Studies’ Pronatalism Initiative, also sat for an interview with Daily Citizen. He told us, “I definitely share the perspective that major celebrity figures, social influencers, role models, whatever, they absolutely have an effect on people’s family decisions.” Stone adds an important angle though,

When elites, people in positions of great social influence on others, not only have kids, but have kids in a way that seems happy and attainable, that can be predictive.

He adds the larger population must see those things as attainable for themselves. Buying a new plane or an expensive second home in Italy does not have the same effect. But something that is clearly in reach for most young adults, like marriage and parenthood, can be driven by the influence of others.

Stone notes, “So to the extent that Swifties look at Taylor and say, ‘Well, if the woman who did four break-up albums can find love with the football star, maybe I can find love too.’” He observes, “Maybe that could happen with motherhood too, if she gets pregnant soon enough.”

What if Taylor outsources her mommy wish and gestational labor to a surrogate? The motivation to keep her famous starlet body and her more than ample financial resources make this a very real possibility. But this makes her pathway to motherhood unattainable (and hopefully undesirable) for most Swifties, thus having no baby bump effect.

But it also matters how Tay Tay talks about motherhood, if that time comes. Stone explained, “If we get Taylor Swift’s Lullaby Album for her beloved baby, we’re there, on the path to a prenatal culture.” He counters though, “But if we get her ‘Honest Reflections on the Difficulties of Motherhood’ i.e., negative comments about motherhood, that’s unlikely to go in a great direction.” Stone concludes, “If Taylor talks about her family life in a way that is encouraging of others, then I think we could get a Swiftie baby bump.”

As Carney noted in the Washington Examiner, the day after his X post went viral: “If someone who is constantly watched by millions of people starts living a married life and a mother life, then the idea of being married and a mother becomes more imaginable – even if her life is inaccessible in so many other ways.”

Such is the power of modern, mediated entertainment culture. Sometimes its upside possibilities are worth hoping for.

Let’s hope for a baby boom.

Written by Glenn T. Stanton · Categorized: Culture · Tagged: parenting, population decline

Jul 02 2026

California Will Continue to Allow ‘Transgender’-Identified Male Athletes in Girls Sports

Despite the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of girl-only sports, California will continue to allow “transgender”-identified male athletes to compete in girls and women’s sports. 

According to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom said that “the Supreme Court ruling will not impact California’s current setup.” 

Reporter Jackson Thompson posted on X about the governor’s office’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of West Virginia v. BPJ that states are allowed to protect girls and women’s sports with laws that keep sports separate based on biology.

Newsom's office has responded to the SCOTUS Title IX ruling, saying California will continue to let males compete in girls' sports, and boasting his record of appointing trans judges and making it making it easier to update gender markers on documents.https://t.co/vgIL8DOV78

— Jackson Thompson (@JackThompsonFOX) July 2, 2026

But the Court’s ruling did not overturn state laws that allow boys to compete on the basis of “gender identity,” a spurious, completely subjective individual and social construct. 

Fox News Digital received a statement from the governor’s office which read: 

The Governor has said discussions on this issue should be guided by fairness, dignity, and respect. He rejects the right wing’s cynical attempt to weaponize this debate as an excuse to vilify individual kids. The Governor’s position is simple: stand with all kids and stand up to bullies.

That position seems to be at odds with what Newsom said just a year ago in a conversation on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom.” Charlie Kirk, who was Newsom’s guest on the podcast’s launch, asked him, “Would you say no men in female sports?” 

Newsom replied, “Well, it’s I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that it is an issue of fairness.” The governor went on to mention his wife and two daughters’ involvement in sports. 

So which is it, Gov. Newsom? He has taken no steps to protect his daughters and preserve girls and women’s sports for female athletes. 

California was one of the first states to allow boys who identify as female to compete on a girlsteam, after the legislature passed Assembly Bill 1266 in 2013. The law applied to kindergarten through 12th grade, requiring that “a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

That legislation also affected girls’ privacy and safety, as it opened school locker rooms, showers and restrooms to boys who identify as girls. 

The California governor has taken no steps to implement “fairness” and protect female athletes. Instead, his administration has fought to keep boys who reject their masculinity in girls sports. 

For example, the state is battling a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against the California Department of Education and California Interscholastic Federation for violating Title IX. The lawsuit described numerous incidents of boys taking spots on teams and victories from girls, as well as violating girls privacy and safety by changing with them and watching them undress in locker rooms. 

In addition, California filed its own lawsuit against the Department of Justice over its demand the state prohibit male athletes from competing in women’s and girls sports.

In addition to California, Illinois officials have stated that males who claim to be female can still compete on girls teams. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on a statement from Attorney General Kwame Raoul: 

In Illinois, transgender students have the right to fully participate in school activities, including sports. Nothing in today’s opinion prohibits states like Illinois from allowing student athletes to participate on teams consistent with their gender identity and pursuant to [Illinois High School Association] guidelines.

Raoul misses the point completely: “Transgender” students have always been allowed to take part in school activities. But they should participate based on their sex – not on a misleading “gender identity.” 

According to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBT activist organization, 21 states and Washington, D.C., do not protect girls sports. 

Hopefully, the Court will take up a case soon challenging these states that reject biological reality in favor of false and destructive transgender ideology. 

Related articles and resources: 

Blockbuster Supreme Court Ruling: Girls Sports Are for Girls

Department of Justice Launches Title IX Task Force to Protect Women’s Sports

DOJ Lawsuit Describes California Department of Education’s Infuriating Treatment of Girls

Ed Dept. Finds San José State Violated Title IX With Male Athlete in Women’s Volleyball

Feds Sue California Department of Education, Interscholastic Federation For ‘Illegal Sex Discrimination’

Girls Shouldn’t Apologize for Protesting Boys in Girls Sports

President Trump: ‘There are Only Two Genders: Male and Female’

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive Part 2

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Culture, Sexuality · Tagged: parenting

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 10
  • Go to Next Page »

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | © 2026 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

  • Cookie Policy