I read this at MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3955715/
Seems President Bush is considering asking for 1.5 Billion to help strengthen marriage. It would help teach people interpersonal skills to help their marriages survive and prosper. The article also points out that this is primarily aimed at low income families. I find that piece of this idea suspect. Also somewhat insulting. Because I don’t make much money am I also at an intelligence disability?


Questions for debate

Is this a realistic goal that is achievable?

Is Marriage teachable?

Why consider low income people to be less able to enjoy healthy marriages?


Just for Ha's check out The Christopher Plan to save Marriage (shameless plug) availible in Casual Conversation and finer food stores everywhere

Is this realistic goal that is achievable?
Sounds like a collossal waste of money to me. There are much better uses for that $1.5 billion in my opinion, education and alternative fuels to name just a few. My question is, what would the government possibly be able to do that marriage counseling or involvement with your local church doesn't do? And, do we really want the government that involved in our personal lives?

Is Marriage teachable?
I honestly don't believe that it is. I believe that people can be taught strategies to cope with various problems and open the lines of communications, however marriage takes more than that, those are just effective tools.

If you want to stay married you have to have a desire to make things work, you also have to be compatible. If you ask me, the divorce rate is so high today because too many people get married for the wrong reasons and without proper consideration of their life goals. When they do become married they are too willing to take the easy way out (i.e divorce), too selfish to just compromise a little to make something work. People also don't make enough time for each other, it becomes a chore instead of something you live for. There may or may not be some study supporting those theories, but that is my personal take on things as a married man.

Why consider low income people to be less able to enjoy healthy marriages?
That is just an insulting generalization. Just playing devil's advocate, I suppose that they are suggesting that lower income familes may not be able to afford other forms of marriage counseling.

This seems just plain goofy to me. I can't take it seriously, and I think it has zero possibility of happening.

So why does the idea exist at all? I can't help but think that this is a nod in the direction of religious conservatives. Not a real proposal, but a gesture to keep their votes.

Is this a realistic goal? Not a chance.

Is marriage teachable? Not really. Human relationship skills are learnable, but it's got to be by observation and example.

As far as the low-income thing goes, well, maybe what they're really talking about is the fact that a low-income household with children raised by one adult is likely to be in worse shape than a low-income household with children raised by two (or more) adults. One part of this is, obviously, a stable marriage or other family relationship. What I can't accept is the implication that people are in poverty because they are immoral or ignorant about how to have stable relationships. The causes of poverty are much too complex.

Hey, I've got an idea; if the administration really wants to promote stable marriages, why don't they let people who happen to be of the same sex get married?

It is not the business of the Federal Government to teach Home and Family living, a course that can be taken in high school.



Only if the students are willing to learn.



I don't know. Maybe Bush has been confusing The Jerry Springer Show with real-life poor people. It is insulting that it would be targeting primarily low-income couples.

How would they get consensus on just who would be teaching this course? Every time a psychologist/social worker (preacher?) happened to be going through a family breakup, would that person be fired from the position for incompetence?

What business is it of the President to pontificate on a very private relationship? Also, it would be redundant considering that there are counseling services available now, some with sliding scale fees.

They would have to use a carrot-and-stick approach to get some couples to attend the meetings. That smacks of coercion.

I think Mr. Bush needs to face up to the fact that this arena is not within his purview, nor should it be addressed by the federal government. If this sort of thing had a governmental jurisdiction, it would be in the state governments.

You know, it's interesting. Conservative Republicans are supposedly for a smaller government and less government interference in the private lives of Americans.
I don't know how long it is going to take for some die-hard Bush supporters, but one of these days they're going to take a good look at this man and realize that it is only his wealth and the fact that he is the son of a former Republican President that separate him from the other big government spenders and those who want more government control in their lives.

Low income partnerships have much more stress, related to too many outside influences: economic, demographic, educational as well as backrounds that do not help build heathy realtionships, within families or partnerships. That is not really insulting, but statistical fact.
That said, I think this proposition completely and entirely misguided. Marriage has little to do with the base problem, which is not low income marriages, but low incomes. However, I think the idea behind this prop. is to state AGAINST gay marriages.

Although I believe that counseling could help many people who cannot afford counseling on their own, I dont think this is a government responsibility.
However, THIS PARTICULAR EFFORT is the Admins answer to the Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists trying to FORCE Bush to make a Constitutional Ammendment on the sanctity of Male/Female marriage which the admin has been reluctant to commit to. These links are only the beginning.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid...n_gay_marriage/
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm
http://www.petitiononline.com/fma2004/petition.html

I always believe that education is our way out of many troubles, but I dont see the Government as any type of MENTOR in educating us on marriage. I can see some funds going to counseling efforts for those who cannot afford them, but not a 'promotion of marriage'. (why am I thinking of the Chinese and other communist nations?) Its state sponsored dogma and this admins answer to the Christian right, skirting the issue of gay marriage in an election year and an appeasement, a waste of money to boot.

President George W. Bush, in Mexico to promote his illegal alien hiring program, gained the political support of President Fox who was pleased that those Mexican Citizens North of the Rio Grande could expect to earn more than the prevailing Mexican Wage of $2.26 per hour.

He then went on to promise Canada that they could compete for contract jobs in Iraq...

He then went to NASA to promote a permanent colony on the moon, and a manned mission to Mars.

Okay, he has gone after the Mexican voters, the Canadian voters, and is trying to persuade the employees at NASA that his "Vote for me and you'll keep your jobs program." applies to them.

Now, he is saying
Okay, he has apparently discovered that some married couples vote, and he is now trying to appeal to that bloc of voters.

Is this a realistic goal that is achievable?

Yes George, this might be an achievable goal... The concept of marriage between a man and a woman has been generally accepted throughout the known world, and it could likely be introduced into the United States without bothering to draft a Constitutional Amendment to "honor marriage between a man and a woman."

Is Marriage teachable?

How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? First the light bulb has to want to change. To teach someone how to be married, you would first have to convince them they needed to learn how to be married. Can Microsoft write a program that teaches the dynamics of marriage? Can Berlitz teach the language of love? Two people meet, fall in love, and decide to marry. It may very well bear no relation to their parent's marriages, their friends marriages, or the President's marriage. I know a married couple who live in separate bedrooms, and I know a married couple who sees no reason to ever put up curtains in their house. My first marriage and my second marriage have completely different dynamics.

Marriage may be "teachable," but I would never want to be the instructor. I have often felt that it is difficult enough being one of the two private tutors in a marriage. I have never felt I had the expertise to advise another couple on how to define and run their marriage.

Why consider low income people to be less able to enjoy healthy marriages?

He works a few months in Washington D.C., vacations for a few months at his Ranch in Texas, has Camp David as a retreat, and can get away from his "lump in the bed" and go anywhere in the world on "the nation's business." My dad used to always go to the Salvation Army for Christmas dinner (and to get away from Mom), and George went to Iraq for Thanksgiving dinner. It must be that he considers the fact that low income people lack the ability to travel half way around the world on the spur of the moment, as an impediment that makes us less able to enjoy "healthy marriages." We have to talk, interact, and resolve our differences. In his "healthy marriage," he is able to go to Iraq for a hot meal. As one late show host put it, "His wife must be one lousy cook!"

Is this a realistic goal that is achievable?
I don't think so, and I don't believe the administration is entirely concerned with whether it's a reachable goal or not. This appears to me more of a precursor to a possible marriage amendment and a way of gathering support from those voters commonly associated with the so-called religious right.

Is Marriage teachable?
As marriage is supposed to be the voluntary commitment forged between two peopole who sincerely love each other, no. Even if you're willing to bribe them and stress the benefits of married couples I think money will only go so far toward keeping two people together. Because I do not think love or marriage can be taught at the price tag of a billion or so dollars, I do not think it is a realistic goal of the administration.

Why consider low income people to be less able to enjoy healthy marriages?
I'm willing to accept Artemise's opinion that low income families face more stress from outside influences than families more well off. Of course, those low income families who are truly commited to the person will likely find ways to cope with the troubles and actually live up to their wedding vows, "through good times and through bad." Cheap or free marriage counseling isn't necessarily going to make somebody get a job, be more responsible or be more attentive to their spouse.

I'm sure some people would be willing and able to take advantage of the opportunity, but I think far more will be left unaffected by any government assistance in seeking marriage counseling. It appears to me to be a waste of government spending and nothing more than *cheap pandering to a large group of American voters.

*If $1.5 billion can be considered cheap...

I think some of the postings may be missing a point here. WHO will do the teaching?

My guess: religious organizations.

How nice for them. I wonder how many votes he picks up by proposing this?

As for the original questions: it's a WORTHY goal, but probably not realistic or teachable (or measurable as to its effectiveness, so it's another program that will live forever). As for low income: I don't think it's about low income folks being less able to navigate marriage, but being less able to afford counseling when the waters get turbulent. Or, maybe I'm just being optimistic on that last part.

I don't know for sure that religious groups would be appointed to do the marriage counseling, or what their exact plan is for the counseling proposal. But, like amf, I'm willing to be that it would be the same religious groups that Bush designated to provide help for the poor.

It's interesting. All it would take is one or two families to sue the publicly funded "marriage counselors" before the American tax payer will be fighting a courtcase on the constitutionality of government-sponsored religious counseling. For one to claim that "marriage" is a term reserved only for a man and a woman - because the term "marriage" has religious connotation, how could you fairly argue that "marriage" counseling is not religious in connotation?

AU is constantly finding plaintiffs to testify that the appropriateness of the publicly funded endorsement of a particular faith is questionable or that the preachings (oh, i meant teachings) are offensive. Who gets to pay for the defense of the "marriage counselors"? Tax payers.

I personally am one of the ones who pays for the plaintiff's court costs. Any expense that we can draw from the tax payers is a small battle won for us. Any way that we can make nationally sponsored religious beliefs costly, is one small step in the right direction for our cause.

If the government really wants to help poor married couples with counseling - what should be done is to make marriage counseling a benefit of medicare - the married couples can choose which marriage counsellor they wish. Either a benefit of medicare, or a tax deductible cost. Something along those lines. And what about homosexual couples? I bet Bush has the power to exclude those individuals from this benefit. Bush is thinking: "Hey, I have an idea, let's keep giving more and more special benefits to married couples so that it gets harder and harder for homosexual couples to catch up - eventually they'll just give up."

Government has no place in family life. The government is made from family values, not the families are made from government values.

I agree with perspective on this, I just don't see how the government can do this or how they can warrant a good reason to do this. There are too many flaws with this idea. First off, it's not the governments responsibility that people stay together. It's THEIR responsibility, their vows they've made to each other. Again, who would we deem qualified for this? What if some religious couples (like my mom and her husband) who would ONLY go to a person of faith for counseling, would the government pay for that? Should they? No. There are tooooooo many issues with this subject.

Is this a realistic goal that is achievable? Irrelevant, IMO, because, like taking arsenic, the cure is worse than the illness. I can't think of anything more micromanagerial and superfluous from government than this.

Is Marriage teachable? Of course. Unfortunately, the big lessons are learned during the formative years. If a person reaches adulthood with unrealistic expectations for marriage, and/or an entirely selfish outlook, no amount of government-funded teaching is going to change that.

Why consider low income people to be less able to enjoy healthy marriages? Probably because anything that adds stress to a marriage will be more likely to cause a rift. It's harder to have a healthy relationship if you're struggling to make ends meet...especially if you can't provide adequately for your children or live in a dangerous environment.

I would add to this discussion that low income families that stick together tend to not wallow in poverty like single parents do. This in and in itself is probably the biggest driving force. This is also one of the main reasons black America is falling into a deep hole never to recover is they can't get families to stay together. I would have to say of ALL the things domestically that are important this one has to be #1. Whether you are poor or not is irrelevant. Please take time to learn about the depression...or even look at Mexican respect for family. Data clearly shows the family unit bring the #1 cause and effect for success.


cusbilla

Is marriage teachable?-While not all divorces are a good thing for kids, sometimes it is for the better if one spouse just can't get their act together no matter what. I'm tired of seeing people hang in there "just for the kids" but who create a poisonous atmosphere for their kids by fighting and sniping at each other. The crux of the Bush administration's efforts is a religious one, a blanket one-size-fits-all Christian philosophy that does not take into account peoples experiences.

The low-income thing truly shows the disdain that many upper-middle class/upper class individuals have for the poor. They are poor and have problems because they are in some way "immoral" or something. Wealthy people just hire shrinks to iron out the problems, or high powered attorney's to tear each other apart in court. I would say that there are just as many people who make $100,000+ who are just as miserable as a couple that makes $20,000 with one check. Rather than focus on individual problems of the poor-perhaps more money should be spent figuring out how to raise wages and provide health insurance, items that are "stressors" in the lives of everyday people.

I'm not sure with 1.5 billion



In some ways it is


I think the reason why is because there have been so many low income marriages that fail because because couples separate to find better jobs.

Low income marriages probably fail because they were flat out not ready.
There are a great many concerns that need to be addressed before one is ready for marriage. It looks good on tv but two kids fresh out of high school are NOT ready to get married. Yes there are exceptions to the rule but I will hold firm that marriage fails because the two were not ready. Not anywhere near financially stable, not near mature enough. No Idea of who they really are or want to be. Never tried to discover who they could have been. never found out if family is what they actually want.

And Cusbilla while I'll agree strong family helps with success they are often at fault for causing stagnation and pressure to not do something because it is against family "Tradition" or no member of this family would EVER do That

I simply do not understand the logic. But more than this it is actually wrong. The state should pride itself on its seperation from religion. By promoting marriage the govt is suggesting Christiantity is superior.

Its not teachable, sice it will conflict with many of the different personal philsophies and of wider relgions.

For this same reason the goal is not acheivable.

Paul Doran, while I personally there to be religious motivations in some degree to this proposal, government support of marriage is not necessarily government support for only the Christian religion or Christian marriage ritual. As far as I know couples are still capable of receiving a secular marriage ceremony in the United States.

Ditto, on Victoria's first two answers. I can think of a legitimate reason for targeting the lower income. Lower income people who get divorced are more likely to have to rely on government aid. Theoretically it could be cost efficient to spend money to prevent divorces among the low-income while it would not be cost efficient to do so among those with higher incomes. I do not see how this program is any more insulting to the poor than a program that would offer free, or low-cost, psychiatric help to the poor. No, the poor may not be crazier than the rich. The rich can pay for their own shrinks and counselors.

Of course since the answer to the first two questions is no, the answer to the third question is immaterial.

Now, this proposal is commendable since statistics show that more than half of all marriages end up in the divorce courts. And, I imagine, many of the divorces involve low income and our youth. Bush is one that believes in preventative measures to avoid more serious and costly problems down the road.

Having said the above, this is one proposal I would vote NO on simply because although the merits are commendable...the timing sucks! No matter how noble, all the wrongs and ailments of our people are not going to be cured or helped during his term in office whether it is 4 or 8 years. NO! NO! NO!


Is this a realistic goal that is achievable?

Possibly, but there are other goals on our plate that are more deserving of our time and money. Force the organizations and laws already in place to function like they are supposed to.

Is Marriage teachable?

Sure...almost anything is teachable provided the student is willing to learn and apply what he/she has learned.

Why consider low income people to be less able to enjoy healthy marriages?

Financial worries cause much stress leading to other problems: domestic crime and abuse, suicides, depression, illness...too many more in the closet to mention.

Well, I guess we should cancel out all projects targeted at the poor, as they are either:

1.) discriminatory
2.) demeaning, or
3.) won't solve the problem.

Guess what? Every government program is one or all of the above (mostly the last one...)

Bush wants to help the poor keep their marriages together and every liberal around here jumps on him for it.

Cusbilla's point about the plight of the black community being intimately tied to the plethora is single parent households is the key here. Obviously we cannot target only blacks, so let's go with poor people (the problem and possible solution is the same).

Stable marriages mean less problem with the children. Poor people have alot of outside stress from money matters. Rich people also have outside stresses, but they have the money to pay for counsellors.

Will anyone argue that a marriage counsellor is a futile attempt to save a sinking ship that the rats have already abandoned? If so, then this proposal is doomed to failure. If you believe marriages CAN be helped by counselling, then you should be for this proposal.

From a fiscal perspective and a government role perspective, I tend to disagree with this. It is another example of Bush trying to give some "feel good" issue to the more liberal and compassionate voters out there. The Bush haters out there will never agree with Bush, even if he cures cancer and solves world hunger. The more "on-the-fence" Democrats might be persuaded by a program like this that shows Bush's compassion for the disadvantaged.

If Bill Clinton proposed this bill (or Howard Dean...) I think the attitudes of many posters to this thread would be quite different.

I think you're right here. Had a "liberal" (or a Democrat, whatever ) were to propose this, the Republicans would be all over it like stink on rice. Umm... or something.

However, I don't see it in terms of left-right, but the benefits vs. the problems with the government administering this type of program. Who will do this? Why have another program instead of using Medicare? Is this part of the "faith-based" sop to evangelicals that so many non-evangelicals are against?

The goals are worthy: help prevent divorces through making counseling available to low-income people. But there's a big difference between a proposal and a dollar value (which is suspect) and actual legislation to make this new program a reality.

The proof is in the details, few of which are forthcoming so far. So... we worry.

Sure, there are secular marriages. Even if he was proposing Christian marriage, that is %84 of the population anyway.

But, what is his motivation for doing this? Should we question the states role in trying to install values in people, does it have the right to do so?

Installing values is somehting dictatorships like to do, like the badge system in Nazi germany for mothers. Silver for 5 kids, Gold for 10 and so on. That was to make plenty of soldiers, what is Bush's motivation?

That actually sounds more like our current system of welfare.

At any rate, if such a plan would work, it would probably reduce child poverty, because children raised by single mothers are seven times more likely to be poor than those raised in intact married families....thus saving tax dollars on welfare payments to impoverished families.

I agree that intact marriage is an important goal, and would benefit our society, but I am against this measure. Hypothetically, if someone that I knew asked me to give them money because they needed marital counseling, I would say ‘sorry, but no’ (unless it was my own child, of course). The premise of granting the authority to the FEDERAL government to take my money and give it to individuals I don’t even know, to strengthen their marriage, won’t get my support.

I don't think we know enough about this proposal to make assumptions that Bush is trying to "instill values" in people.

I've read nothing that stated that the marriage counseling would be only be provided through religious groups either.

Many experts believe that the core problems with our society is single parent homes.



If our government can do something to help a family stay together, to help a couple walk through their issues instead of walking away from them, then is it such a bad idea?

That said, my gut instinct goes against this policy at the present time. Although I believe it could be a great policy at some point in the future, our country is facing a terrible deficit and we need this administration to focus on cutting spending, not increasing it.

Hugo

I can accept that. Good sound reasoning. Single parent house holds are in more dire need of aid.
However I doubt the the majority of single parent households came about by divorce. More likely because of an unplanned pregnancy with the father deciding he won't screw up his future(ability to have a good time) by adding any responsibility and he bails.
In the end I don't beleive this is going to be anything but yet another complete waste of time. It will be driven into the ground for campaign purposes "See WE care!" but will never even come close to helping.
I actually beleive that Bush is honest in his desire to help, however anything the government attempts becomes a dismal failure.

Is this a realistic goal that is achievable?

I don't see anything defining the way to go about it. I'm not too fond of the government overtly campaigning to get people married and keep them that way. There are some very good reasons to have reasonably liberal divorce laws.

Is Marriage teachable?

Yes. But that doesn't mean the best students are guaranteed a successful marriage by their standards or those defined by the government. (Yikes that's a frightening prospect) (Dear government stay out of my bedroom, yours truly, Eeyore)

Why consider low income people to be less able to enjoy healthy marriages?

Is this a fact? I have yet to see it demonstrated.

I think the government can and should do some things to make marriage and parental responsibility to poor people.

The old welfare system (and as far as I can tell, the new (Clinton Era) one) give favorable treatment to single mothers.

The tax system has places in it where it is economically better to be single than married for tax purposes.

I am in favor of the government using its programs to promote two-parent families in a similar manner that to the way that the government promotes home ownership in this country.

I believe that having a live-in boyfriend or a spouse in the house is detrimental financially for a poverty-level mother.

That brings in income that threatens food stamps, section 8 housing vouchers, tax day earned income tax credits, state medical insurance programs, and I am sure I am missing a few things.

I think these programs make it harder for poor people to get married. There must be a better way to encourage marriage, adoption, live in male providers, male parental responsibilty, than saying, well its good that you stepped up to bat or stepped into this situation, but this single mother is going to be hurt financially when your working class behind moves in here.

I moved into such a situation everyone involved (except for the natural father of my daughter) took a hit financially when I did. This is part of taking on a family, but it's hard to tell a mother of a child or children that doping the right thing means giving up income, food, and health supplements.

I just don't see this whole thing as bad simply because GWB proposed it. The data clearly shows a stable marriage with kids has a tremendous advantage than single parent families. If it works, hopefully this will be means tested, it will be pennies on the dollar compared to what we have now. The real trick IMHO is taxes. Right now there is NO nada zip reason fiscally to be married and in fact a more reason not to be married because of taxes. If they can fix this, I know you dems will scream about a tax cut for the married, you may see a bigger return for the buck.

cusbilla

I think this is an assumption and would rather find stats about the divorce rate among incomes than blindly accept it.

It seems that those I know (and I know how dangerous it is to make an assumption based on your experiences), it is the people with money who have the marital problems. I do know for a fact however, that the #1 cause of divorce is rising, and that divorces have risen over the decades almost toe-to-toe with incomes.

In fact, the stats would moreso suggest the opposite: that possibly cash value tends to take the place of family vales as the incomes rise.

My judgment? In the words of P. Diddy aka Puff Daddy aka Puffy aka Sean Combs- "Mo' money, Mo' problems".

If Bush's goal is in fact against supporting the gay marriage issue, then he is only going to be paving the way for battle should he push his $1.5 billion proposal in support of marriage through. Allow me to explain:

The most pointed argument with regards to marriage is ownership, specifically whether it is the church or the state that has over-riding interest. As marriage is a matter of law, and divorces are accomplished in the courts and not in the church, and a myriad other influences from government on marriage, it would seem that the greater degree of authority over marriage comes from the state. If Bush puts through this proposal not only will he be reaffirming the states influence over the marriage issue but it will be of a more recent influence, in that it will represent a current trend in moral thought (who's moral thought we will leave to question). Thus, how can any lawyer or lawmaker say with a straight face (pun intended) that marriage is a wholly religious institution and as such the government has no authority to enforce equality?

Also, as we have seen throughout our nation's history, government programs aimed at community support and development have the paramount task to ensure its equal application.

So sure Mr. Bush, propose away, but does your right hand know what the left is doing?

Ah, yes, I make all my romantic decisions based on U.S. tax code. Nothing says loving marriage like basing the decision on whether it will net me a tax break.

If the goal of this proposal is to deal with the social consequences of low-income, single-parent homes- and I agree that's the only interpretation that makes sense- the important question is: Why consider low income people to be less able to enjoy healthy marriages? I think the problem exists, but the reasons for it may determine whether this proposal can satisfy questions 1 and 2, effectively improving the situation.

If the program is aimed only at providing marriage counseling, it'll only help those who were married at some point, avoiding many single mothers. If it promotes marriage- I believe that's what the policy was initially spun as, a continuous commercial for marriage- I doubt it will be very successful.

It would make more sense to go after the real root problem- having children you can't afford to support. Issues like teen pregnancy, early and adult education, unemployment, sexual education, availability of birth control, etc., cause people to have more children then they can support more directly than unsupported children effect those issues. Bush is constrained by his social conservative base, however, in how to deal with many of these underlying issues.

Look at teen pregnancy. It has been repeatedly been shown to a have a negative correlation with education- in fact, a booming village in India dealt with it's population explosion problem by providing free education to it's young women. People put off having children later and later as their education level rises. Improving early education, discouraging dropping out (instead of encouraging to improve test scores, ala Houston) and making college more affordable would do more to remove the problem, instead of placing a bandaid over it.

As far as spending goes, I agree with the old line that it makes more sense to teach someone how to fish than to give them a fish- but this program sounds more like suggesting that people should just get knocked up, married, and hope their spouse is a good "fisherperson".