While I'm all for providing low-cost/free counseling to low income families who are in danger of splitting up, I'm unsure about the long-term implications of such a program. Married parents have already made the choice to be together, so I think that an investment in keeping those families together would be worthwhile. But is encouraging unwed mothers to marry the father of their child the right way to go? It seems to me that there are probably real reasons the parents did not marry in the first place. And exactly how are they planning on going about "encouraging" marriage? I haven't seen any details on that, but in this editorial on CNN.com, an administration source is quoted as saying that the proposal "could allow mothers to get paid for getting married." By most accounts, two-parent families are usually ideal. And of course, the parents made the initial choice to have sex and, knowingly or otherwise, conceive the child. But I don't think that shotgun marriages will be a panacea for poverty, and I don't think that this would make for a more stable family unit. In my experience, often one parent will choose not to marry the other because abuse was present in the relationship, and while that situation may have been acceptable for the two adults in the relationship (for some bizarre reason that could be discussed in another thread), it would not be for a relationship including a child. Throwing a bit of government money into the mix would likely prove to be an irresistible incentive for parents who would otherwise not marry. Additionally, two low-income parents who marry would still be low-income, only together. How is getting married going to improve their fortunes? The whole idea smacks of moral finger-wagging to me. Telling poor people, "Well, okay, we'll give you this money, but you’ve got to live your life according to what we think is right" seems like too much of an intrusion on people's private lives. Even welfare recipients are entitled to the same freedom to make their own choices about such important things as marriage and childbearing, in my opinion.
I think they should focus more on education and getting them higher paying jobs, than marriage. Half of all marriages end in divorce as it is. What if the people HAD to marry each other, oh, the statistics, the statistics!! But I do believe a two parent home is better than one parent, depending on the situation of course. Groove on
I agree with you, goofy, I think that putting this money into education and investment in new, higher paying jobs is the answer. Money is the root of all evil (and divorcePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), and even if, say two very lower-class people got married they might just use the small amount of money they get every month to go buy drugs as opposed to feeding their children, because the parents did not recieve a good education and because they did not get the oppurtunity to get a good job. The chain has to end somewhere and giving married people money is not the answer. Maybe, though, a family could apply to get money if they needed it for specific reasons? If they used it to buy a microscope for little jimmy or a labtop computer for slightly-older rebecca maybe that would work, but that might tie in with giving government money to private institutions (families and the items they buy). Hmmm, a nice dilemma, we have here!!
Governments promoting marriages. Mmmmm, sounds familiar. Wasn't it hitler who wanted more marriages, thus children, for his upcoming fourth-reich? To create a super race of Ariers. Only germans of course. Is history repeating itself? Dangerous development! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I personally feel that marriage is a wonderful institution and that among the benefits of a healthy marriage are a better chance for the children's emotional maturation without problems, an efficient way to finance the care of as many as possible on the least amount of funding, and minimizing the amount of emotional and financial resources invested in the seeking of intimacy -- because it is, ideally, present. However, I don't feel that my personal views are grounds to set public policy on the subject, and 'm quite well aware of the dysfunctional families brought forward by the opposition to this plan as horrible examples of what not to encourage. It would be fascinating to see activists for gay marriage lever off these paeans in praise of marriage from the Right to reiterate their claim that they too deserve these benefits. In short, I don't think it's about marriage, or welfare – It’s about election year politics. It's Bush and the Republicans tossing a bone to the Christian conservative wing of the party. It's the "family values" twist from the "Contract with America" redux. It’s all in the timing. And since it is hopeless to think something along these lines will past muster, particularly with true conservatives, it just gives Republican incumbents stump speech material, pandering to moral constructs that imply the wisdom of the two parent family, while ignoring the benefits of sex education, abortion rights, and child care tax credits. Peace.
