Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex and Relationships

You May Kiss the Bride: Government Is Still Pushing Marriage

By Amy DePaul, AlterNet. Posted June 1, 2009.


Social conservatives scored a victory when the Obama Administration decided to keep a Bush program promoting marriage.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It might seem unlikely, but one of the latest youth-oriented multimedia ad campaigns popping up on Facebook, radio stations and the Internet is an ambitious public-education initiative. The goal? To prepare teens and twentysomethings to succeed in marriage.

Consider this public service announcement:

Sounds of man snoring, followed by female voice: "Hear that? That’s my husband sleeping … soundly. He may not always be charming, but he’s always my prince."

Narrator voiceover: "For tips on navigating the highs and lows of a healthy marriage, visit TwoOfUs.org. You’ll find advice on managing money, disagreeing without fighting and … [snoring sounds] keeping the spark of romance in your relationship."

This announcement was brought to you by … you. The ad campaign was funded by the federal government under the Bush administration’s Healthy Marriage Initiative, a program that spends $100 million a year to promote the benefits and teach the secrets of happy marriages.

And now it seems that the Bush marriage policies -- long derided by critics as sexist, impractical, intrusive and a diversion of funds from more meaningful anti-poverty measures -- have won the support of the new president.

The recently released Obama budget would preserve the five-year marriage initiative, although Congress still could eliminate it in appropriations. The initiative awards grants to demystify wedlock to teens, low-income populations, the public at large, married couples, singles looking to marry, engaged couples and couples who recently had or are expecting a baby. One program even targets incarcerated parents.

The programs do not provide individualized couples therapy but rather are seminar-type events conducted in classroom settings, using curricula that emphasize relationship staples such as communication, compromise and romance.

Launched in 2006, the initiative grew out of Clinton-era welfare reforms enacted with the explicit purpose of getting recipients of federal assistance to work, marry and establish two-parent homes. Alarmed by rising out-of-wedlock births and lack of a father presence among poor and minority families, social conservatives argued that getting poor people hitched would offer children a more permanent commitment, if not two combined incomes, and thus greater stability.

But opponents have seen the marriage program, alongside other Bush social policies such as abstinence-only education, as efforts to impose virtue rather than sincere attempts to help people out of poverty. Critics contend that the marriage programs hijack federal assistance monies that would be better spent on job training and other more direct anti-poverty measures.

"My argument is marriage doesn’t end poverty," said Jennifer Tucker, vice president at the Center for Women Policy Studies. In addition to practical considerations, Tucker opposes the expenditure on principle: "This money is supposed to be for people who are poor."

Opponents have also maintained that the policies devalue single mothers, might encourage women to stay with their husbands even in cases of abuse, and fail to promote self-reliance. In response to their criticisms, policymakers under the Bush administration adopted the language of "healthy marriage" rather than marriage under any circumstances and required grant recipients to flag potential cases of spousal abuse.

A Look at the Programs

Who runs the marriage programs, and how are they administered? They are often faith-based organizations, community groups and educational institutions that have won federal grants of anywhere from $200,000 to $2 million to combine instruction in relationship skills with the celebration of legally sanctioned, long-term commitment. 

In Tennessee, one grant recipient sponsors marriage fairs and offers complimentary dinners and movies to couples who take marriage-education classes. In California, the Dibble Institute won a $550,000 grant this year to bring relationship-skills classes to teens by making the curriculum available and training teachers to use it. The lessons have been taught in approximately 400 schools and to 14,000 students.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: sex, bush, religion, marriage, obama, relationships, poverty, divorce, out of wedlock

Amy DePaul is a writer and college instructor who lives in Irvine, Calif. Her articles have appeared in the Washington Post and many other newspapers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Xpat observer
Posted by: davy on Jun 1, 2009 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course they are. Once you have kids and a mortgage you yearn to work for the man and this is exactly what they want. For you to make them more money. Only when we wake up . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Xpat observer Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Xpat observer Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Xpat observer Posted by: johnmont
Why?
Posted by: maxfrisson on Jun 1, 2009 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why exactly does the federal gov't need to be involved in behavior modification?

So many seemingly innocuous programs have insidious hidden control agendas. Getting everyone in mortgages, married and with children is just one.

If you look at who should get TAX BREAKS I think it should be the single, unmarried, never reproducing folks. They have ultimately the smallest carbon footprint, less costs to society [never had kids means no school costs] and generally represent above average incomes.

I say we a project to promote SINGLEHOOD, some slogan like "Be Free, Be Happy"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YOu are correct Posted by: Juven
» RE: Why? Posted by: johnmont
is Bush is a Resident of California?
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Jun 1, 2009 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need to check your own and stop blaming straw men on this issue. If President Bush started pushing Starbucks products and appearing in ads for Target, You'll be shopping at Wal-Mart and drinking Dunkn Donuts faster than you can say "fair trade coffee" while blogging about the fact you'll never set foot in either Starbucks or Target. Like I said, check your own becuase I wonder how a guy that is so called "stupid" keeps affecting the administration that seems to be a remake of Revenue of the Nerds that is missing there "Ogre" however hopefully there is not a season two.

p.s. Obama has the same policy on Gay Marriage as Miss California

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: is Bush is a Resident of California? Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Invest in Proven methods of Ending Poverty...
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jun 1, 2009 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...such as fairy godmothers and magic beans. Obviously, there are no such methods.

Marriage is a good thing. It is not obvious how to make a marriage work. Some people need lots of coaching. Marriage is good for kids; it is better than informal cohabitation. Marriage is good for families. Raising kids right is of huge importance, as is promoting family structure. The state has legitimate interests in promoting marriage. Promoting the valuse of marriage is integral in promoting the necessity of legalizing gay marriage. I don't see a problem here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The government has no business... Posted by: Aposterioriperception
The more rightwingers push for forcing marriages, the higher the divorce rates go up !
Posted by: CarlaWaters on Jun 1, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At some point, one has to wonder when to just say STOP IT already ! I wouldn't count on Obama to stop the conservatives. He'll roll over to the conservatives as he has always done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just stupid............
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jun 1, 2009 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the rates of STD's are rising amongst the teen population and there is a gag rule on talking about birth control and contraception - you want to spend millions on "Healthy Marriage"! Excuse you!! Obviously Bristol Palin is not a poster child.

My issue with these types of programs and the people that continue to push them are they are hypocrites - plain and simple! If they really wanted to "help" the poor they would start addressing things like real education reform, and job training programs, birth control and prevention, universal health-care, and raising the minimum wage! Two low wage earners being married is still not the panacea against hunger and poverty! Instead of pushing their brand of "keeping her barefoot and pregnant" "morality", maybe they should actually practice what they preach!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

marriage...
Posted by: ellie on Jun 1, 2009 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isn't for everyone and many men and women do not want to become parents...

why subject people to federal programs when they do not have any plans to participate in the first place???

any federal programs for the unmarried and child free out there???

let's start at the basics... decent, affordable and reliable birth control for all!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: marriage... Posted by: VZEQICVA
I can see paradise in the dashboard lights
Posted by: willymack on Jun 1, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rethugs are harping on a past glory which like most of their twaddle, never existed. Theirs is an emotional, as opposed to an intellectual appeal and uses our basest instincts to their advantage. Their whole strategy revolves around emotion, rather than reasoned logic. Consider that holy of holies, marriage, for instance. It's got a 50% failure rate in the USA. Never mind; it"s the right thing to do, every time, and never mind this Adam & Steve crap.
I swore on my honor and my mother's grave
That I would love you 'till the end of time.
And, now we're praying for the end of time
To hurry up and arrive
'Cause if I have to live another hour with you
I don't think that I can survive.
Now, if things were thought out instead of blindly following the rethug's emotional appeal, it might have been a different song.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage is a progressive issue too.
Posted by: Kay Reed on Jun 1, 2009 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was good, but the headline misleading....many liberals and other bleeding heart types are firmly behind helping those who want to be married to develop and maintain healthy relationships.

Yes, it is absolutely true that we need to focus on health care, education, job training, pregnancy prevention, and wages. But....even if we do all of those things well, if we don't also teach people how to develop and sustain healthy romantic relationships, all the good we have done may well be undone with one unhealthy relationship.

The social science is very clear on this and well documented by liberal and conservatives alike, that children are safer when raised by their own two married parents. Most child abuse happens in cohabiting relationships. Children of divorce do worse on most every scale...low education, teen pregnancy, involvement with juvenile justice to name a few.

Marriage education is not about making couples in abusive (of self, others, substances) relationships stay in those relationships. Those marriages must and should go away.

Marriage education is about making available the results of decades of government funded research (just like seatbelts and cigarettes) to couples who do want to strengthen their relationships so that their children are safer and their relationship is more satisfying and stable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well Said! Posted by: Red State Gal
» Nothing progressive about this Posted by: Ruthanda
This is Why...
Posted by: nen on Jun 1, 2009 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I never used to believe in marriage. (I'm married now, mind you, but now I understand what it means to ME.)

I want legislature OUT of my bedroom and out of my emotional and romantic life. If I want help with my relationship, I'll go looking for it. Marriage should not be about laws. The government should not be dipping its fingers into my private life like this.

What matters to me, in terms of marriage, is that my friends and family see and honour the commitment and love between my wife and I. That they perceive us as a unit working together, living, loving, and growing together.

NOT this stupid governmental bullshit saying "You can do this, you can't do that, you can have this, you can't have that, you should act like this, not like that..." This is what I hate about the institution of marriage. The legal definition of marriage, the provisions made for it, the legislation surrounding it have NOTHING to do with love. NOTHING to do with the core of what marriage is or should be. No respect, no dignity, no love, just the government putting your files together and wrapping them up in stipulations.

And you know what? I DO take advantage of the benefits given to me and my wife by the government. But I don't think it's fair by any means. I wish such things were extended to my unmarried friends. If you ask me, it's all part of deciding which citizens are worth more than others. This is not the way to equality. The government may SAY that all people are equal, but does nothing to make that apparent in its policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As usual....
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jun 1, 2009 2:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's up to the woman to make the relationship work.

Typical right-wing bullshit.

My tax dollars at work??

Hardly!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ironically
Posted by: Juven on Jun 1, 2009 2:23 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
essentially this is trashing marriage, yet on the gay marriage issue, marriage is OK.

Totally strange culture we live in.

I can hear all the supposed leftists baaing: marriage bad if you are a man and a woman (they will say that women should free themselves from the patriarchal system etc) --good if you are two men or two women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ironically Posted by: Ruthanda
» excellent Posted by: Juven
» No irony Posted by: BlueTigress
nuclear toxicity
Posted by: maxsmart on Jun 1, 2009 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pushing the toxic nuclear family dream of over-consumption is not a good alternative for the 21st century of eco-economic necessity. It may be tricky but new multi-partner partnerships for a better combined income and shared skills and responsibilities for an over stressed envirnoment would be much more suitable. They would have more financial and emotional securtiy and flexibility as a geodesic home. As long as all relationship were on a coequal non dominance model. and perhaps they could share the childrearing for an overall lower sustainable population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Re: toxicity Posted by: BlueTigress
I'm with Obama
Posted by: Red State Gal on Jun 1, 2009 7:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue," Obama wrote in 2006.

Right on, my honored President! How odd that many of those who voted for you can't see the wisdom of your thinking on this topic.

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take a page out of NZ's book
Posted by: Pintado_Petrel on Jun 2, 2009 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New Zealand doesn't have a pro-marriage initiative like the US does. It does, however, have an outreach program to teach social skills like anger control, negotiation, etc. They work with both the individual in question and her or his family.

Frankly, it's a much more common-sense approach than a blanket judgment of "two-parent households are better."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Bush-Era Moral Crusaders Still Pushing Marriage on the Rest of Us"?
Posted by: VeryBlessed on Jun 2, 2009 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No mention in "writer and college instructor" Amy Depaul's article and biographical sketch that she herself happens to be married. I wonder if she ever gave a serious thought to living her life unmarried.

From "Replacing Things Lost," Amy Depaul:

"My husband accompanied me for moral support, and we idled in the waiting room and then the exam room; he was reading Breast Cancer Husband while I flipped through a magazine."

"In the awkward silence, it occurred to me that my husband might be tempted to weigh in favorably on the augmentation, a move I would have found highly uncool. After all, it’s one thing for a plastic surgeon to point out your supposed anatomical shortcomings, but it’s quite another to hear it from the guy whose laundry you fold and put away."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to the writer above
Posted by: amy depaul on Jun 5, 2009 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the writer above commenting on me (the author) being married. I guess you’re saying I am contradicting myself? This is a major case of ad hominem, and plus, you can’t make the argument. Nowhere do I say people should not get married or that it’s wrong for people to marry.

Instead, I raise the question of whether government should be involved in trying to make people’s marriages better, or whether stability is a more important message than matrimony, or whether marriage is an appropriate use of anti poverty funding. These are the interesting questions as far as I’m concerned – and many in the marriage-ed community welcome these debates.

But since you stumbled onto my article about breast cancer, let me just say that if you want to make a contribution to the Susan G. Komen Foundation in my name, I’d be very pleased.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Advice for young men
Posted by: GPFrank on Jun 6, 2009 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Find and propose to a rich widder, er, widow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More advice for young men...
Posted by: Landbaron on Jun 6, 2009 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't marry down, the only chance you'll have to break even if it doesn't work. Otherwise you won't hardly see your kids and on top of that you could lose alot of your income for close to 2 decades. There's alot of women out there that will be informed how to "game the system" (even foreign brides are getting in on this with DV, getting a divorce and being able to stay here and the man loses $$$$ trying to defend himself), and the courts don't have time to micro-manage these divorces, they'll do what's economical to the tax payer which is give the children to the mother and make the father an economical slave, and if you miss support payments it can snowball quickly into arrears that will make you penniless for the rest of your life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read "The Manipulated Man" by Ester Villar
Posted by: Landbaron on Jun 6, 2009 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and if you still want to get married at least you'll know exactly what you're getting into.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement