Tying Marriage Vows to Welfare Reform

Washington Post ^ | 4/1/02 | Amy Goldstein

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

In six Michigan counties, single women on welfare who have a baby are required to take 24 hours of classes on how to be a good parent and "create a stable family." In West Virginia, 1,800 welfare families are being paid a $100 monthly bonus because the children are being raised by married parents.

And Utah gives every couple that applies for a marriage license a free 20-minute video on "the three C's" for a strong relationship: commitment, communication and conflict-resolving skills.

[concerned about politics]

It's a shame taxpayers have to teach idiots how to marry and stary married.
This movement would ruin the Marxist anti-family agenda, though. So I guess we'll just have to teach the idiots and hope they "catch on" to the deep, deep meaning. Geeeez. Liberals have to be really, really, stupid people.
Who taught them to use the toilet?

[freeeee]

Such new state strategies to encourage marriage, all paid for with federal subsidies

Paid for with federal subsidies? Where in the Constitution is marriage enumerated as a federal concern?

I wonder which tortured clause in the Constitution will be brought out this time, if the issue is even raised:

Interstate Commerce Clause?
General Welfare Clause?
Necessary and Proper Clause?

Most likely we won't hear anything about the constitutionality of this federal program. So called 'conservatives' won't say anything because it's 'their guy' and they happen to like marriage initiatives and the Democrats have taught them so well that the 10th Amendment is so passe.

The Rats won't complain because such federal spending is well within their interpretation of their 'Living Constitution'.

Too bad, I'd love to hear some 'conservatives' try to defend this from a constitutional perspective.

Anyone out there care to try?

[concerned about politics]

Too bad, I'd love to hear some 'conservatives' try to defend this from a constitutional perspective.

Lower taxes, less goverment social programs.
Each time the moral fabric is torn, tax payers become more and more inslaved by the consequences.
Get rid of the moral decline, free the slaves.
Those who endorse moral depravity as "constitutional" are building their own tax prisons brick by brick. They're taking the rest of us down with them.
If social programs were eliminated today, crime, plague, abandoned children, would be the outcome.
Why endorce any moral decline in the first place? It leads to our own distruction from within. Bush is attempting to rebuild the nation from it's enimies. That's his job- to protect the country from attack.

[butter pecan fan]

Too bad, I'd love to hear some 'conservatives' try to defend this from a constitutional perspective.

Anyone out there care to try?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Those are the purposes for which the Constitution itself was set up. Every single one of them is advanced by teaching idiots how to marry and be good parents.

[ijcr]

In this nation, two homosexuals living together qualify for more financial support than married couple.

For example two individuals living together can recieve $530 each, in income, prior to qualifying for assistance from Medicaid.A grand total of $1060 pcm.

Meanwhile a married couple who's income exceeds $795 pcm is denied. just because you have been loyal and faithful to your partner for 40 to 50 years,you get punished.

[freeeee]

I noticed you didn't attempt to address the constitutionality of the issue.

If you'd like to debate this based solely on its merits as a good idea, aside from its constitutionality, you'll first have to concede that it is unconstitutional. That is unless you have a case to show otherwise. If you chose to claim it is in fact constitutional, I honestly don't think you'd have a leg to stand on unless you want to start sounding like a living constitution liberal.

Each time the moral fabric is torn, tax payers become more and more inslaved by the consequences.

Taxpayers are enslaved by socialism. Your neighbor's irresponsible behavior is not justification for theft to further enable more irresponsible behavior. Rather than eliminating irresponsible behavior, all welfare programs increase it because you'll always get more of what you subsidize. Even if this were not the case, welfare is a state concern, with not one bit of constitutional justification on the federal level.

If social programs were eliminated today, crime, plague, abandoned children, would be the outcome.

I was unaware FDR's legacy had such high standing on FR. I'm not naïve, so I know we couldn't remove all social programs overnight. They'll have to gradually be undone so people can learn to be self-sufficient. If there is any merit to this proposal I would concede that the financial stability of the family would help to remove people from welfare.

Bush is attempting to rebuild the nation from it's enimies. That's his job- to protect the country from attack.

Are you honestly trying to liken this to some kind of war?

[freeeee]

OK, yours is one vote for the General Welfare Clause.

I have a few questions for you if you don't mind:

Are there any actions that the government could possibly take that are not covered by the General Welfare Clause?

Why are there enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8? Why isn't "teaching idiots to marry" one of them?

What of the 10th Amendment?

What is the difference between your interpretation of the Constitution and that of living constitution liberals?

[GovernmentShrinker]

In six Michigan counties, single women on welfare who have a baby are required to take 24 hours of classes on how to be a good parent and "create a stable family."

Sounds like the classes are being held a wee bit too late. There are a wide range of ways to "create a stable family", but having a baby while you're a single woman on welfare is inconsistent with all of them.

[Lorianne]

In six Michigan counties, single women on welfare who have a baby are required to take 24 hours of classes on how to be a good parent and "create a stable family."

Um.... noticably absent in the discussion of two parent families... once again... fathers. Where are they? Are they required to take the classes? Why not? Where did these babies come from? How did they arrive on planet earth? Did extraterrestials make them? Who is responsible for them once they arrive on the planet?

[Lorianne]

Sounds like the classes are being held a wee bit too late. There are a wide range of ways to "create a stable family", but having a baby while you're a single woman on welfare is inconsistent with all of them.

Co-creating a baby when you're not married and unwilling to support a child is also inconsistent with "stable familiy". It takes two to tango (and presumably two to marry as well).