I believe I just heard our president call for ending the barriers to marriage for low-income Americans.
Categories: Marriage
| « Conversing in Forgiveness | HuffPost’s “Let’s Talk” Features David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch » |
New!
Subscribe to the FamilyScholars Conversation Podcast Channel!
Just Published
FamilyScholars Symposium Coming in March
Get Your Book Now and
Be Ready to Join the Conversation!
Just Released!
Does the Shape of Families Shape Faith?
Civility Statement
Bloggers and commenters: be rigorous, be powerful, be funny, but don’t be mean. Inappropriate and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders of the policy will be banned from comments.
Read our full civility policy »
Just Released!
The State of Our Unions 2012
From Fighting Same-Sex Marriage to Forging a Pro-Marriage Coalition for All
Mark Oppenheimer, New York Times, 1/29/2013
How My View on Gay Marriage Changed
David Blankenhorn, New York Times, 6/22/2012
Letters to editor of New York Times, "Rethinking Gay Marriage," responding to opinion piece by David Blankenhorn
New York Times, 6/26/2012
Amy Ziettlow, Stephanie Coontz, and other guests debate "Middle Class Marriage"
Huffington Post Live, 11/7/2012
Un-hitching the middle class
Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post, 12/15/2012
Steinfels & Blankenhorn, talking marriage
Dominic Preziosi, dotCommonweal, 5/8/2013
Finding 'the one' in college
Amber Kasselman, The University Daily Kansan, 5/8/2013
Why Teach Philanthropy -- and How?
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Huffington Post, 4/18/2013
The Real Threat to Marriage: Traditionalists should stop fighting gays and refocus their attention on the no-fault divorce.
Christopher Moraff, The Philly Post, 4/18/2013
Future hangs on making it harder to get divorce
Emily Schatz, Asbury Park Press, 4/14/2013
More news »
Recent Comments
- Rhonda: I feel very strongly that if you are not mature enough to make a marriage commitment, you are not mature...
- Rhonda: S to the single mother, if it took 2 yrs to convince him AND he charged her for it, she should have realized...
- Diane M: The first story is a clear example of the importance of being open. I think it also suggests that we need to...
- Diane M: @LaLubu – “It really is easier to make a marriage work when both parties have their ‘acts...
- Diane M: @Mont D Law “But since we agree that this idea has zero impact on the behaviour of individuals why is...
“…And we’ll work to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples, and doing more to encourage fatherhood – because what makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one.
Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger America. It is this kind of prosperity – broad, shared, and built on a thriving middle class – that has always been the source of our progress at home. It is also the foundation of our power and influence throughout the world.”
http://www.denverpost.com/politics-national/2013/02/transcript-state-of-the-union-prepared-remarks-full-text/
What makes a woman a woman?
http://familyscholars.org/2006/11/01/the-other-marriage-penalty/
http://www.centerforpublicconversation.org/propositions/2012-10.php
http://stateofourunions.org/
http://www.americanvalues.org/marriage-a-new-conversation/index.php
Heh. Shots fired! It’ll be interesting to see what happens if he starts boldly tying “stronger families” with the necessity of economic stimulus, infrastructure rebuilding, college tuition/loan reform, and making service-industry jobs living wage.
It’s a shame he had to mention families, because it now just became politicized. There’s a bunch of people whose sole mission in life appears to be opposing whatever President Obama supports. I don’t see why they’d make an exception for families.
[It’ll be interesting to see what happens if he starts boldly tying “stronger families” with the necessity of economic stimulus, infrastructure rebuilding, college tuition/loan reform, and making service-industry jobs living wage.]
Or lack abortion and contraception access an economic issue of vital importance to the formation of stable families.
Kevin, don’t tell me you aren’t looking forward to the whatever-he-says-I’m-agin-it crowd trying not to argue against incentivizing marriage for low-income couples.
Myth, I assume they’ll trot out the usual “government is the problem, not the solution” canard. IAP has its hands full, if it believes that the government has a role in family formation and durability. Many persons will disagree.
Government = politics = “what, if anything” and “how” and “federal v. state” and “will it cost anything?” etc.
Great sentences– I hope it is converted into action.
Kevin,
Yeah, I think that will be a knee-jerk reaction of some Republicans, which is unfortunate, because a truly conservative position isn’t reducible to “all government is bad”, but rather, “good government serves specific, limited roles in helping order our society and securing our fundamental rights, and should be structured to fulfill those roles efficiently and well.”
Whether the government should privilege marriage, and how it might do so, and at what level and cost, are naturally political questions – my hope is that on this issue the political won’t be reduced to the partisan and that some solutions can be worked out…we’ll see…hard not to be cynical about the state of things in Washington.
@Elizabeth Marquardt – I do believe someone in the White House has been reading your reports.
His comment is a great start.
@Matthew Kaal – I agree with your comment. Right now it seems impossible to get anything done in Washington that needs funding.
On the other hand, the first step is to talk about what we need. That’s what Obama has done in this speech. He’s outlined the programs that he thinks need support and started the discussion going.
I would be optimistic about removing marriage penalties because that seems like something both parties would agree to in principle and I don’t think it would have a huge financial cost.
So here are some more things I’d like to see discussed in DC:
Increasing the child tax credit for families, with an actual payment to families that don’t earn enough to pay (like the earned income tax credit).
Providing marriage and relationship counseling to people who want it – but getting a source of funding other than TANF.
Job creation and education.
Matthew wrote:
“… because a truly conservative position isn’t reducible to “all government is bad”, but rather, “good government serves specific, limited roles in helping order our society and securing our fundamental rights, and should be structured to fulfill those roles efficiently and well.”
Oh, to wish you were one of the Powers that Be, Matthew. Yes, to you seeing that government is a good, and not an evil. It certainly can devolve into being evil; but, it’s always a necessity.
Color me cynical on any results of achieving even a minimum of POTUS’ ideas, unless there’s money to be made by some Corp or person. The common good has departed from political discourse or will. I’ve lived too long to think otherwise.
Matthew again:
“… my hope is that on this issue the political won’t be reduced to the partisan and that some solutions can be worked out…we’ll see…hard not to be cynical about the state of things in Washington.”
It will be more of the same-o, same-o; I’m afraid.
(Increasing the child tax credit for families, with an actual payment to families that don’t earn enough to pay (like the earned income tax credit).)
Except that makes them moochers and takers, part of the 47% that don’t pay taxes and so will never take responsibility for their actions.
(Providing marriage and relationship counseling to people who want it – but getting a source of funding other than TANF.)
Except Republicans already hate TANF and are going to try to gut it when it comes up in March. Since the right doesn’t believe in helping poor parents feed their kids I can’t imagine they’ll favour money for counseling programs. Ineffective marriage promotion programs run by their political allies maybe, but not a universal benefit that accrues to the poor.
(Job creation and education.)
Another two conservative bugaboos. Didn’t you know government created jobs aren’t real jobs and education reform means destroying the teacher’s union and gutting public education.
In a recent survey Republicans favored comprehensive immigration reform by a wide margin, except when it was identified as an Obama initiative, then they rejected it.
This is not a problem of the left worshiping the sexual revolution and feminism, it a problem of the right trying to punish people for being poor.
You know, Mont, when you pigeonhole people, it probably makes them more likely to fit into the narrative that you’re imposing on them. Just a theory I’m noodling…
Although I don’t think labels are all bad, I think that’s one huge problem with them: they exacerbate the human tendency to put everything into rigid, neat little categories.
If I’m a Republican (or a Democrat) and I hear over and over again that Republicans (or Democrats) all believe X, it might start to sink in after a while, and I might start believing X more, just because I’m a Republican (or Democrat)… which is not a good reason for believing anything.
So, when you pigeonhole people, you’re helping sustain and promote ideas you don’t like. Just a thought…
(So, when you pigeonhole people, you’re helping sustain and promote ideas you don’t like. Just a thought…)
You know Schroder when you stick your head in the sand about the political realities of effective marriage promotion you’re helping to sustain and promote ideas you don’t like. Just some condescension …
Sorry, for being condescending, Mont. That was wrong. I apologize.
I will say, though, that, examining my motives, I don’t think that the condescension was completely intended, although, re-reading, “Just a thought…” does come off a little glib.
I more meant that this was just a hypothesis as opposed to a well-worked-out theory, so I erred (a little too much) on the side of being casual.
Regarding the rest of your comment, I don’t think I’m putting my head in the sand. I’ve advocated for a lot of liberal policies on this blog.
I just think that individuals will be insulted by what you said, because it seems like you are implying that conservatives are the Borg or something.
So, let’s start over. I should have been more careful with my phrasing. I’m sorry that I was rude. But, seriously, do you think there could be something to my hypothesis?
@Mont D Law – luckily, Republicans created the earned income tax credit. And keep in mind that Romney lost, something that other politicians have noticed. “Except that makes them moochers and takers, part of the 47% that don’t pay taxes and so will never take responsibility for their actions.”
But, yes, I am sure some Republicans will oppose programs. Right now there are many who are just against any spending. That’s where Matt’s argument comes in – conservatives need to start advocated for something more than just, let’s cut taxes.
The current state of Congress often discourages me, but I have hope that people will realize they can’t get anything done unless they’re ready to make some compromises and that they lost for a reason. The swing to the refuse to comprise group is going to have to end soon.
I also think we have some hope of convincing some conservatives and moderates that supporting marriage and the family means looking at issues of income inequality – as Raush argues.
@Schroeder and Mont D Law – I don’t think so anyhow.
“If I’m a Republican (or a Democrat) and I hear over and over again that Republicans (or Democrats) all believe X, it might start to sink in after a while, and I might start believing X more, just because I’m a Republican (or Democrat)… which is not a good reason for believing anything.”
I think people aren’t going to believe something just because someone who disagrees with them says that they do.
However, I do think that the natural reaction to comments like
“Since the right doesn’t believe in helping poor parents feed their kids I can’t imagine they’ll favour money for counseling programs. Ineffective marriage promotion programs run by their political allies maybe, but not a universal benefit that accrues to the poor.”
is to stop listening or talking to the speaker. If you’re going to be misrepresented and insulted, there’s not much point in trying to discuss the issue.
So I would say that it divides people and makes them less likely to support an idea they might be okay with.
Hi Diane,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you here, actually, if you’re just referring to individuals. My hypothesis is more about what can happen writ large.
I mean, look at the facts on the ground: we have a situation where, if you know someone’s views on abortion, you can predict (or you think you can predict) their view on global warming – a completely unrelated issue! That is rather striking, precisely because it’s so bizarre. It calls out for an explanation.
My hypothesis is that society creates two scripts for us here in the States (Republican or Democrat) and that there is heavy social pressure to conform to one of these scripts completely. I think that lumping “conservative” and “Republicans” all together contributes to this problem.
So my argument against what Mont said, in particular, is analogous to the arguments I’ve heard against littering: “While it’s true that one soda bottle on the ground is probably not bad for the environment, lots of soda bottles on the ground is. Since you can only control what you do, you shouldn’t throw soda bottles on the ground.” Replace “soda bottle(s) on the ground” with “pigeonholing people” and “environment” with “civil discourse” and you have, roughly, my argument.
What do you think?
(I think that lumping “conservative” and “Republicans” all together contributes to this problem)
And I think ignoring the fact that the face of conservatism in the US is the Republican party is hair splitting at it’s worst. Republicans call themselves conservative, liberals call them conservative, the media calls them conservative, all their think tanks, bloggers, supporters and enemies call them conservative. All their policies are promoted as conservative, they govern as conservatives. Even those making the no true Scotsman argument, like TAC largely don’t make it on social issues, but forgein policy ones. So until your argument that conservatives and Republicans are not the same reflects some meaningful political and policy distinctions, it’s irrelevant.
(luckily, Republicans created the earned income tax credit.)
They also created the mandate frame work Obamacare is based on, that didn’t stop them from going nuclear when it got passed. And it hasn’t stopped them from trying to cut the child and earned income tax credit. The 2012 Republican budget plan purposed gutting both.
(And keep in mind that Romney lost, something that other politicians have noticed)
Sure they noticed, but not enough to change their behaviour or their rhetoric. They can’t win, but they can sure play dog in the manger.
Schroeder:”I mean, look at the facts on the ground: we have a situation where, if you know someone’s views on abortion, you can predict (or you think you can predict) their view on global warming – a completely unrelated issue! That is rather striking, precisely because it’s so bizarre. It calls out for an explanation.”
This is so true! And it makes me nuts. People hear what I think about divorce and children, for example, and they think they know what I believe about welfare reform or defense spending or what my religion is or whether I dated other men before I got married. I mean, please. I’ll tell my story for myself, thank you.
I have some questions concerning think-tanks, foundations, and government spending.
First, I’m fairly certain that since 2001, this country has spent close to $1 billion dollars on marriage initiatives, much of it going to faith-based groups. Google that to confirm.
So, how did all that money change a thing? In fact, marriage and all its allied support systems have only gotten worse.
So, how do think-tanks operate on getting their issue suggestions implemented? If the Ward and June Cleaver Foundation decides to support IVA, does the Foundation, who pays the piper, call the tune?
How do the ‘thinkers’ get the ‘thoughts’ into society? Do think-tanks have lobbyists that have the ear of Congressmen? Do the thinkers have the ear of Ward and June, and then Ward and June muscle the movers-and-shakers?
I realize these are dumb questions, but I’m totally ignorant on how this all works. Where did all the government money go that supposedly went to help marriage? Whose pocket is it in? Is there some flow-chart somewhere that describes how this all works?
Sorry, if this is off-topic.
@Shroeder – I agree when you put it like that. We do split into camps on issues and then people get stuck following their group.
Another example that drives me wild – phonics. How did figuring out the best way to teach reading become a liberal versus conservative issue?
I agree with Elizabeth Marquardt – I like to be able to have views that don’t follow a party line.
Hi Teresa– I wish it was all as simple as a bunch of money goes into someone’s pocket, but in my experience at least, it’s nothing like that. As far as how much money Think Tank A receives from Foundation B, non profit think tanks like ours are required to file 990s which are available to the public.
Best,
Elizabeth
(I agree with Elizabeth Marquardt – I like to be able to have views that don’t follow a party line.)
I am not suggesting that you not be able to do that. Or that it is not a good thing. I hold many views that don’t follow any party line let alone a liberal one. What I object to is denying the reality that the biggest hurdle to effective marriage promotion at the state and federal level is the Republican party.