Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage
 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Administration officials say they are planning an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, and they are weighing whether President Bush should promote the plan next week in his State of the Union address.

For months, administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

Read the Rest Here

I was quick to think "Where is the money coming from?" on this one. However, this actually seems to be a good idea. If more couples stayed together and this program was successful in helping marriages work, the financial impact on different levels of the government could be huge.

I personally there is better way to spend this money, like booze and hookers.

Yet another example of the government trying to shove their idea of the ideal lifestyle down our throats! What happened to government staying out of our lives? This gets down to micro-managing our lives. Less government used to be the unending chant of the Republicans (and I voted for them then) and now all I get is more government taking over more areas of life. :mad:

Dee

I like the idea, in principle. I think people take marriage not seriously enough anymore. Teaching people when it is the right time to marry, and how to take care of their marriage is a good cause. Of course, I would need to see what the program entails...

However, the article in question seems to talk about same-sex marriage as well. IMHO I think that this program could work for same-sex marriages too... but that's a different debate.

Some states require you to participate in premarital counseling for a certain period before being approved for a license. They don't really spend money on it, they just require you to go and get a counselor.

I'm sure a lot of people go out of state to get married in those states, but the folks that actually participate in the premarital counseling benefit from it for the most part.

Chances are that if this proposal goes into effect, people who take marriage seriously will continue to take marriage seriously and people who don't take marriage seriously will continue to not take marriage seriously. I don't know how $1.5 billion can change that.

I also think that a lot of people marry the wrong person just because of the intense pressure our society puts on people (especially women) to get married. That's what I don't like about their term "promote marriage" and, the big one during previous elections, "family values". They make it sound like if you're not married, you have no morals or values. Perhaps you just value yourself enough to know that you don't deserve to be controlled, mistreated or abused.

After two long term periods of marriage counseling with a wonderful psychologist, my (now ex) husband asked me to come talk to his pastor with him for marriage counseling. The pastor's counseling was "You can't get divorced because it's a sin". That was really helpful counseling...

Dee

Another thing, isn't marriages and/or unions the perogative of the state? Why is the federal government getting involved in something that should be dealt with by the state?

Sounds like it is going to be a successful as the "War on Drugs"

How can the president cut funds for social programs such as headstart, then propose over a billion dollars for yet another social program? I really don't like this combination of social conservativsm and fiscal irresponsibility.

what a load of crap. Again republicans are sticking their nose into people's business. What about more programs for at risk teens so they don't get pregnant?
How about our shitty school system, better pay for teachers etc...

Do they have their heads up their a$$?

When has that ever happened?

I find it pretty ironic that conservatives are always complaining about liberals trying to be social engineers, but this kind of thing is ok. As with the rest of human lives, "it is ok, as long as it is MY way."

This is why you should vote third party.

See if you have a heads-up coin in your right hand and flip it over so that it's tails-up but still in your hand...well it's still in your hand. It's not moving money from one social program into another that makes something fiscally irresponsible.

-Rudey

I've been told by others that I have a more Libertarian view than Democratic (because I am liberal socially but more conservative economically), but I also find myself more angry with Republicans more of the time. In reality, we still have a two party system and if I vote Libertarian, I'd be taking a vote from the Dems which increases the likelihood of the Republicans winning.. which I can't tolerate!

My ex voted for Perot way back when.. I told him he did it so that no matter who won, he could say "It wasn't my fault, I didn't vote for him"... LOL

Dee

And people who want to take marriage seriously but who have same-sex partners will have to sit quietly at the back of the bus. :mad:

Did I miss the news that all the major, important problems in our country had been solved so we could afford to spend that kind of money on promoting marriage? Or is there a secret money tree on the White House lawn?

This is crap.

Or going to Mars?

Not being a psychologist, social worker, minister or any other thing to give me any expertise, I would still like to share my opinion on marriage.

Simply stated, marriage is lifetime committment. A lot of people simply aren't ready to make and keep that committment. It's easier to simply walk away.

In terms of same sex marriages, it was not very long ago that inter-racial marriages were highly frowned upon.

I think maybe the government ought to stay out of our bedrooms. Whatever your personal religion or morals, it isn't up to the Federal Government to enforce them.

ETA Just discovered this headline this afternoon:

Updated: 01:12 PM EST
Ohio Close to Passing Gay Marriage Ban
By JOHN McCARTHY, AP

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Jan. 21) - After seven years of debate, lawmakers moved closer Wednesday to passing a law that would bar Ohio from recognizing same-sex marriages and keep some state employees from getting benefits for their domestic partners.