Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
$1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?  
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1527 times:

Ok, I did not see a thread on this one, so if there is one point me to it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kpix/20040115/lo_kpix/8905

White House Wants to Promote Marriage
Wed Jan 14, 8:03 PM ET

Hank Plante

The White House wants to spend $1.5 billion to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples.

Details are sketchy, but sources say that President Bush (news - web sites) may use next week's State of the Union speech to outline them.

Rev. Ron Allen of San Francisco's Calvary Baptist Church has been teaching high school students about relationships, and adults about marriage, for 24 years. He said he would support the proposal.

"We need an emphasis on developing strong marriages," he said. "Statistics tell us half of all marriages end in divorce in America. I think that's tragic."

But others see the White House marriage proposal as a chance for Mr. Bush to shore up his base with conservative groups and evangelicals, particularly in light of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling favoring gay marriage.

"I think we're at a point where the jig is finally up for the Bush administration, "said Kate Kendell, a lawyer with San Francisco's National Center for Lesbian Rights. "For a long time he's pretended to be this compassionate conservative, and what's really clear as he's heading into an election year is that he is a radical social conservative. He needs to appeal to that base in order to get reelected."

And even conservatives question whether the government has a role in promoting marriage, let along spending money on it.

"I personally would feel that we'd rather have that help come from our rabbi or priest or our pastor," Allen said. "I think there are better things we can do with out money... I believe that this is something that the church should take care of."

Kendell said, "You want to put that money into poor communities, into Head Start and education... then you're talking about helping families.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sounds like something out of the New Deal. Spending $1.5 billion to promote marriage? What a joke. I don't want George Bush, nor the GOP, nor anyone in the Federal Government advising me or anyone on the sanctity of marriage, or how to promote it. That's the work of ministers and rabbis and imams, not politicians. So the government creeps further into our lives. Talk about a complete waste of taxpayers money.


50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

"Statistics tell us half of all marriages end in divorce in America. I think that's tragic."

It is tragic. Marriage can use all the help it can get.

"He needs to appeal to that base in order to get reelected."

Look, I'm not exactly a Bush partisan, but the guy doesn't have to appeal to anyone to get reelected.

"For a long time he's pretended to be this compassionate conservative, and what's really clear as he's heading into an election year is that he is a radical social conservative."

How utterly hypocritical! They should consult the mirror to discover the true radicals!

"And even conservatives question whether the government has a role in promoting marriage, let along spending money on it."

Apparently the government has no problem with spending money on the myriad of other social programs. Why should this be any different?

If you asked me, I'd say that the erosion of the family unit is responsible for a host of social problems. You solve problems with marriages, and all of society benefits. I support this. (And not just to oppose Alpha 1, although that is a fringe benefit.)

-Normal


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1493 times:

It's so much better to have the un-wed mothers with the kids slung on their hips in the welfare line, huh a1..?

The Dems much prefer that.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Guys, as usual, you miss the point. It isn't about unwed mothers, JeffM, or anything like that. It's the government trying to do the job that ministers of all faiths should be doing-and that's counseling people on marriage. I don't want a liberal or conservative in Congress or the White House setting any policy on marriage. That's traditionally something that is left to religions and to parents-and to the individuals themselves.

Conservatives have always said that throwing money at problems isn't the solution. And they've always maitained that less government is better. But here we have those same people applauding this boondoggle. This can't be solved by government, and, as most people know, when the government gets involved, it's usually a disaster wating to happen.

You do make society better, Normal Speed, with healthy marriages. I've been a very healthy one for going on 16 years now. But I don't see where throwing a billion and a half at it from the Feds will make a dent in the problem.


User currently offlineGoboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2694 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1467 times:

"Statistics tell us half of all marriages end in divorce in America. I think that's tragic."

I'm not being cynical here, but is it really that high of a divorce rate in the U.S.? That's really high! Half?!? I really can't think of anyone that I know of that is getting divorced. None of my parents friends, nobody in our family, etc. Does anyone else on this forum think that's high or does it seem about right?

Also I think this idea to promote marriage is stupid. I think the problem is people hastily getting married after a one year relationship and then they change their mind a few years down the road. I'm not saying that knowing someone for a year is not enough, but rather, people today are living to 80+ years old and getting married at 20 years old or so is a HUGE portion of your life to spend with just one person.

Nick


User currently offlineYanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1404 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1462 times:

I think this 1.5 billion should be spent on arming the heroic soldiers in Iraq to buy them better equipment like bulletvest, helmets, and etc. I know the administration wants to save marriage, but the way you do that is introducing and getting passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.


2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

I know the administration wants to save marriage, but the way you do that is introducing and getting passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Banning gay marriages, Yanksn4, will do NOTHING to save, promote, make healthier, traditional marriages. Nothing at all. Tell me, how will such an amendement strentghen heterosexual unions? Will it magically reduce the terribly high divorce rate? Uh, I don't think so. Will it magically solve the problem of domestic abuse-spousal or child-in heterosexual unions? I really don't think so. Will it stop people not ready for marriage from getting wed? Well, I highly doubt it. So, tell me, HOW will such an amendment strenghthen traditional unions? I'm really interested in knowing, because to me, such an amendment is government-sponsored discrimination, nothing more.

I do agree with you that the 1.5 billion could be spent elsewhere. I think our troops in Iraq are getting the full support of this government, so I don't agree that it should go there to be precise, but it could be spent more wisely.


User currently offlineYanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1404 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1452 times:

I think our troops in Iraq are getting the full support of this government, so I don't agree that it should go there to be precise, but it could be spent more wisely.

What are you talking about. Our troops over there do not have the best equipment they need to do there job done. If you had watched Scarborough Country (I'm not trying to promote it) you would have seen that the brave men and women don't have the right bullet vest and other stuff to protect them.

So, tell me, HOW will such an amendment strenghthen traditional unions?

How it streghtens it is by making sure marriage dosn't become something wrong. It makes sure that the rules are followed. Joining one man and one woman, not two men together, or two women together.



2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

How it streghtens it is by making sure marriage dosn't become something wrong.

If two people love each other, Yanksn4, how is it wrong? We have damn little enough of love in this world, seems to me. It won't strengthen traditional man-woman marriages at all. It has no affect on it.

What has really hurt the idea of marriage are asshole shows like "The Bahcelor", and the like, where it makes marriage a money prize, after a guy or girl sleeps his way through "contestants", for the right to ge a million bucks-oh, and a spouse that you can divorce easily enough. It's stunts like Brittany Spears marrying that friend as a "joke", and then thinking it was great fun.

Those are the things trivializing marriage, not whether two gays happen to love each other. Whether I agree with that lifestyle or not, I don't see the correlation between the high divorce rate in this country and gay unions.

Again, you have not proven at all, how such an amendment will help marriages in the way I asked. Know why you didn't prove it-because you can't. It's state-sponsored discrimination, against a group of people that the present party in power cannot stand. Nothing more. And, sadly, neither stomping on gays, nor spending a billion and a half to promote marriage will make marriage any stronger.


User currently offlineSophiemaltese From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2064 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

I can't believe they'd spend that much money to try promote marriages when there are so many people without health insurance. Of course maybe I'm just bitter because I have been trying to get health insurance sincy July with a company that just refused me. Friggin' sucks I tell you.

oh yeah, and as far as promoting marriage, I have considering marrying my boyfriend because he can put me on his health insurance.

[Edited 2004-01-18 05:44:10]

User currently offlineDavid b. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Homophobia.............Typical GOP.


Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11596 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1387 times:

I saw an editorial comment in The Oregonian yesterday that said something like:

Britney Spears can have a leagally binding marriage last 55 hours as a joke and no one bats an eye, yet a gay couple have been together 5, 10, or even 20 years and their union is not recognized by the government. This is sanctity of marriage?

GO CANUCKS!!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

but the way you do that is introducing and getting passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

That makes tons of sense...

banning gay marriage (which, for all practical purposes, is still illegal already anyways) will help curb the trend of deteriorating straight marriage. Genius!  Insane  Insane


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

i think the issue is quite simple:
let church make whatever rules they want, its their business. such marriage is not recognized by the state, since the state has to be neutral towards religion.
if you want all the tax benefits, you have to go to the civil registry office and sign before the state. this has to be open for both hetero and homosexual pairs to avoid discrimination.
problem solved. let whoever wants marry under whatever obnoxious rules their religion does, but for state approval you have to "legally declare" yourself a couple at the civil registry office.
what speaks against this except religious sentiment?(which has no room in lawmaking anyway)



10=2
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1352 times:

No. It doesn't. It's not the "law according to Zak..."



User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1345 times:

The $1.5 billion tax funded marriage promotion thing is a handout to the Family Research Council and other such organizations who are baying for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Of course, the bigots on the right (including their brethren on this forum) will never go in for a $ 1.5 billion marriage help act. What they want is to destroy homosexuals, and will never stop short of anything less than an outright ban on gay marriage. Its pure, undiluted homophobia, and nothing else.

I think Bush is trying to get out of a sticky situation. If nothing else, at least he isnt doing what the dimwitted bile-spewing right is doing - demanding a constitutional ban without attempting to "save" the institution of marriage by other means, an institution that has been "defiled" by the its heterosexual promoters.


User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1337 times:

If healthy marriages build healthy families and reduce social problems, then by all means, spend money promoting marriage. I'm a product of a divorced family, and I can tell you it really sucked to go through. If my parents had better resources to work out their problems, maybe the family would still be together. Marriage means little in American society anymore, and I wish that would change.

As for banning gay marriage, that can be effectively done through existing laws. I personally believe that constitutional ammendments should be passed only to grant freedoms, not take them away. But anyway, whether or not such an ammendment is proposed, I don't believe there is sufficient support out there (2/3 of both chambers of congress, right?) to pass ratification. It's not like such an ammendment will stop one gay couple from "getting together", whether the country legally recognizes the relationship or not.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineLHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1310 times:

Pardon me, but isn't it a bit strange that any money at all must be spent propping up a fundamental tradition in just about every culture? If marriage as social institution is dying, all the money in the world won't "save" it. People are going to do what they want. Goverment, shut up and stand aside.


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1309 times:

In the meantime LHMark stands with his handout waiting for his share as he makes his wedding plans.....  Big grin

User currently offlineLHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1304 times:

Yeah, but that's just 'cuz my Fiancee makes twice as much money as myself!


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

Yeah, but that's just 'cuz my Fiancee makes twice as much money as myself!

NOTHING wrong with that. Matter of fact, its about time. LHMark, doing things the way they should be done!


User currently offlineLHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

Does that make me sort of a reverse Sophiemaltese?


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1296 times:

Let's check the Sophie checklist.

Gold Shovel - Nope
Asinine stipulation that the person you date make at least 100K a year - Nope
Must carry an obnoxious little dog - Nope
Strange fascination with Ron Jeremy - Well, maybe on this one

Either way, its safe to say that you are the Anti-Sophie, and a purveyor of true relationships. Well done.


User currently offlineMaxmax From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1287 times:

Well in the US getting married happens sort of like this:
Hey,What's up!
T's up!
what's your name?
Name
wanna have a cup coffee?
Yep!
wanna get married?
allright!

Just kidding

Max


User currently offlineAn-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

Leave it to wankers like Yanksn4 to fill up the forum with absolutely ridiculous comments. I am just wonderhing where such bigotry, hate and closemindedness comes from? He's worse than JCS17 and he's younger... Hairyass would have been proud.

Alex.



Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
25 Maxmax : WOW!Yanksn4 MUST HAVE REALLY PISSED YOU OFF, AN-225
26 Jhooper : yea, give him a break. Remember when you were 13-15; everything was so black and white.
27 KROC : "Hairyass" is still around, and the user Superfly was doubling as "Hairyass".
28 Post contains images Superfly : I don't believe what I am reading! Is Bush really this backwards? I know that man is eveil and is the lowest scumbag to occupy the White House, this i
29 An-225 : Yanksn4 didn't really piss me off... but it's a rather sad fact that he calls people commies and traitors at such a young age... As for the main topic
30 Post contains images Superfly : Government should just stop recognizing marrage althogther. If people want to do it, fine. If they don't, leave them alone about it. Every woman has b
31 Post contains images Cfalk : Interesting how gays and lesbians are now the mainstream, and marriage proponents are now "radicals" Marriage is NOT only a religious issue. Here in E
32 Post contains images Superfly : Cfalk: Boy oh boy, whare should I begin with you. Marriage is NOT only a religious issue. The religious wedding means nothing at all to the state. The
33 Post contains images Zak : god forbid, i happen to agree with cfalk except the tax issue, i think it is a better idea to emphasize the focus in education more onto values and so
34 Csavel : I don't want George Bush, nor the GOP, nor anyone in the Federal Government advising me or anyone on the sanctity of marriage, or how to promote it.
35 Jhooper : To all who are against gay marriage, if you are against gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex. Problem solved. Proponents of the
36 Post contains images Cfalk : BTW, are you a socialist Cfalk? LOL!!! Hell no! Marx did not invent the concept of social engineering. He simply thought he could engineer the perfect
37 Jaysit : "As I recall, I'm married and you are not" So, whats your point. As I recall you're also not a US taxpayer, and the first of billions to be spent on "
38 Post contains images Superfly : Cfalk: I don't see how this is relevant. It's very relevant. I still don't see the value of exporting jobs, mainly manufacturing jobs. Less jobs for l
39 L.1011 : I am horrified. I agree with Alpha 1 and Superfly. *violent shudder* It seems to me that there are better ways to spend $1.5 billion. How bout Amtrak?
40 Post contains images Superfly : L.1011: No need to be horrified. Your just maturing. Sometimes I wish the whole W Bush presidency is just one bad dream that I haven't waken up from.
41 Sophiemaltese : Every woman has been bugged to death about when they are going to get married by there aunts, mothers, sisters, other girlfriends and co-workers. I am
42 Zak : "Make people be on some form of birth control, or hell, just tie their tubes if they are on welfare, drug addict, etc. Why in the hell should someone
43 Post contains images JeffM : Superfly... all of us Republicans had the same nightmare... his name was...well you know it well enough..
44 Post contains images Superfly : Sophiemaltese: Great post and I am glad to see a level-headed female weight in on this topic. Although I disagree with the tubes tied while on public
45 Startvalve : Who would ever want the President to do something that might improve America? Fact is if more parents stay married we might have fewer crack heads out
46 Jhooper : Oh and by the way unless things changed very recently there is a tax PENALTY for getting married. Don't you have a choice as to whether you file an in
47 Sophiemaltese : michael moore explains it well in his newest book why it hasnt come to you yet. I haven't read his latest book but I recall Roger and Me and something
48 LHMark : You're a piece of sh*t if you're a piece of sh*t whether you are married or not. That pretty much sums it up. How can anyone expect the friggin' gover
49 KROC : Define 'adultry'. Signed, William Clinton
50 Maxmax : GOT MILK? signed Monica Lewinsky
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Spy Death Due To "radiation Poisoning" posted Sat Nov 25 2006 00:35:22 by Banco
Video Flashback - "I Want To Know" posted Sun Sep 24 2006 22:36:53 by AeroWesty
Chinese Reactor To Test "Mini-Sun" posted Wed Jul 26 2006 00:32:38 by AerospaceFan
I'm Taking The Girls To See "Cars" Tonight posted Fri Jun 16 2006 17:20:32 by Tom in NO
Brits: "From Paris To Berlin", London Version Now? posted Sat May 20 2006 03:38:41 by Sabena332
Yet Another "What Car To Buy" Thread posted Sun May 14 2006 00:06:49 by Airwave
Retirement Age "will Rise To 85" posted Sat Feb 18 2006 03:25:29 by AirCop
What Happend To The "World Meet" Idea? posted Sat Jan 7 2006 00:04:22 by Cadet57
CA To Execute "Tookie" Williams Tonight! posted Mon Dec 12 2005 20:35:14 by Dc10s4ever
Iranian Leader: Israel To Be "Wiped Off The Map" posted Wed Oct 26 2005 14:49:51 by JetMaster