Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage
The New York Times ^ | 01/14/04 | ROBERT PEAR and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Posted on 01/13/2004 8:00:06 PM PST by Pokey78

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Administration officials say they are planning an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, and they are weighing whether President Bush should promote the plan next week in his State of the Union address.

For months, administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

The officials said they believed that the measure was especially timely because they were facing pressure from conservatives eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage, after a decision by the highest court in Massachusetts. The court ruled in November that gay couples had a right to marry under the state's Constitution.

"This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base," a presidential adviser said.

Several conservative Christian advocacy groups are pressing Mr. Bush to go further and use the State of the Union address to champion a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Leaders of these groups said they were confused by what they saw as the administration's hedging and hesitation concerning an amendment.

Administration officials said they did not know if Mr. Bush would mention the amendment, but they expressed confidence that his marriage promotion plan would please conservatives.

Ronald T. Haskins, a Republican who has previously worked on Capitol Hill and at the White House under Mr. Bush, said, "A lot of conservatives are very pleased with the healthy marriage initiative."

The proposal is the type of relatively inexpensive but politically potent initiative that appeals to White House officials at a time when they are squeezed by growing federal budget deficits.

It also plays to Mr. Bush's desire to be viewed as a "compassionate conservative," an image he sought to cultivate in his 2000 campaign. This year, administration officials said, Mr. Bush will probably visit programs trying to raise marriage rates in poor neighborhoods.

"The president loves to do that sort of thing in the inner city with black churches, and he's very good at it," a White House aide said.

In the last few years, some liberals have also expressed interest in marriage-education programs. They say a growing body of statistical evidence suggests that children fare best, financially and emotionally, in married two-parent families.

The president's proposal may not be enough, though, for some conservative groups that are pushing for a more emphatic statement from him opposing gay marriage.

"We have a hard time understanding why the reserve," said Glenn T. Stanton, a policy analyst at Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization. "You see him inching in the right direction. But the question for us is, why this inching? Why not just get there?"

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of a national group called the Traditional Values Coalition, has started an e-mail campaign urging Mr. Bush to push for an amendment opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Other groups, like the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family, are pushing more quietly for the same thing, through contacts with White House officials, especially Karl Rove, the president's chief political aide, who has taken a personal interest in maintaining contacts with evangelical groups.

In an interview with ABC News last month, Mr. Bush was asked if he would support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and gay civil unions.

"If necessary," he said, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state, or does start at the state level."

Asked to cite the circumstances in which a constitutional amendment might be needed, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said on Tuesday, "That is a decision the president has to make in due time."

The House of Representatives has approved a proposal to promote marriage as part of a bill to reauthorize the 1996 welfare law, but the bill is bogged down in the Senate.

Without waiting for Congress to act, the administration has retained consultants to help state and local government agencies, community organizations and religious groups develop marriage-promotion programs.

Wade F. Horn, the assistant secretary of health and human services for children and families, said: "Marriage programs do work. On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy, stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor."

Prof. Linda J. Waite, a demographer and sociologist at the University of Chicago, compiled an abundance of evidence to support such assertions in the book "The Case for Marriage" (Doubleday, 2000). Ms. Waite, a former president of the Population Association of America, said she was a liberal Democrat, but not active in politics.

Some women's groups like the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund oppose government programs that promote marriage. "Such programs intrude on personal privacy, may ignore the risk of domestic violence and may coerce women to marry," said Timothy J. Casey, a lawyer at the fund.

Administration officials said their goal was "healthy marriage," not marriage for its own sake.

"We know this is a sensitive area," Dr. Horn said. "We don't want to come in with a heavy hand. All services will be voluntary. We want to help couples, especially low-income couples, manage conflict in healthy ways. We know how to teach problem-solving, negotiation and listening skills. This initiative will not force anyone to get or stay married. The last thing we'd want is to increase the rate of domestic violence against women."

Under the president's proposal, federal money could be used for specific activities like advertising campaigns to publicize the value of marriage, instruction in marriage skills and mentoring programs that use married couples as role models.

Federal officials said they favored premarital education programs that focus on high school students; young adults interested in marriage; engaged couples; and unmarried couples at the moment of a child's birth, when the parents are thought to have the greatest commitment to each other.

Alan M. Hershey, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research in Princeton, N.J., said his company had a $19.8 million federal contract to measure the effectiveness of such programs for unwed parents. Already, Mr. Hershey said, he is providing technical assistance to marriage-education projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas.

A major purpose, he said, is to help people "communicate about money, sex, child-raising and other difficult issues that come up in their relationships."

Dr. Horn said that federal money for marriage promotion would be available only to heterosexual couples. As a federal official, he said, he is bound by a 1996 statute, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for any program established by Congress. The law states, "The word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

But Dr. Horn said: "I don't have any problem with the government providing support services to gay couples under other programs. If a gay couple had a child and they were poor, they might be eligible for food stamps or cash assistance."

Sheri E. Steisel, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said, "The Bush administration has raised this issue to the national level, but state legislators of both parties are interested in offering marriage education and premarital counseling to low-income couples."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2004; homosexualagenda; marriage; mathematica; sotu; wadehorn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-235 next last

1 posted on 01/13/2004 8:00:06 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Is there a time when maybe we will actually stop spending? It is getting ridiculous.
2 posted on 01/13/2004 8:01:09 PM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace (I'm from the government and I'm here to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Bush can just close his eyes and get re-elected. This is great stuff!
3 posted on 01/13/2004 8:01:52 PM PST by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Our government inaction.
4 posted on 01/13/2004 8:02:37 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Bush is a Fiscal Conservative Ping.
5 posted on 01/13/2004 8:02:50 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Solving the problems in marriages and the families will go a long way to solving the overall problems in our society.

If there is ANYTHING worth spending money on, IMO, it is this.

6 posted on 01/13/2004 8:06:32 PM PST by ohioWfan (BUSH 2004 - Leadership, Integrity, Morality - my tagline is unchanged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
So, is this money coming out of the Bush family coffers?
7 posted on 01/13/2004 8:07:10 PM PST by Eowyn-of-Rohan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
Presidents these days are expected to toss off a few executive orders at a buck, buck-fifty. Clinton used 'em to federalize land. It is PR-smart to do something "positive" to counter-balance the "negative" of banning gay marriage. NYT says some liberals have also expressed interest in marriage-education programs.

This is a good idea.

8 posted on 01/13/2004 8:08:11 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
"Is there a time when maybe we will actually stop spending? It is getting ridiculous."

The next GOP Administration "election-year initiate" will be another $2 billion boondoggle to "promote safe sex while driving."

9 posted on 01/13/2004 8:13:27 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Dr Wade F. Horn, the assistant secretary of health and human services for children and families:
"This initiative will not force anyone to get or stay married. The last thing we'd want is to increase the rate of domestic violence against women."
In other words, in the most obvious reading of Dr. Horn's own words: "Marriage, in and of itself, increases domestic violence against women."

Not exactly the attitude to have going into a program designed to encourage marriages. Sorry, Mr. Bush, until that mindset is changed a FedGov program to encourage marriage may ruin more than it helps. It's like having the State Department pursue our national interest in foreign policy.

10 posted on 01/13/2004 8:15:43 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda ping - marriage defense spending - this article is kind of confusing.
A. Too much spending. Why the heck should the federal gov't get into the counseling business???
B. Beating around the bush - just get the marriage amendment rolling and be done with it.

(IMHO)

If anyone wants on or off this ping list, inform me!
(it's usually a rather busy one)
11 posted on 01/13/2004 8:19:05 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
God bless President Bush.

We all need to support this program even if it is with only $5.00 or our encouragement.
12 posted on 01/13/2004 8:26:54 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Will this guy EVER stop spending? My God..every week it's something else!
13 posted on 01/13/2004 8:27:04 PM PST by ETERNAL WARMING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
**If there is ANYTHING worth spending money on, IMO, it is this.**

Amen!
14 posted on 01/13/2004 8:27:37 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
What a freakin' joke.

And this was supposed to be the year that William Jefferson Bush was going to slow down the wild spending.

15 posted on 01/13/2004 8:29:30 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
Bush can just close his eyes and get re-elected. This is great stuff!

Sure! SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! Bush might waste taxpayer dollars to get more people to get/stay married, BUT they won't be able to afford children thanks to tax increases that will have to happen in Bush's 2nd term or when whomever gets the office after him in 2009 has to increases taxes THROUGH THE ROOF to pay for Bush's liberal spending sprees. Yes, Bush is a liberal Republican. The only thing that allows him to use 'Republican' in his name is that he bombs our enemies and the fact that the Republicans have COMPLETELY abandoned the conservative cause.

16 posted on 01/13/2004 8:29:58 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
We all need to support this program even if it is with only $5.00 or our encouragement.

No "we" don't.

If you want my hard-earned money, why don't you personally come and take it, insteading of asking your elected theives and whores in DC to do it?

17 posted on 01/13/2004 8:30:32 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Solving the problems in marriages and the families will go a long way to solving the overall problems in our society.

Just like all the gov't spending on "families" since the 1960s made things better?

I find it hard to believe that people are really this stupid, just because an "R" is in the White House.

18 posted on 01/13/2004 8:32:01 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eowyn-of-Rohan
So, is this money coming out of the Bush family coffers?

No, but he and his fellow thieves will get the credit for it, as you can already see here.

19 posted on 01/13/2004 8:32:47 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
It is ridiculous.

Defending straight marriage is good - blowing $1.5 B is totally unnecessary.

20 posted on 01/13/2004 8:34:09 PM PST by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-235 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson