Posted on 01/14/2004 10:25:06 AM PST by jtminton
WASHINGTON - 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 in his State of the Union speech next week.
For months, administration officials have been working 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 believe the measure is especially timely because of pressure from conservatives eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage after a November ruling by Massachusetts' highest court that gay couples have a right to marry.
"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 Bush to go further and use his State of the Union speech to champion a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Leaders of these groups said they are confused by what they see as the administration's hedging and hesitation on such an amendment.
Although administration officials said they do not know whether Bush will mention the amendment, they expressed confidence that his marriage promotion plan would please conservatives.
"A lot of conservatives are very pleased with the healthy marriage initiative," said Republican Ronald Haskins, who has worked on Capitol Hill and at the White House.
The proposal is the type of relatively inexpensive but politically potent initiative that appeals to White House officials squeezed by growing federal budget deficits.
It also plays to Bush's desire to be viewed as a "compassionate conservative," an image he sought to cultivate in his 2000 campaign. In his re-election campaign, administration officials said, Bush is likely to visit programs trying to increase 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 past 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.
But the president's proposal may not be enough 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 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 Sheldon, chairman of a national group called the Traditional Values Coalition, has started an e-mail campaign urging Bush to push for an amendment opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Other groups, such as 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. He has taken a personal interest in maintaining contacts with evangelical groups.
In an interview with ABC News last month, Bush was asked whether he would support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and gay civil unions.
"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," Bush said. "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 specify the circumstances in which a constitutional amendment might be necessary, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said 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 expert consultants to help state and local government agencies, community organizations and religious groups develop marriage promotion programs.
Wade Horn, 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."
Linda Waite, a University of Chicago demographer and sociologist, compiled an abundance of evidence to support such assertions in the book The Case for Marriage. Waite, a former president of the Population Association of America, said she is a liberal Democrat but not active in politics.
Some women's groups such as 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 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," 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 specified activities, including 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 favor premarital education programs that focus on high school students, young adults interested in marriage, engaged couples and unmarried couples at the "magic moment" of a child's birth.
Alan 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. He said he is providing technical assistance to marriage education projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas.
A major purpose, Hershey said, is to help people "communicate about money, sex, child raising and other difficult issues that come up in their relationships."
Horn said federal money for marriage promotion would be available only to heterosexual couples. As a federal official, he said, he is bound by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for any program established by Congress. The law says, "The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
But 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 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."
You took the words out of my mouth! This is truly asinine. They want to spend the better part of $2 billion to try and talk people into getting married when more than half of marriages end in divorce. This is subsidizing divorce lawyers and the divorce industry.
It's not the president's job to promote marriage. Aside from that, the institution of marriage has been gutted like a trout by no-fault divorce laws. Increasing the number of marriages in this environment will just expand the scope and power of the lawyers and divorce courts.
No. I'm saying it's wrong to spend millions of taxpayer's dollars to do so.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
Him: "Honey, seeing that ad made me realize what a selfish bastard I've been."
Her: < Swoon >
< Cue romantic music, couple strolling off through the big trailerpark, hand in hand into the sunset >
Can I retroactively apply for my share of that chunk of change? My wife and I were once also an unmarried couple working on interpersonal skills. All we got was a freakin' toaster, and some flatware at our reception!!
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.