|
||
|
|
||
|
Family Scholars Blog
Saturday, January 31, 2026
An advice columnist from the Toronto Star, concluding that "sometimes divorce is best," responds to this letter: Question: My wife and I are married 14 years, with kids ages 7 and 4. She cares little for sex, once a month, it's not very satisfying. She thinks I'm unromantic but it's difficult when she has no interest in me. She wants me to treat her like a princess and buy her things but I'm practical and don't think you should spend unless you have it. She's always angry about her housework, I help out, but between doing homework, baths, putting kids to bed and some cleaning, I don't get finished until 9 p.m. We tried counselling; she quit because she wouldn't write down about her past. She says she's the way she is, period. I want to stay for the children and for her, but it seems at the expense of my own happiness.Would you have advised this guy, on the basis of these complaints and this letter, to seek a divorce? From New Delhi: With marriages no longer remaining a simple ceremony and becoming an event to show off one's wealth, Union human resources development minister Dr MM Joshi today advocated formulating a model "Code of Conduct of Marriages" on the same lines as the Dowry Prohibition Act to save the bride's parents from incurring a huge financial burden. The good professor, himself happily married for decades, obviously doesn't have time for the theory that one cannot legislate in social change. "Marriage is no longer a simple, sacred ceremony. It has become an event to show off one's wealth, which leaves the bride's side financially strained," Dr Joshi said at a conference on dowry organised here today as part of the National Commission for Women's week-long foundation day programmes. From Toronto: Are you due for a marriage check-up? You regularly see a doctor to detect physical problems, why not a counsellor to catch marital trouble spots? That's the thinking of the Ontario Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, which is offering couples a free 50-minute marriage check-up during Valentine's week, February 9 to 13. It's not a therapy session. Couples will be given a survey on key issues such as dealing with in-laws, parenting, handling money, spending time together, communicating, enjoying sex. A registered marriage and family therapist will rate the strengths and weaknesses of the partnership and talk to the couple about the state of their union. The NYT's Frank Rich, who makes Maureen Dowd look serious, on the Administration's marriage initiative: Now comes the coup de grace: In a campaign year likely to be poisoned by a culture war over same-sex marriage, politicians feel compelled to play marriage counselors. Last month the president from the small-government party proposed a $1.5 billion program that will mount its own advertising push, among other federal elixirs, to promote "healthy marriages." Some might argue that taxpayers' money would be better spent on drug plans that cover Viagra for husbands who leave their wives for the N.F.L., or, better still, on job programs that would increase the ranks of the potentially marriageable. Cynics might say that the president's "healthy marriage" initiative is merely political posturing anyway. Congress will never sign on to such a scheme - or so one might hope - and meanwhile the president can claim credit for, as he put it himself, taking "a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization." From the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram: President Bush's $1.5 billion initiative to boost the marriage bond relies on the support of many members of Congress who are, ironically, divorced. Just last year, three Texas lawmakers -- Reps. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio, and Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio -- had high-profile divorces. Gonzalez's ex-wife, Becky Whetstone, coincidentally a marriage counselor, has attracted widespread media attention as she prepares to run against him for election as an independent. She has accused the congressman of being verbally and emotionally abusive. Of the 535 members in the House and Senate, 108, or more than 20 percent, were divorced at least once, according to a 2000 survey by Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Congress. From Utah: Utah House members could be more worried about marriage preparation than the brides and grooms. After a long debate Friday, representatives decided to hold onto Democratic Salt Lake City Rep. Roz McGee's proposal for marriage preparation classes to get more information. McGee's bill would give couples a $20 break on their license fees if they undergo counseling from therapists or religious leaders. McGee points to the cost of divorce to make her case. For example, in 2001, nearly 10,000 couples nationwide divorced, costing $300 million in legal fees, child support and property costs. She noted lawmakers considered requiring marriage counseling in 1971, but never put the rule in place. "Marriage is the most complex relationship," McGee said. "Unfortunately, too many couples are not prepared. Many couples do not have the communication skills." The editors of the WaPo on the Administration's marriage initiative: The administration is right that children who grow up in families with healthy marriages have a better start in life, for a mixture of economic and emotional reasons. As the government is in the business of promoting child welfare through public schooling and health insurance programs, there is presumably no conceptual objection to promoting child welfare by promoting marriage. However, marriage therapy is a woolly science; since the 1960s the number of marriage therapists in the country has gone up about 25-fold, yet the divorce rate is higher than it used to be. There is, in short, no guarantee that the government can do anything to promote stable marriage. Yet because the potential gains are large, there is a case for experiment and research.I am more supportive of the initiative than they are, but the editors make valid points. There is a huge and troubling budget deficit. This proposal is a new spending program largely in the spirit of big-government liberalism, in which social workers and others do-gooders try to do something to improve society and help the poor. And yes, the proposal seeks to "throw money at" some programs that, to some important degree, are untried and therefore untested. I concede all that. But to me, the problem is big enough, and the cost of doing nothing high enough, and the potential of these new grass-roots programs intriguing enough, so that I am willing to throw some taxpayer money at these efforts and see what happens. One more point. The editors keep using the word "therapy," but a much more accurate word is "education." We are not talking about access to therapy, we are talking access to education and about community organizing around the issue of strengthening marriage. Think of other fields. Public health officials and policy makers typically say "drug education," not therapy. We say sex education, drivers' ed ... you get the point. Calling this inititiative "therapy" is misleading. P.S. Anyone who supports this initiative should write a letter to the Washington Post responding to this editorial. Make it short (1-2 grafs). Send it right away, by email. It's awful that almost no one who supports this initiative is responding to this wave of negative media discussion; we need to turn that situation around, right now. Friday, January 30, 2026
From David Usher, a fathers rights leader, in Men's News Daily: "Social Engineers vs. Divorcees: The Real Marriage Movement Steps Forward." He spends a fair amount of the article criticizing me. From a columnist in the Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion-Ledger: "The more President Bush and his supporters talk about protecting marriage, the more they mimic the segregationists who opposed civil rights for blacks." From the Washington Blade: WHETHER ADVOCATES call it marriage equality, same-sex marriage or gay marriage, the notion of two men or two women legally marrying each other so upsets some folks -- including more than a few gay people -- that civilized discussion, much less civility, can be nearly impossible. Such has been the case even in picturesque, pastoral, generally liberal Vermont, as David Moats' new book, "Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage," which is scheduled to be released Monday, Feb. 2, makes clear. A story in today's Ft. Worth Star-Telegram on the Administration's marriage initiative: "Bush marriage plan creates sharp division" From a column in the Toronto Star: "Latest news from the front in war to save marriage." Thus: I was recently chosen as one of the few journalists to be embedded with a division of U.S. troops working to implement the goals of President Bush's $1.5 billion Healthy Marriage Initiative. Here's my diary, keeping in mind that some details have been omitted so as not to jeopardize the troops' position or future movements: From Knight Ridder, a column by Leon Sanden, a professor of religion, on the SOTU, civil unions, and the Administration's marriage initiative: He [Pres. Bush] was conspicuously silent concerning an initiative that reportedly had been slated for inclusion in the address: a $1.5 billion proposal for a training program to help couples develop the interpersonal skills crucial for "healthy marriages." Apparently that announcement was replaced by the cautious endorsement of the amendment. The president's careful engagement of this wedge issue reflects its complexity and volatility. Elizabeth cites today's page one NYT article on same-sex couples. This graph in the story caught my eye: It is a perennial complaint among members of the clergy that many straight couples regard the chapel as little more than a stage set for a picture-perfect wedding. In contrast, many of the gay couples who are heading for the altar are regular worshipers who say in interviews that religion is central to their lives. They represent an often-overlooked slice of gay America: the monogamous homebodies more likely to have met their mates at Bible study than at a bar.Several recent stories in the NYT (here and here) report, or at least strongly suggest, that SS couples with children are better parents than heteros. Now we know one more reason why. SS couples are also more pious! Might it also be true that SS couples are more likely than heteros to recite the Pledge of Allegience on a daily basis? BUTLER ON KURTZ: Cool blogger Sara Butler has an excellent reply to Stanley Kurtz's piece on The End of Marriage in Scandanavia? (With credit to Marriage Debate Blog.) I feel like soul sisters on this one: ...Gay marriage wouldn't even have occurred to us if our understanding of marriage hadn't already changed dramatically. The logical conclusion of this diagnosis, I had thought, is that merely preventing gay marriage really won't do all that much to fix what's already broken, although it might slow down the process of deterioration slightly. Unfortunately, that's not the conclusion that Mr. Kurtz draws: FORCED DIVORCE FOR TRANSSEXUALS? CON'T: Matt Taylor writes: It is refreshing to read that transgender people are being accorded more recognition; while a gender change is difficult for most people to understand, those who undertake it are very serious and must make enormous physical, financial and emotional sacrifices. How disappointing that, after all that struggle, a transgender person must lose their marriage once they arrive at the identity which is true to their inner nature. Certainly this situation isn't what opponents of SSM had in mind when they formed their position on marriage; at the very least, a marriage formed when the partners are of opposite sex should be "grandfathered" and remain in force after one of them changes gender. I agree. RELIGIOUS BLESSINGS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES: Although 37 states have passed laws banning same-sex marriages, members of the clergy say they are seeing a growing number of religiously observant gay couples who are sidestepping the debate over legal rights and seeking to consecrate their unions in churches and synagogues. I oppose legalized same sex marriage but support civil unions and religious blessings for same sex couples. But it bothers me that some clergy use the word "marriage" to describe these blessed unions. In a sense, the religious sphere is offering us a test case for what would happen if civil unions become the law of the land. Will the term "civil union" simply exist on the books while all "good", "enlightened" people take to calling these unions "marriages" instead? If so, the concern some of us have that legalized same sex marriage will make the word "marriage" itself no longer carry a clear meaning would happen anyway with civil union legislation. DIVORCE AND SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION: The head of the National Institutes of Health told legislators yesterday that funding for sexual dysfunction research is needed because "it has an enormous impact on the stability of families and is a major cause of divorce." I believe it, and I'm also intrigued that the NIH head, desperately trying to defend his budget from people who think the government shouldn't study sex, thought this was a compelling argument that would convince legislators. Let's hope so. BROKEN HOME: When the divorce revolution took off "happy talk" arose as one of the preferred ways of dealing with children's pain and suffering following divorce. No longer did these children come from "broken homes" -- instead, we started talking about divorce as a normal family transition and used terms like "good divorces," "blended families," and the like. So it struck me when reading the NYT this morning to see the headline, "Budding Designer Rises From Broken Home." The article, one in "The Neediest Cases" series, talks about a teenager's struggles since her parents' separation and her talent for designing and making elaborate dresses. Yet, it's hard to imagine the NYT doing an article on a middle-class or affluent child of divorce and saying he or she came from a "broken home." Was it this teenager's post-divorce poverty and the need to portray her as a neediest case that made them use the term? Or the detail that her father hit her mother before their divorce, which the article mentions as well? I'm betting that they'll get zero letters to the editor about this use of "broken home," and I'm also willing to bet that if they used the term outside of the neediest cases column, and in reference to a middle class or affluent child of divorce, the letters from moneyed, irate divorced parents would pour in. Thursday, January 29, 2026
DIVORCE IN THE BIBLE BELT: ...The most recent state by state comparison of divorce rates in the U.S. shows that the least number of divorces take place in northeast states that are predominately Catholic. States in the bible belt rank high in the number of divorces. According to a study by the Barna Research Group, Born Again Christians are more likely to go through a marital split than are non Christians. The question is why is this happening in a place where many people are so attached to religion? FORCED DIVORCE FOR TRANSSEXUALS? At first I thought this article was a joke, but apparently it is not: Married Scots who undergo a sex change will be forced to divorce under new legislation giving transsexuals greater legal rights. This is very troubling. The state should not be in the business of forcing anyone to divorce. Goodness knows, a couple in which one wants to go through a sex change has enough stress already, and if their commitment can be sustained through that experience then more power to them. Surely there is a way to prevent legalized same-sex marriage without treating these couples as people operating in bad faith. It must be quite a doozy for a kid when his mom or dad has a sex change operation, but the state making them divorce against their will doesn't help anybody and sets a very bad precedent. "Protestors Call Bush's Marriage Plan 'Dangerous'": Ina press release, the protest organizers said President Bush's marriage initiative puts lives at risk because the poor women targeted for pro-marriage programs tend to be victims of domestic violence and "should not be forced to stay in dangerous and even fatal relationships." Women who are being abused need help escaping and recovering from the abuse, not incentives to stay in unsafe relationships, a press release said. "Spending $1.5 billion to promote marriage is fiscally irresponsible, when low income citizens, married or not, require proven ways to bring them out of poverty, such as a livable income, decent schools, affordable health care and housing," the protest organizers said. The protest against President Bush's marriage initiative is being organized by a number of community groups, including the Washington-based Center for Community Change, which says it works to reduce poverty and rebuild low-income communities. From Rainbownetwork.com: "Canada Pulls Gay Marriage Bill." The report says: The Canadian government on Wednesday announced it will rewrite its constitutional questions for the Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. In announcing the decision, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said the questions would be framed to ask the court whether the traditional definition of marriage violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada`s bill of rights. Cotler said the government remains "committed to same-sex marriage" but wants a broader hearing because the "country is divided on this issue". He said that his ministry will argue in favour of civil marriage before the court but believes the court needs a broader "scope" to consider. Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the Administration's marriage initiative: "Shallow effort's goal is votes." She writes: I believe in the institution of marriage. I was reared by two parents in a loving and stable home, and I have no doubt that this arrangement is best for children. But I have my doubts about President Bush's proposal to spend $1.5 billion encouraging "healthy" marriages, mostly in poor neighborhoods. It is unlikely to prompt a big bump in bridal bouquet sales. Nor will there be less traffic on the road to divorce court. Bush's proposal isn't really intended to do those things. Instead, it is a transparent and cynical election-year ploy intended to placate conservative Christians -- one of his core constituencies -- who are upset about recent trends favoring same-sex marriage.Having gotten that off her chest, she goes for substance: You would expect a proposal built on such cynicism to be shallow, and this one is. While many conservatives seem to see the "healthy marriage" initiative as a way to address a broad spectrum of problems afflicting the nation's underclass -- out-of-wedlock births, poor educational attainment, unemployment -- the man who would administer the marriage initiative describes it as something far less ambitious. Wade Horn, head of family support in the Health and Human Services Department, says the initiative would merely teach "marriage skills" to couples who are already wed or couples considering marriage. Not only is the initiative not the Bush administration's anti-poverty program, it doesn't even aim to promote marriage, Horn claims. "I think that is an unfortunate phrase. It does suggest we want to get single parents in a room and lecture them on the virtues of marriage. But we don't think it would be helpful to do that. What we do want to do is help those people who do want to marry to sustain a healthy marriage," he said ... But if Bush were serious about promoting marriage among America's underclass, there are easily hundreds of better ways to do it. The president could start by ratcheting down the failed war on drugs, which has imprisoned many young fathers for nonviolent drug-related crimes. If Bush used the marriage funds, instead, to help these men find jobs after parole -- how about paying businesses to hire them? -- they would become more eligible as prospective husbands. And they might then be encouraged to marry the mothers of their children. But that sort of initiative would require some serious investigation of the barriers to marriage in poor neighborhoods. Besides, real help for America's underclass might not sell so well on the campaign trail.Also, here is a readers forum on "Should federal dollars be used to encourage marriage?" Wednesday, January 28, 2026
SEX SELLS...BUT NOT AS MUCH: The problem is, the public just doesn't seem to be in the mood for it, and the recent mediocre album sales by Spears, Pink and similar artists may reflect a classic case of mismarketing.UPDATE: On the other hand.... Maggie Gallagher on the politics of the Administration's marriage intitiative: "KIDS JUST WANT A TWO-PARENT FAMILY" FROM ANDREW SULLIVAN: SEPARATED AT BIRTH: "Such [civil union-style] statutes point to a future in which couples will have many options, from 'covenant marriage,' in which both parties sign a contract pledging not to divorce, to a number of less binding choices." - gay leftist, Richard Goldstein.I think having a buffet of relationship options would weaken the institutional status of marriage much more than allowing same-sex couples to marry. "INVESTMENT IN FAMILIES": So why are so many on the liberal side of the aisle so skeptical of President Bush's marriage initiative? From watching the media's take on this -- and the reaction to his State of the Union address -- one gets the impression that Bush & Co. must be out to pull the wool over our eyes somehow, that there must be an ulterior motive. A BRITISH DOCTOR WRITES ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO DISPENSE WITH 'NEED FOR A FATHER' IN IN VITRO LAW: ...the chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Suzi Leather ...has suggested that, henceforth, the clause requiring doctors to take account of the need of a child for a father, when offering in vitro fertilisation to infertile women, should be removed from the law. The idea that fathers are necessary or even desirable in the lives of children is, in the opinion of Ms Leather, too old-fashioned to be entertained any longer. MOTHERS FROM HELL: Mothers from Hell started out as a casual support group and turned into a group of women who take a stand. MOTHERS IN PRISON, in the Guardian: Some 55% of all women in prison have at least one child under 16. Over one-third have a child under five. When they're sentenced, they must make provision for these children, or see them taken into care, which not even the most flagrantly blase authority would pretend is anything other than a developmental disaster. So, the burden falls on family members, and is rarely taken on by one constant household for the entire sentence, but rather patchworked together from a variety of people, in whom the mother might have fluctuating amounts of trust. MOTHERHOOD IN LIVERPOOL: And the suggestion of a confluence between several trends: IT IS not easy trying to bring up children and hold down a job, but research suggests more women are doing this than ever before.According to figures released by the Office of National Statistics, 55% of women with children under-five now have full-time or part-time jobs. Experts say this could be contributing to Britain's childhood obesity problem... Wade Horn has a letter to the editor in today's WaPo responding to Robert Reich's op-ed on the Adminstration's marriage initiative. From the Modesto Bee: "Does Britney's 'marriage' threaten yours? Of course not" He argues that, just as Britney's silliness poses no threat to other people's marriages, so accepting SS couples into the institution would pose no threat to hertero couples. It's a common argument. But, leaving aside one's position on SSM, it's wrong to believe that my individual marriage, and yours, are completely insulated from larger societal pressures and trends, whether celebrities acting silly or new laws redefining the institution. Marriages are not private islands or fortresses. What happens in the larger society does matter. The columnist Bill Murchison on the Administration's marriage initiative: The Bush marriage proposal, costing $1.5 billion over five years, aims at fostering "healthy marriages" among the poor, with whom such marriages are less common. The money would go for counseling services, marriage enrichment and the like. At precisely that notion, blood boils in certain veins. A libertarian spokesman for one prominent think tank sniffs, "1965-style Great Society liberalism" -- meaning do-gooding at taxpayer expense. The impeachment has its ironic side. Great Society liberalism has been fingered (by scholar Charles Murray among others) as one of the causes of family decline from the '60s forward. A Murray-ite could argue that what the government undid (by encouraging welfare dependence) it now should work to restore (by funding marriage enrichment and so on). The intensely private nature of marriage works against a $1.5 billion government spending program or, for that matter, a $1.5 trillion one; though it probably should be said that, compared with ventures on which the government wastes far more than $1.5 billion, marriage enrichment doesn't seem unworthy. GAY MARRIAGE IN SCANDANAVIA: Andrew Sullivan has responded to Stanley Kurtz's latest piece against same-sex marriage. Tuesday, January 27, 2026
IF YOU WERE AN ADULT WHEN YOUR PARENTS DIVORCED: Brooke Foster is a young journalist at Washingtonian Magazine who wrote a powerful article last year about the way it felt when her parents divorced when she was 25 years old. There is very little written about being an adult when your parents get divorced and this enterprising young woman has just scored a book contract with Random House to tell her story and give concrete advice to others like her. Here's the thing: She's got a web survey and I'm asking our readers a favor. If you were over the age of 18 when your parents got divorced, visit her site and complete the survey. And if you know someone who fits this category, or if you're on any listserves that are appropriate, spread the word! Stanley Kurtz on the disappearance of marriage: ...AMERICANS take it for granted that, despite its recent troubles, marriage will always exist. This is a mistake. Marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, and the forces undermining it there are active throughout the West. Perhaps the most disturbing sign for the future is the collapse of the Scandinavian tendency to marry after the second child. At the start of the nineties, 60 percent of unmarried Norwegian parents who lived together had only one child. By 2001, 56 percent of unmarried, cohabiting parents in Norway had two or more children. This suggests that someday, Scandinavian parents might simply stop getting married altogether, no matter how many children they have... Jonathan Metcalf may be right (see below) that in decrying these skewed opeds on the healthy marriage initiative we are missing a chance to have a meaningful dialogue with these folks (though I think this dialogue is happening more than he realizes -- just because we gripe on the blog doesn't mean that's the only place we're talking about it). He also has a good point that the president would have done this legislation a big favor by humanizing it with a lot of couples and families standing behind him for a big announcement. But of all the categories of couples that Metcalf names, the only one not included in the initiative are same sex couples. Rich couples don't need marriage promotion assistance, in the same way they don't need food stamps. They can go out and pay for it on their own. And all of the racial/ethnic groups he names are equally qualified to receive this assistance. Same sex couples are not, because if the intent of the legislation is to try and help more children to grow up with their own mother and father then including same sex couples in a marriage initiative doesn't really make sense, does it? Jonathan Metcalf, a marital therapist, writes in: When you decry the tenor and content of these op-ed pieces [on the Adminstration's marriage initiative] you miss a chance to have a meaniningful dialogue with these folks. Also, concerning the lack of progress, it seems to me part of the problem is the marriage movement won't come out unequivocally in support of all unions (rich, poor, straight, gay) needing support and guidance as a matter of good public policy. When the government picks and chooses which groups "need" its help, it opens itself up to sniping from both the right and the left. If the president were to get out in front of this issue, he would put himself on a stage behind a podium with all types of couples/families behind him (black, white, asian, hispanic, same sex, rich, poor). He would announce that his legislation is meant to help all these families -- they are all deserving of government's support. He would ask any diehard social conservative or left winger to stand up and choose which couples "deserve" more (or less) treatment and attention than others. I don't believe there would be any takers. But even if there were, he would get credit for taking a stand for ALL families not just the ones with which each of us feel comfortable. Just a thought. Susan Reimer of the Baltimore Sun on the Administration's marriage initiative: Forgive me. This type of initiatives inevitably brings out my cynical nature. And spending $1.5 billion to talk the poor into marrying and staying married sets a new standard for smug self-righteousness. Not to mention ignorance. Does Bush really believe the poor are lousy marriage material because they don't have polished interpersonal skills? Does he really believe all that is needed to stop the repercussive damage of single-parenthood is a public relations campaign on the benefits of holy matrimony? And does Bush really believe this sop to conservatives will get him off the hook for not proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? What planet is this man on?Having gotten that off her chest, she makes a pass at substance: The poor have more pressing issues. They are undereducated, under-employed or unemployed. They are not paid a living wage. They don't have access to decent child care or good schools for their kids. They don't have transportation to decent jobs where they can work decent hours. If you want to spend money to help poor families stay together, you might pick something from this list to fund rather than spending money on some goofy initiative to promote the value of marriage. A poor woman might be open to this pitch if the father of her children has a decent job that includes health care for her and the kids. If he does not, she might understandably decide that it would be a mistake to hitch her wagon to his. Putting a marriage-counseling center in her neighborhood isn't going to change his suitability, but spending $1.5 billion to put some jobs in the neighborhood might. "The leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales today attacked schools for providing "sex education galore" while failing to prepare pupils for marriage." From Peter Brown of the Orlando Sentinel: "Civil unions: By any other name, it's gay marriage" He can be against both, but I think he's wrong to say that the two are the same. I have a letter to the editor in today's WaPo responding to Robert Reich's op-ed on the Administration's marriage initiative. Monday, January 26, 2026
IN CHINA "Middle-aged are more likely to divorce:" "Middle-aged people have greatly changed their notions about divorce during the present social restructuring. Although the majority of them have children, they give first priority to seeking a happy life," said Xiao Fei, a judge who is in charge of writing a report based on the survey. BALANCE AT THE NYT? A good piece by Tamar Lewin on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, starting out with the positive experience of couples at a marriage education class in Phoenix. Lewin writes: ...The Bush administration's plan to use federal money to foster healthy marriages among low-income families, first announced two years ago, has drawn considerable fire. While there is consensus among family experts, conservative and liberal, that two-parent households give children the strongest start, there is sharp disagreement about government involvement in promoting marriage. Overall, a good presentation of the intention of the initiative, as well as the political controversy. ANNOUNCING: From an op-ed in the North Country Times (San Diego area) on the Administration's marriage initiative: The president's announcement included few details about the program, other than its price tag of $1.5 billion. He has become a believer in his effectiveness as a promoter from his extraordinary success in raising funds for his re-election campaign -- more than $130 million in the bank and he wants to raise another $40 million by summer. So he may not need my advice. But as a patriotic American, I felt obliged to provide him with some suggestions, which are based mostly on promotional methods he is already using for some other initiatives. Picking up on his fondness for developing rallying themes for the war in Iraq, maybe "Operation Try Marriage" would bring us together in this effort.Note those first three words, "The president's announcement ... " I bet I've seen 25 stories that mention the "announcement." But to the best of my knowledge, the president did make any announcement at all about the marriage initiative. There was no announcement because there was nothing new to announce -- the initiative itself is nearly three years old, and the proposal for funding of marriage education and promotion connected to TANF re-authorization has been bouncing around Congress for months and months. The only people who "announced" anything recently are some reporters from the NYT. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: Gay marriage is shaping up to be the battlefield of the culture war in 2004. "It's not going to be an issue on the order of national security or the economy," said GOP pollster Whit Ayers, "but I do think it's likely to be the most important cultural issue in the presidential election -- which makes it pretty important." From William Raspberry in today's WaPo on the Administration's marriage initiative: President Bush's proposal to spend $1.5 billion for the promotion of "healthy marriages" is, at one level, a matter of babies and bath water. There's precious little the government can do to strengthen existing marriages or to encourage new ones, as the president surely knows. The only pragmatic purpose I can see for his idea is that it might please his supporters on the religious right -- particularly if he yields to their pressure to define healthy marriages as traditional marriages. No gays or lesbians, thank you.The rest of the article is a serious reflection on why marriage matters. William Raspberry is a friend and a wise man. I think he's one of the best, maybe the best, columnist in the country. So when even he is dismissive of this initiative, apparently believing that it's offered in bad faith, that it's just a political ploy, etc., etc., we know we have our work cut out for us. POLITICS: I just got back from New Hampshire, where I was campaigning for John Edwards. In the debate among Democratic candidates, he got asked twice about same-sex marriage (he also flubbed his response about DOMA). Candidates (including Bush) must hate the gay marriage questions, but the media loves them. But do most Americans really care? On the second same-sex marriage question, Edwards answered quickly but then took his remaining time to discuss the moral responsibility to fight poverty. Rudy Giuliani was also in New Hampshire to stump for President Bush. A reader emailed to ask if that means that Bush condones Giuliani's lifestyle. Beats me, but we can be sure that Rudy won't be a spokesman for the healthy marriage initiative. Sunday, January 25, 2026
From Stanley Kurtz in The Weekly Standard (requires subscription): "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The 'conservative case' for same-sex marriage collapses." Here's an excerpt: Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern -- including gay marriage -- is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has. More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. The wonderful Judith Martin ("Miss Manners") on marriages versus weddings: It is just the getting married part -- the actual ceremony that marks the legal and often religious act of marrying -- that is treated as malleable. The wedding has become a great blast of a party, which is stuck with a slow start when everyone is expected to curb the fun and pay attention. Symbolizing the relative importance of the activities, brides now dress for the parties that follow, in strapless ball dresses, rather than donning the often impossibly elaborate but still somewhat modest wedding dresses that long symbolized the dignity of the occasion. Increasingly, the marriage doesn't even really take place at the wedding, where a marriage previously legalized may be a mere re-enactment serving as the excuse for a big wedding. (By that standard, brides who postpone getting married until after the birth of a child, because of the importance of fitting into the wedding dress, seem positively sentimental.) To whatever extent possible, the ceremony has become part of the couple's pageantry of personal display. As they inevitably declare, "We want this to be about us." So begins the reworking to "personalize it" with their own script. Not infrequently, this includes jokes and all-too-private reminiscences. Officiants, too, contribute their share in the spirit of undercutting the solemnity to make the ceremony entertaining. And guests recognize this with their applause. Miss Manners acknowledges that this approach to weddings is consistent with the society's belief that vows and loyalties are binding only in regard to the amount of entertainment they continue to yield. The idea of channeling the couple's commitment into the traditions of the society has been reversed, so that weddings have become opportunities for them to show off to society. She wishes them well. Just don't expect her to shed the traditional tear over the significance of it all. |
||
