Traditional marriage apparently needs the federal government’s help in the U.S.
[A Bush proposal] includes expanded initiatives to “promote marriage and healthy family development.” The added funding includes $1.5 billion over five years — $1 billion in federal funds and $500 million in state matching funds – that would go to programs promoting marriage, responsible fatherhood and teen abstinence, and that work at preventing child abuse.
Why are marriages in need of this kind of help? Don’t look at us gay people…it’s hardly our fault. But, then, perhaps we could be part of the solution…
If traditional heterosexual men benefit from the sort of help the popularity of the show “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” suggests they do; perhaps traditional heterosexual marriages would benefit from the sort of help gay marriages would provide as an example too. I mean, it has got to be a better idea than forking over boatloads of (my!) taxdollars for nonsense like this:
The proposed boost in government funding will help finance new, perhaps revealing, research, DeMaria said….
Diane Sollee, founder and director of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education and a former marriage and family therapist, became involved in marriage education after realizing that “therapy wasn’t getting us anywhere. There were too many divorces.”
In her role as a marriage educator, Sollee said she stresses three strands of research: finding the truth about the benefits of marriage; what to expect from a “normal” marriage; and identifying those behaviors that predict success and those that predict failure in marriage.
Isn’t this research the sort of meddlesome nonsense conservatives are always arguing the government should not be involved in?
In all seriousness though, this article also noted that:
A Gallup survey taken for Rutgers University found that almost all never-married people in their 20s wanted eventually to walk down the aisle. Ninety-four percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement “when you marry, you want your spouse to be your soul mate, first and foremost.”
94%!
I guess it all depends on what your definition of “soul mate” is.
I believe I’ve formerly expressed the opinion that the federal government ought to stay the hell out of things such as marriage, and that opinion hasn’t changed.
Plus, there’s hardly a politician alive that can be credible in the arena of moralization. Sad, but true.
Plus, there’s hardly a politician alive that can be credible in the arena of moralization. Sad, but true.
There’s hardly a person alive that can credibly moralize.
Ok, then. I think we’ve beaten the idea of government legislating morality into a bloody pulp; anyone now think it’s a good idea?