Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: Forced marriages in the United States?
Posted By: Sam, on host 24.61.139.39
Date: Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 10:32:06
In Reply To: Re: Forced marriages in the United States? posted by Faux Pas on Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 08:23:48:

> > Is it just me, or is there something drastically wrong with President Bush's welfare reform plan that encourages unwed mothers to get married? Bush wants to spend $300 million of taxpayer money on programs that will encourage marriage.
>
> One thing to note is that it's programs to promote marriage. Several respondents to this thread seem to thing the government is going to have a big pile of money sitting in a warehouse. "Okay, if you're married, go in and grab as much as you like!"

I did miss that. But this is why I prefaced all my comments with the admission that I *don't* know what this plan is all about.

But now I'm even more confused about the use of the word "force." How the heck does a program that promotes marriage "force" anybody into it?

Again, I'd have to know what the programs actually *are* to commit to an opinion, but in general I'm all for the promotion of anything that brings families together, keeps them together, or restores family integrity, all of which start with the establishment of a stable marriage. I don't see any two people who don't want to marry marrying each other because of the existence of a government program that promotes marriage. But I can imagine a whole lot of situations where two people are interested in marriage but have practical issues to resolve first (money, children, insecurity, whatever) that programs and organization can help with. As far as I'm concerned, anything that can help such people started is not only a good thing for them and any children they might have, but ultimately the economy as well.

Post a Reply

RinkChat Username:
Password:
Email: (optional)
Subject:
Message:
Link URL: (optional)
Link Title: (optional)

Make sure you read our message forum policy before posting.