Center for Marriage Policy

[Rosa]

Have you seen this one? It's been all over my facebook. A new organization for men's rights, endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly! The answer to every problem (including "my spouse is an addict and an abuser) is...heterosexual marriage! if not, NOW will ensure that all straight women can marry each other and live off child support from all their babydaddies (who don't understand how contraception works.)

marriagepolicy.org/2011/08/10-marriage-values-policies/

"Establishing sensible policies to return America to a marriage-based society will prove rewarding, productive, and seminal. The major problems of most unmarried mothers and their children will be naturally resolved. A woman’s right to be supported by, cared for, and helped by her husband will be ensured. Health care coverage will become commonplace without resorting to National Health Care. Chronic budgetary deficits at state levels will disappear and the federal deficit will drop as the number of single parent families costing taxpayers $20,000 each — plummets. Most children will grow up in intact homes, disciplined and prepared to learn in school. Substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, and poverty will decrease to manageable norms. The dollar will regain strength as the currency of world exchange."

Yes! Fix the dollar - get married. Or, if you're having problems with your marriage, just watch Fireproof until you remember divorce is wrong. That will fix the economy and give everyone health care!

[GiGi_41]

Can I just say, it chaps my hide when these "fundies" think that all single moms are a drain on the taxpayer. I am a "single mom". I have never been on welfare, my insurance comes from work, my son is a productive member of society. I'm a foster mom of two 1 year olds, I have several friends who are single working women who are foster moms that have decided to adopt. Grrr

[liltwinstar]

How do they figure that single-parent families cost the taxpayer $20k??? They need to cite some sources for this assertion.

Also, ok, assuming that everyone jumps on this bandwagon...it won't make healthcare more affordable. Just using my own company as an example, for some of our employees, it would cost around $2k a month for family coverage (that would be the employee plus the spouse plus any number of kids - 1 kid or 12, doesn't matter). Most of the employees in that category don't make anywhere near enough money to cover their kids on our plan, thus the kids are on state insurance anyway. Married or not, it's still freaking expensive and the kids are eligible for state assistance regardless. The cheapest option for family coverage is around $500/mo, which for one, isn't available to all employees (only to certain classes) and two, can still be a substantial amount of money.

I'm married, so yes, I have certain rights. The "right" to be "supported" by my husband is not one I signed up for. We decided to mutually support each other, financially and in every other way.. So take that, Phyllis Schafly!

[Rosa]

I think way too many of these so-called conservatives don't actually know what capitalism IS. Companies provide benefits to the level they need to, to attract good employees. They're not the benevolent hand of god rewarding people for being good Christians (well, some companies are. Or good Mormons, or whatever. It's possible to get by as a not-very-efficient capitalist. But that's not the point.)

[emmiedahl]

I am interested in the $20,000/ year period. When I was a single mom, I received no benefits except the obvious tax credits. DH and I, in a heterosexual married home, are right receiving college grants, food stamps, children's health insurance and we live in subsidized housing.

Not to mention that some of these things are really good for the economy. I was reading that $1.70-something enters the economy for every dollar the government hands out in food stamps. The college grants are an investment in our future tax paying abilities and almost certain to pay off. The owners of our subsidized housing receive huge tax cuts in exchange for offering large family housing at below-market rates, which the capitalists gotta love. It makes their business more stable in economic fluctuations as well. My building is FULL. I mean, less than 1% vacancy at any given time. Because of government health insurance, my children receive care when they need it, which prevents a $100 ear infection from becoming a $1000 ER visit. Which would you taxpayers rather pay? Because I can't pay for it, and someone does either way.

I support offering these things, and more, to single mothers, married people, and anyone who can use them. There are some things I would change; for instance, I don't know why the government pays a private agency to do the subsidized housing thing; if it is *that* profitable for the businesses involved, then the taxpayers are losing money.

Heterosexual marriage is not inoculation against social and economic problems. Shit happens, people need help, and I will still believe this when I am making six figures.