janelle

Posted on Mon, Mar. 11, 2002 Leonard Pitts

Marriage isn't a four-letter word

Let's get married today." Al Green sang that in 1973. These days, it's George W. Bush on lead vocals. The president recently unveiled proposed changes in Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare-reform act. And although Bush's plan to tighten work rules on welfare recipients has drawn fire, it's what he wants to do about the institution of marriage that really has some folks up in arms.
You see, he wants to ... encourage it. That is, the president proposes to earmark $200 million in federal money to fund state programs that promote and maintain healthy marriages. Meaning, for instance, classes for those who plan to take the leap and counseling for those who already have.

A number of social workers, women's leaders, op-ed writers and welfare recipients have responded to this with alarm. Some accuse the White House of trying to force people into marriage. Others say the government has no business meddling in people's private lives. And one observer predicts Bush's plan could be a "nightmare" for women and children.

Two words in response: Oh, please.

Maybe I'm just dense -- wouldn't be the first time -- but I don't understand what all the fuss is about. OK, there's something surreal about the idea of a conservative Republican president pushing what amounts to social engineering. Don't conservatives consider social engineering an evil tantamount to witchcraft and practiced only by godless liberals?

Still, once you get past that little intellectual inconsistency, there's little not to like about what the president proposes to do. Despite the overheated rhetoric of some critics, the plan doesn't amount to a Bush push for shotgun weddings. Nor have I seen any evidence the president would seek to force a woman -- or man -- to remain in a violent or abusive relationship. No, Bush's proposal says, in essence, only one thing: Marriage is good.

You have to wonder what has become of us when that statement is deemed controversial.

But then, married-with-children families account for less than a quarter of all American households these days, down from 40 percent in the early 1970s -- also known as the heyday of the sexual revolution. I was only a kid then, but I recall the earnest debates among people older than I who wondered why they should place so much importance upon a simple piece of paper. Love was love, they said, and it did not require the approval of the government or the church.

It seemed, at the time, a perfectly sensible argument. A generation later, it is difficult to remember why.

Because a generation later, husbands and wives have been supplanted by "my baby's daddy" and "my kid's mother." A generation later, the American family is earthquake-stable and stock-market steady. A generation later, children -- who thrive on stability, predictability and routine -- find themselves largely bereft of all those things, because of the hedonism, selfishness and immaturity of some fathers and mothers. A generation later, commitment is a four-letter word.

Small wonder that, a generation later, some of us barely recognize American children. And what we do know of them breaks our hearts. Many of them -- not all, maybe not most, but way too many -- seem selfish, materialistic, isolated from the larger good, enamored of ephemeral things. Their values -- to use a word beloved by conservative Republicans -- seem unlike not just ours, but any we have ever known.

Marriage, I will grant, is not a panacea for those ills. I'll also grant that cohabitation may make sense in certain situations, primarily childless ones. And while I'm granting, allow me to grant one last thing: It is, and must always be, beyond the province of government to impose marriage on anyone.

But for all that, yes ... marriage is a good thing.

It's a truth cast aside by soldiers of the sexual revolution. The same people who brought women out of the kitchen and gay people out of the closet, who liberated bodies and minds and swept ignorance away, also sold us an unwitting untruth. That is, they taught us that we could do away with responsibility and commitment and that our nation, our families, our children, would pay no price as a result. This is what we sincerely believed.

And we were wrong.



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

Gia

{{{{Janelle********

__________________
To know the true value of a friend~lose one

bngomom

I read that in the paper last week and thought what a mess that could be. What about some woman who has three or four kids with different fathers or a man who has children with several women? Which one do they get to choose to marry, one or all of them?

ksjayhawkfan

I think its a great article. {{{Janelle******

Redfish1

I agree with you wholeheartedly! What could possibly be wrong with Good grief, people sure could use it these days! I had never been married but DH was married twice before me (there will be no more marriages for him - he's stuck with me ), each of his ex-wives have been married THREE times and are looking for number 4! What is wrong with this picture?
I know that there are many bad marriages out there that need to be ended because of abuse, violence, infidelity etc... but I think that some(not all) of the others not included in this group don't put enough effort into making it work. They say they "fell out of love" or something else along those lines. HELLO - part of marriage is dealing with the ebbs and tides of the relationship. You don't feel the same about your spouse after 5 or 15 years as you did when you were newlyweds. You can't expect the same passion when you were first dating to last forever ... it turns into a deeper love, caring, and genuine feelings. Sometimes you want to strangle your spouse (never me though )Everything changes, we have to be adaptable. If not for ourselves for our children.
I think that this presidential proposal is on the mark! Any anger or irritation caused by my response is totally unintentional ... notice that I said some and not all marriages. My opinion applies only to those who were in good marriages and are weenies and gave up on their vows without a good fight.

__________________
If you take your kids hunting, you won't have to hunt for your kids!

Maeryn

Just a couple of quick points:

I agree with encouraging two-parent families. I'm a single mom, and I've seen single parents do an incredible job. But, I think kids are better off if they have two parents in the home (biological or not). This doesn't necessarily mean marriage. It's not uncommon for two people to remain unmarried all their lives, and still be a very stable two-parent family. AND, it's also very common for parents to be married, but not function as a stable healthy family.

AND...If Bush wants to increase the number of Married parents, why doesn't he advocate to legalize marriage for gays? There's a very large number of healthy stable families out there with same-sex parents.

captorquewrench

No, marrigae isnt A 4 letter word. it's 2 4-letter words. lol

Seriously, this is a good thing, i think.

__________________
Hate is easy. Loves takes courage.

hotllama

I agree wholeheardedly...but I don't think that it's going to happen anytime soon.
Also, I think that the issue (in terms of what people are objecting to) is whether or not this is a good use of federal funds. I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, because I haven't made up my own mind about the issue...but I think that it's the money that is really spurring the debates, not the fact that he wants to encourage marriage.

__________________
What if I said to you that the universe is a three-legged horse, eh? What then?
--Russell Hoban

If you try to fail, and succeed, what have you done?