Posted on 04/15/2002 10:39:24 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Jaclin Kirkland should get married. At least that's what the Bush administration thinks.
Kirkland, 26, thinks otherwise. She can't imagine marrying the father of her 5-year-old son.
"We were Tyson and Holyfield," she said. "We're civil now, but marriage — that's not even a thought."
Women like Kirkland may start thinking about marriage if Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration get their way. They want to spend up to $300 million per year in welfare programs that will encourage marriage.
Backers emphasize that they won't be forcing anyone down the aisle. They say they have no interest in pushing bad or violent marriages. To emphasize the point, they constantly refer to "healthy marriages," in both conversation and legislation.
"The administration's interest is not in simply moving marriage numbers. It's healthy marriages," said Wade Horn, who heads the welfare agency within Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites).
They point to uncontroverted research: Children who grow up with married parents are less likely to live in poverty.
"The decline of marriage since the 1960s is a substantial factor behind the current high levels of child poverty," concludes a report being released this week by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Many Democrats in Congress, not wanting to appear anti-marriage, are uneasy about challenging the Bush plan. Some have quietly suggested that the marriage money be available for broader purposes — such as involving fathers in their children's lives, or reducing teen pregnancy.
But some argue government simply has no place promoting marriage — a view apparently shared by most Americans.
A recent poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that 79 percent of Americans believe government should "stay out" of these activities. A poll being released Monday by a coalition of liberal groups found that 86 percent of respondents prefer that any new money available for welfare go to programs that help people get good jobs, rather than programs that encourage marriage.
Single women who have been on welfare say the idea may make sense in theory, but there's no way it would work for them.
"It's hard being a single mother, don't get me wrong," said Kelly Siler, 31, who lives outside of Chicago with her three children. "But right now I'm happy to be single. I don't feel like taking care of a man who would act like a child."
The father of her 10-year-old son has been in and out of jail since the boy was born, she said. After her 5-year-old twins were born, she found out their dad was married to another woman.
There's no way she would marry either man, she said.
"If you gave me $15 million, it wouldn't be worth it," she said.
Kirkland, who also lives near Chicago, feels the same way, recounting a violent relationship with the father of her son.
"Obviously, yeah, it is best for kids to have both of their parents in the home, but everybody is not meant to be married," she said.
But some relationships might work out, proponents say. A few states are trying. Their efforts fall into two general categories:
_Offering financial incentives to get married. In West Virginia, for instance, married couples get an extra $100 in welfare benefits.
But this doesn't encourage "healthy marriages," Horn notes, because the benefits go to any couple, whether it's a good match or not. A program like that might not be funded if the Bush plan becomes law, he said.
_Working to reduce divorce. A few states are using their welfare money to try to strengthen existing marriages rather than create new ones. In Utah, couples who apply for marriage licenses get a free video with tips for a strong relationship. In Oklahoma, the state offers marriage workshops.
"Our goal is really not to get anybody to get married. That's probably an important distinction to the national debate," said Mary Myrick, project manager for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.
Most of the people on welfare are single mothers who have never been married. So what would a pro-marriage program geared at welfare recipients and other poor Americans look like?
Supporters point to new research that suggest there is a "magic moment" for unmarried couples that comes with the birth of a child. A national survey found that half of low-income unmarried parents are living together at the time of a child's birth. Another third are romantically involved. And nearly three in four mothers say their chances of marrying the fathers are 50-50 or better.
Horn suggests that these couples simply be offered marriage counseling. He offered no other specific ideas, saying he wants states to think creatively.
That's not good enough, said Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund. She worries the Bush plan will wind up coercing people into bad marriages.
"It raises very big questions about intrusion into the very personal decisions about which government has no business," she said. If Republicans want to reassure people, she added, they need to be more specific about how the money will be used.
But even if they do, Edelman argued, the money could be better spent on programs that help men become better catches.
"The best thing for marriage," she said, "is a good job with a decent wage."
"But right now I'm happy to be single..."
I think she means she's happy to suckle on the taxpayers' teat.
"It's hard being a single mother, don't get me wrong," said Kelly Siler, 31, who lives outside of Chicago with her three children. "But right now I'm happy to be single. I don't feel like taking care of a man who would act like a child." The father of her 10-year-old son has been in and out of jail since the boy was born, she said. After her 5-year-old twins were born, she found out their dad was married to another woman. There's no way she would marry either man, she said.Hmm ... do you think she has figured out what caused her pregnancies? I mean, didn't she pick these guys in the first place? If you don't want a guy to be the father of your children, then don't have unprotected sex with them!
Kirkland, who also lives near Chicago, feels the same way...
Wow, four virgin births around Chicago alone!
But it shouldn't be promoting single motherhood either. The fedgov shouldn't be involved in welfare, social engineering, or income redistribution at all. But in realtiy it is involved and it's policies either promote marriage or promote single motherhood. It's black or white. That's why this should not, and never should have been, given to the fedgov to deal with.
Neither. I was referring to the article implying she was on welfare, and being happy. She shouldn't marry either of them, and she shouldn't be on welfare either. No one should.
Actually, you are right. It would just be another marriage made in Hell. Lets just cut off her welfare.
Next thing you know, somebody will propose a program to make huge payments to "ex-gays" for staying heterosexual, and the "conservatives" will all jump on board because in their enthusiasm to support any anti-gay initiative, they won't notice that it's really a pro-socialism, anti-freedom initiative, which will have absolutely no effect on the incidence and practice of homosexuality.
Wake-up call to conservatives: we need LESS welfare, not more!
Personally, I think single mothers who can't make ends meet should be advised to enter into arrangements with other single mothers, whereby two or three mothers would share a home, with one staying home taking care of the kids and the other(s) working. If it hadn't been for the welfare handouts, they'd have probably figured this out for themselves by now.
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.