|
|
|
|
Home Archive Submit About Contact Us |
COUNTERPOINT Response to "The Marriage Trap" By VANESSA BOUCHE 11.2.03 2:06PM CST Our society has developed a propensity for addressing problems superficially. Instead of digging deep to tear up the roots, we choose the easy route and simply break off the stems. Pulling up the roots can be painful - your back hurts, your arms ache, your body burns, and your hands blister. It takes tenacity, resilience, and perseverance. Breaking off the stems is so much easier - it takes less time, less energy, less thought, less care. The immediate result of either policy may appear equivalent; but years later, the difference is starkly apparent. Bush's marriage promotion policy is an attempt to root out a variety of societal issues largely caused by unstable family structures. It is criticized, in part, because we are no longer used to weeding. There is no lack for statistics proving that marriage is beneficial for children on many levels. The 1996 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health proved children raised in single-parent homes are much more likely to be depressed and to have developmental, behavioral and emotional problems; such children are also more likely to fail in school, use drugs and engage in early sexual activity. Therefore, chances are that a child who grows up in a poor home with two parents on welfare is more likely to stop the dependency cycle, stand on her own two feet, obtain a decent education, and start a new family legacy because; poor or not, she grew up in a stable two-parent home, an essential factor in the healthy development of any child. Marriage is good for all children, and therefore should be promoted. No one is forcing women back into abusive relationships or forcing them to get married. Promoting marriage is extremely different than coercing marriage. Bush's marriage promotion policy is aimed at achieving long-term marriage and family stability through counseling and other programs. If our society can't agree that this is a morally upright goal and instead views it as taking a "moral high ground," then we need to do some careful reevaluation. Why not promote marriage? We know from study after study the benefits that marriage has on the individual, familial, community, and societal levels. Should we not promote it because it imposes certain values on people? If that's the case, then no one should promote anything because all policies are predicated on one set of values or another. Which leads me to another point: the breakdown of the family structure has had deep consequences on our societal values. First, it has led to a flippancy regarding commitment. Verbal and written contracts have become mere formalities. Second, it has led to a culture of me, myself, and I. I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, regardless of what's good for my child because this is my life and my body. Third, it has led to a moral relativism with no absolutes and no boundaries. Morality has become whatever one wants it to be, as swift to change as the wind. I believe that a social contract which adheres to a moral code and an unwillingness to cross certain boundaries is the hallmark of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in any society. We have forgotten that freedom can be found in boundaries. Bush's proposed policy will help reinstate morality in our nation. Having said all that, as a good conservative, I also believe in a diminished role of the government and have been extremely disappointed with Bush's extension of federalism from No Child Left Behind to the Department of Homeland Security. Needless to say, I entirely agree with my colleague's assessment that it is not the government's role to spend money promoting values. However, I also agree with President Bush that while building and preserving families is not always possible, it should be "the central goal of the American welfare policy" in order to eradicate the problem at its roots by cutting the generational cycle. As Americans, we need to get outside and pull some weeds. We have become spoiled over the years, picking the stems, spraying them with some environmentally unfriendly killer, or hiring someone else to do it for us. It's time to dirty our hands and hurt our backs. We need to eradicate poverty at its root, we need to eradicate crime at its root, we need to eradicate drug use at its root, we need to eradicate domestic violence at its root. We need to eradicate all social ills at their roots, and starting with the family is absolutely the best place to do it because it will be sustained and regenerated. It is everyone's responsibility and we may have blisters and aches, but the long term benefits outweigh the short term difficulty. |
for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author.
Direct questions about permissions to lbjjpa@uts.cc.utexas.edu.