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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-235 next last
To: Salvation
Amen!

Spend your own money on your failing marriage(s). Or go to church. It is a f***ing shame that people on a supposedly conservative posting forum advocate GOVERNMENT interference in marriage, a religious based union. Religion/church is cheapened and Americans become more and more dependant on GOVERNMENT.

Arguing with your wife much? Get a GOVERNMENT counselor to discuss things, instead of a priest, pastor, reverend or rabbi! AMEN TO THAT! It's already happening in schools (whenever something happens in a school, they roll out the counselors) so why not in your marriages?

21 posted on 01/13/2004 8:34:20 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
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 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.

"A lot of conservatives are very pleased with the healthy marriage initiative."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republican government, conservative groups = federal program to teach the people interpersonal skills - on the cheap of course. Aren't you glad the Democrats aren't in control?

22 posted on 01/13/2004 8:38:46 PM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Hey, government spending on unconstitutional programs is just like communism: If it doesn't work it's because the wrong people were in charge. Now that the guy in charge has an "R" by his name, any spending, even on things blatently unconstitutional, is great!

Woohoo, spend away! It's only $1.5 billion after all. It's not like we're talking about real money here!
23 posted on 01/13/2004 8:41:47 PM PST by flashbunny (A corrupt society has many laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Or go to church. It is a f***ing shame that people on a supposedly conservative posting forum advocate GOVERNMENT interference in marriage, a religious based union.

Men and women should be honest and loyal to each other in a relationship.

Men should find out what their wives like, and they should do a lot of that.

Women should find out their husbands like, and they should do a lot of that.

Where do I collect my $1.5 billion?

24 posted on 01/13/2004 8:42:10 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Rarely do government programs actually accomplish their goal. And the unintended consequences are usually worse than the original problem.

The people that will run this programs are the same ones that work in Planned Parenthood. Bureaucrats are specific type of person with a distorted view of the world, and especially these days do more harm than good. They will probably blow most of the money on Superbowl adds.
25 posted on 01/13/2004 8:43:09 PM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
I thought we needed this money to:

fight terrorism
leave no child behind
give free drugs to seniors
support illegal immigrants
go to Mars

Oh well. I guess it's easy to spend when it's not yours.

26 posted on 01/13/2004 8:44:40 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: u-89
"appeals to White House officials at a time when they are squeezed by growing federal budget deficits."

They are "squeezed by deficits" because they are pissing OUR money away. It's we who are being "squeezed"
This is like a drunk crying because his bottle is empty.
YO! The fault is he drank it.

As to the other nut, Bush, he spent it.

27 posted on 01/13/2004 8:46:54 PM PST by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I know one of the people quoted in this piece, Wade Horn, "assistant secretary of health and human services for children and families." Cool. I developed and managed his organization's website, fatherhood.org ; I haven't worked on it for a couple of years, so don't blame me if it looks bad now. :-)

On one hand, the family is the foundation of the country. On the other hand, our government is sure spending a lot of our money....
28 posted on 01/13/2004 9:03:01 PM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"Mawwiage"
29 posted on 01/13/2004 9:05:44 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat (www.firethebcs.com, www.weneedaplayoff.com, www.firemackbrown.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
My copy of the Constitution doesn't authorize this.

Maybe I've got one of the old, first editions.

30 posted on 01/13/2004 9:07:19 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Dick Gephardt. Before he dicks you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
...which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

Such as money management?

31 posted on 01/13/2004 9:07:41 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat (www.firethebcs.com, www.weneedaplayoff.com, www.firemackbrown.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
My copy of the Constitution doesn't authorize this. Maybe I've got one of the old, first editions.

You might want to get rid of that before Fritz Ridge catches you with it.

There's a few posters here who are chomping at the bit to get their free homeland security decoder ring, and wouldn't hesitate to turn you in.

32 posted on 01/13/2004 9:15:14 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
"Such as money management?"

LOL,
Yes, they need Bush to teach them money management,
because he is a "conservative" you know.
33 posted on 01/13/2004 9:16:39 PM PST by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Let's see... 1.5 billion, and of course, no federal program will ever be shut down. I'm sure glad that every Rat in the race is ten times as worse, else I'd be sorely tempted.
34 posted on 01/13/2004 9:16:59 PM PST by kingu (Remember: Politicians and members of the press are going to read what you write today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

In Bush Jr.'s mind, it's this . . . . and whatever other damn stupid idea to buy votes and piss away our money that occurs to him and his political hacks and flacks.

I'm so sick of Big Stupid Republican Government that I could just spit.

35 posted on 01/13/2004 9:17:21 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Dick Gephardt. Before he dicks you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
"My copy of the Constitution doesn't authorize this. Maybe I've got one of the old, first editions.

You might want to get rid of that before Fritz Ridge catches you with it."


Quick, hide it in your almanac!

36 posted on 01/13/2004 9:18:08 PM PST by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
Quick, hide it in your almanac!

LOL!

A copy of the Constitution is bad enough, but do you really want to get caught with that and an almanac?

I can see a detention camp in your future, comrade.

37 posted on 01/13/2004 9:21:29 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
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.

Gosh, libs, ya think? Thanks for coming to the party, oh, about 6 thousand years late...
38 posted on 01/13/2004 9:22:35 PM PST by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
As long as it is conservative social engineering, I am all for it!?
39 posted on 01/13/2004 9:27:33 PM PST by sixmil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theo
On one hand, the family is the foundation of the country. On the other hand, our government is sure spending a lot of our money....

Gee, ya think?????

And your parasite buddy: Wade Horn, "assistant secretary of health and human services for children and families." is right in there, sucking on the public tit, doing absolutely nothing that generates value for real customers - and helping to push this insanity to squander even MORE of our money.

Man, you're connected, all right. You must be so proud.

40 posted on 01/13/2004 9:28:33 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Dick Gephardt. Before he dicks you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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