Should Congress encourage marriage?

Simple answer: Spend the money on real issues.

Wow ... what a question. I personally don't like the idea of "encouragement" by the government on any life choices, but part of this sounds like resources and reinforcement for healthy families in general (the line about fatherhood). The argument could be made that spending the money to reinforce and "encourage" healthy marriages (not sure how this is defined) could save money on other government programs down the road, but this is speculative at best.

Is marriage the answer? What's the question again? Well I guess that depends on who's asking -- if it's the government saying "get married, yo", then maybe not so much. On the other hand, if Congress has any sway on my hesitant boyfriend, I'm sure I could partition a little of my taxes for that ...

Thanks for commenting True American.

Caryn your point about resources/reinforcement is interesting. I saw that the initiative lists allowable activities such as advertising campaigns and healthy relationship skills education. That reminds me of those better living campaigns that point out things like "Try until you succeed" or "Don't beat your kids" but...there's some murkiness there.

I'm not sure if you mean that as a joke, James as I can't read your tone, so here's a serious reply: the mission page states the initiative is not about, "Withdrawing supports from single parents, or diminishing, either directly or indirectly, the important work of single parents."

James: How can the govt possibly keep families together? How can you stop 2 people from cheating/having affairs/domestic violence/falling out of love. I dont think this is something the government can flip a switch on or write into legislation.

I hardly think that the institution that seems unable to rid itself of marital infidelity, homosexuality, pedophilia, and divorce should be the ones to mandate or encourage marriage upon anyone, frankly.

Marriage isn't valued today as much as it were in past. The idea of spending tax payer's money to encourage marraige is a waste of time and Money. People should get married at the time of their choosing and for the right reason whatever that may be. I agree with you Jim, they should be focusing on keeping families together. I don't believe that it would change our social and economic issues. Marriage is not the answer. Our money should be invested into something that would be benificial and important.

the government can't make two people stick together just for the sake of society. It is up to the individuals invloved to make or break the relationship......I stand corrected

Trying to keep up here... to all, I ask:

How can we - all of us, not just Congress - support families in staying together and improving family relationships? If this were the "Healthy Family* Initiative" would you be more comfortable with it?

*Up to you all to define that.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you Jim! ......By the way, do you prefer James, Jim or Jimmy?

As long as all forms of "family" were accepted. The words "Healthy Family Initiative" sounds nice but is it going to be a program whereby families are rigidly defined. That would amount to rank discrimination for those families that don't match the description.

Marriage should not be encouraged or discouraged by the government (especially the federal government) in my opinion. I think the less government involvement in the lives of people the better.

AMEN!!!!

James: great idea.. make it hard to divorce. Exactly what we need is to make it difficult for 2 people to get away from each other, thats real healthy. Watch the homicide rates go up.

*snork*

I love this.. the government thinks they can make people get married...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

Let me give a senario..

"Johnny, I'm pregnant!"

Johnny has a bewildered, deer in the headlights look on his face...

"Oh shit what am I gonna do, this is going to ruin my life!"

"wait..what's that bill board say??"

GET MARRIED, YOUR GOVERNMENT SAYS SO!

"yeah, that's what I'll do.. I'll get married for my government!"

*snork*

If the Gov't proposes, one word, three letters : RUN!!!!!!

Spend the money on helping the single parents get the necessary training to make enough to survive on.

Hi, Julia. LOL!
I'm not sure why there's this assumption that the single-couple family is the only "right" model - As times and energies shift, it may be that women of power might need male harems, for instance, or at least more than one husband.

I like your idea Mandi, we could even call it the "Marriage Draft." Those who remain married after a cdertain period under such circumstances can join the "Veterans of Forced Marriages" organization. "Do the crime - pay the time." It would be absolutely ... STUPID.

But the federal governmet has been trying to promote moral values for as long as there has been a government; prohibition in the consitution, tax breaks for home morgages, etc. Sometimes there are good economic reasons for doing so, but most of the time they are feel good ideas that have ahandwaved economic reason for them.

Frankly the best way to financially help both singles and couples is by giving them the knowldege and the tools necessary for them to plan their economic futures. Otherwise the question of which is better is moot when both routinely throw their money out the window through poor financial planning.

Does anyone think there are good economic reasons for Congress to promote marriage?

The ACF site Healthy Marriage Initiative links to a source article "Why Marriage Matters: 21 Conclusions from the Social Sciences, Institute for American Values, 2002." but that link ( http://www.marriagemovement.org/PDFs/WhyMarriageMatters.pdf ) currently shows the server at marriagemovement.org is not found.

What is "marriage" anyway? A sanction by a religion or a government. Wouldn't a "party" where you personally commit to the other person, but isn't sanctioned by an authorizing body be just, or perhaps more, valid? The key is the emotional commitment, which can't be judged, whether it has the label of marriage. Marriage is a human construct that puts this emotional commitment in an arbitrary box.

Mike I like your question "What is "marriage" anyway? A sanction by a religion or a government?" I always thought it was a sanction by my religion. I take it as not only a commitment I made to myself, my spouse but to my God. Now that being said, my husband and I are on the verge of a possible divorce. We have 4 kids that this will affect. I am staying because I believe it's my "job" in a sence to do everything I can to make this marriage work. To make this marriage last. How would the govenment help me? Maybe their needs to be more affordable workshops or counseling, out there provided by the government. Right now our insurance doesn't cover marriage counseling. Therefore we are going to get stuck paying $98 for a 45min session. This really isn't in our budget and I know for a fact that it's not in the budget at all for some others. What will happen if we do divorce? Would I possible have to go on public assistance? Would my husband? There would be no way right now he would be able to afford child support for 4 kids and provide for himself. Long story short, I don't know if I think Congress promoting marriage is the key, but I do think Congress promoting better marriages by providing services that could make or break a relationship would be better for everyone.

But wouldn't the same scenario play out if you made an emotional commitment without the official "marriage" if you were being true to your emotional/spiritual heart? Why does the government need to promote one particular definition of commitment? I think my unmarried (male-female) partnership is as valid as a marriage.

Mike,
Maybe it would. For me personally, my faith has me believing that Danny and I were brought together for a reason. That each of our kids were born, by us, for a reason. Danny and I have only been married for 6 years now. But we have been together for 14 years. We we finally decided to get married, for us, it was a commitment that went beyone our partnership.

I read about a woman who had grown beyond the "one man fits all [needs]" concept in this way: She took four husbands, one for each season. When Fall left, then Winter's turn had come, and so forth.
I doubt that she bothered with human law systems there - she just allowed herself room to grow.

I find it troubling that the conversation on the radio was framed in terms of adolescent parents...that so many really young women become pregnant...and that the suggestion is that these folks should be encouraged to marry. Next week, a study will likely be released suggesting that marriages between two young people are xx% more likely to end in divorce. Isn't divorce more damaging to children than single parenthood, on average? Especially as divorce is practiced now. We not only need marriage/committment education, we need divorce education.

I can see how borken marriages effect our world in so many ways. However, I don't think it's our governments job to enforce marriage, encourage marriage, or restrict marraige. It all comes down to money, and how much of it the government has to pay out due to broken marriages. That's where I think they could step in and play a positive role by providing more assistance for married couples who don't have the means to get it else where.

Defining family seems to be a tricky discussion...

Heather I'd like to go back to your point: "We not only need marriage/committment education, we need divorce education." Instinctively, I thought that sounds like an incredible benefit - but Heather can you elaborate on what that might entail?

There are so many societal patterns to choose from - or perhaps, patterns which choose us when the time is right. Group parenting is one. In this country, that used to be very common, with extended family households; and in wealthy homes, servants interacting with the children as well. Nowadays a significant number of people are exploring lifestyles within intentional communities. Again and again, it comes up that humans desire to be in conscious community relationship with all ages; and they recognize that it DOES take a whole community to raise a child. A Whole community.

Now that there are more families with kids that aren't married than are married we need to spend and spend and spend much more money from congress till there are more unmarried families with kids than there are now.

I suggest that we not spend on the war but spend more on these things that don't matter at all.

Simple answer: What TA said.

The government should not tell people how to live their lives. However, it could help a little time to time when people have made decisions. My question is: can the government find me a wife? Do I want it to since I am not that desperate?

Steve, are you wondering if the Federal Gov't should create a "Department of Future Spouses"?

Your question cracked me up as much as it helped make a point.