Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage

The New York Times ^ | 01/14/04 | ROBERT PEAR and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[steve-b]

Libertarians will say, "get the State out of the marriage business entirely!", and this battle cry will resonate.

As well it should.

[antidisestablishment]

I think the federal government has already done enough for to marriage—especially for those in the lower socio-economic groups.

[steve-b]

But when Bush starts wasting the taxpayer's money on a pork-barrel program under the guise of talking about helping folks better deal with the issues of marriage, Bush gets blasted for trying.

Fixed it for you.

[scripter]

Who's going to teach us?

From the article:

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.

[Askel5]

A billion now is not going to put the genie back in the bottle they released with millions in "Education" of the American public to eschew marriage (the foundation of family and REPRODUCTION) back in 1970.

It's interesting to me that the disdain in which the likes of Hillary Clinton hold the average American is excelled only by the GOP's belief they can corral and retrain us like domestic longpigs.

[scripter]

You're just wasting time and playing games.

[ohioWfan]

Zing!!! Point, texasflower.

[ohioWfan]

Zing!!! Point, texasflower.

[antidisestablishment]

God now needs the governement to help with marraige?! If churches weren't so damned worried about not offending anyone, we wouldn't have these problems!

Interesting tagline...(†With God all things are possible.†)

A more appropriate one for you (†With God [and some federal $$] all things are possible.†)

[scripter]

I'm all for trying to fix the deteriorating moral fabric of this country. Bush is doing what he and his advisors think is best, and from what I know about Bush, I think he's putting an honest effort into it. You disagree with his methods. I don't like the cost, but I don't like the cost the deteriorting moral fabric has caused either.

[familyofman]

No matter the merits of this idea (there are none) - the whole program will need to be called a "war" on something. That's just the way things are in DC.

What should the "war" be on?

Old maids
Singles
Shacking up...

[steve-b]

The Puritans considered it a civil matter, not a religious one.

Oh, puh-leeze. It is quite evident from Puritan writings that they considered matrimony and sexual union within marriage to be Divinely ordained institutions.

[scripter]

Great post.

[steve-b]

Trying to fix the moral fabric of society by having people turn to the government for guidance is like trying to fix a loose screw by spraying it with WD-40.

[bvw]

As opinions go, that one is as good and well-formed as the FedGov bureaucratic position on "Staying Married".

[the_devils_advocate_666]

If there was one Demorat that I didn't think was going to raise taxes, I might consider not voting for Bush. I doubt anyone could spend as wildly as he does...

[bvw]

If we are going to have cheerleaders is someone also going to be selling band cookies?

[CommandoFrank]

I don't know about the rest of you people but I'd be more than happy to look at a TRUE conservative rather than GW come election time. This spending BS has got to stop!

The commercial that won the MoveOn contest is very true...

[scripter]

From the article:

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.

I see that as something positive.