Proposed marriage-promotion plan is bad policy, say Cornell scholars

Cornell University ^ | FOR RELEASE: Feb. 7, 2003 | Contact: Linda Myers

[Behind Liberal Lines]

ITHACA, N.Y. -- New marriage-promotion welfare rules proposed by the Bush administration will violate poor women's privacy rights and will not work, says a position paper written by three academics associated with Cornell University.

The rules are expected to be reintroduced in the House of Representatives next week as part of the welfare bill, and brought to a vote as early as Tuesday, Feb. 11.

Martha Fineman is a professor of feminist jurisprudence at Cornell Law School. Anna Marie Smith is a professor of government at Cornell. Gwendolyn Mink, the daughter of the late congresswoman from Hawaii, Patsy Mink, holds a Cornell Ph.D. in government and is a professor of women's studies at Smith College. They warn that, with Republicans controlling both the House and Senate, the rules are likely to pass swiftly and become law. They hope to rally a broad coalition of people opposing them.

Their position paper, "No Promotion of Marriage in Welfare Law," is accessible at http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/ams3/npmposition.html .

The White House has proposed spending $300 million a year on marriage-promotion programs and initiatives in selected states. The dollars, which would come from the budget of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) -- the program that administers welfare today -- would pay for pro-marriage advertising campaigns aimed at the general public, as well as classes on marriage preparation and divorce avoidance for welfare recipients. States would be required to allocate TANF funds to finance such programs and would lose funding if they choose not to comply. The plan, which is part of the TANF reauthorization act, died when Congress adjourned at the end of 2002 but is expected to be reintroduced in the House and brought to a vote, with minimal discussion on the floor, as early as next week.

While White House staff members say that participation in marriage-promotion programs will be voluntary for welfare recipients, Fineman, Smith and Mink fear that those who choose not to take part will face discriminatory treatment by caseworkers pressured to fill marriage-promotion classes. Many poor women may believe that if they do not participate, they will risk losing their family's only source of financial support, welfare benefits.

The scholars recognize that marriage can be a satisfying union. But they also warn, "As a prescription rather than a choice, marriage is a one-size-fits-all contract full of dangers for some. While marriage has provided some women the cushion of emotional and economic security, it also has locked many women in unsatisfying, exploitative, abusive and even violent relationships."

The marriage-promotion plan particularly discriminates against poor single parents, same-sex couples and parents who choose not to marry for diverse highly personal reasons, note Fineman, Smith and Mink. In addition, those most likely to be affected are poor black women and Latinas, groups with long histories of being discriminated against. The proposal threatens their First Amendment rights to privacy and to freedom of religion, say the scholars, who predict that marriage-promotion programs will be subcontracted to faith-based groups that will use them as an opportunity for religious proselytizing at taxpayer expense.

The scholars may have support from an important contingent: the people who administer the nation's current welfare program, who, initial reports show, are opposed to making marriage-promotion part of the package, state Fineman, Smith and Mink.

They also cite studies showing that the experimental marriage-promotion programs will neither lift poor women out of poverty (potential partners are likely to be poor and unemployed) nor significantly increase the number of marriages among welfare recipients.

What the marriage-promotion programs will do, warn Fineman, Smith and Mink, is give the federal government a legal vehicle through which to funnel public monies to conservative non-governmental organizations, enlarging their influence in political circles and communities.

Government should get involved in families, state the scholars, not to lecture them on how to run their lives but "to ensure that those adults who are caring for a dependent, such as a child, a severely disabled or ill person or an elderly person have adequate resources."

For more information, write Smith at ams3@cornell.edu or visit the Web site listed above.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

So, let me get this straight:

Promoting marriage will lead to abused women and discrimination against blacks and hispanics? Oh, and it's unfair to gays?

Man, they don't miss a buzzword, do they?

Government should get involved in families, state the scholars, not to lecture them on how to run their lives...

Yeah, sure. When the was the last time a liberal was worried about the government telling people how to live their lives--kaff kaff--environmentalism, political correctness?

Oh wait, that's right. In THIS case they are encouraging traditional values. Can't have that. Nosiree bob.

What else could be the real reason for their ire? Ah, here it is:

What the marriage-promotion programs will do, warn Fineman, Smith and Mink, is give the federal government a legal vehicle through which to funnel public monies to conservative non-governmental organizations, enlarging their influence in political circles and communities.

The truth comes out. Their real beef is the fear that this will somehow hurt funding for THEIR agenda and perhaps help advance the--shudder--conservative agenda.

Cornell Professors opposing traditional values. Just one more reason why Ithaca is the City of Evil.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Ping (and thanks to ml/nj for the head's up).

[Drango]

feminist jurisprudence

Say What?

[Soaring Feather]

Cornell Professors opposing traditional values. Just one more reason why Ithaca is the City of Evil.

yupper, that's the way it goes in The City of Evil

[Post Toasties]

Marriage promotion is such an essentially good idea that one wonders how these agenda driven Leftist idiots can live with themselves for opposing it and thereby promoting the very discrimination and poverty that they describe themselves as being against.

[jigsaw]

Their real beef is the fear that this will somehow hurt funding for THEIR agenda...

Actually, BLL, it sounds like these women could use some "real beef."

[Cicero]

If three Cornell feminists are against it, it must be a good idea.

[CPOSharky]

If these idiots get a little farther out in the boonies with their wacko views nobody will be able to hear them.

One can hope.

[txzman]

Apparently these folks missed the recent news of the depopulation of Italy, Russia and the rest of Europe due to declining birth rates.

The causes listed? The "rights" of women to abortion and the "rights" of people to divorce at will. Add a mix of declining morality, lack of ethics and a me-too mindset and Voila!

[templar]

Man, they don't miss a buzzword, do they?

I think it's programmed into their word processors. Kinda like a spell checker.

[uglybiker]

Martha Fineman is a professor of feminist jurisprudence at Cornell Law School. Anna Marie Smith is a professor of government at Cornell. Gwendolyn Mink, the daughter of the late congresswoman from Hawaii, Patsy Mink, holds a Cornell Ph.D. in government and is a professor of women's studies at Smith College.

The Three Stooge-ettes.

[uglybiker]

... it sounds like these women could use some "real beef."

They ain't gettin' it from me, that's for sure!

I wouldn't consider giving them fake, borrowed, or stolen 'beef' either!

[eleni121]

Femininist jurisprudence- yeah - you know the kind that says that there is no such thing as consensual sex - all sex is rape - rape that is by men against women! (McKinnon)

[AnnaZ]

While marriage has provided some women the cushion of emotional and economic security, it also has locked many women in unsatisfying, exploitative, abusive and even violent relationships."

Freaks.

[quebecois]

Dispose of everything that these feminists said in this article. They are just blowing smoke. The REAL reason why they oppose this idea is that they hate anything that smacks of traditional culture...and they hate men too.

Liberals realized a long time ago that the only way that they would ever realize their goal of socialism is via the destruction of traditional western culture. If the people embrace those traditional values and ideals...then they will be much less likely to be dependent on the libs and their welfare state. Thus, everything must be done at every turn to destroy that hated culture.

Marriage smacks of western culture. They are attempting to destroy that culture. Ergo, they oppose this initiative. (plus...being lefty feminists--and probably lesbians to boot--they hate men. marriage means men, and men are bad)

[quebecois]

It never ceases to amaze me that these libs--who are so protective over the rights of various favored groups--have no compunction whatsoever to send the IRS out to pummel me in order to finance their precious social welfare state.

According to them, it is facist to suggest that some woman with several kids and no husband should marry...but totally OK to have goons from the IRS shake me upside down and give my wallet a colonoscopy to finance everything.

Memo to the feminists: I'm not feeling the love out here.

[eleni121]

These self centered, self promoting, upper middle class pseudo-wanna be intellectuals have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to poor women's issues! A stable two parent household leads to security and stability for all concerned not to mention a better chance at economic survival. Not all women have the stomach for getting PhD's in gobbledygook and getting paid big bucks teaching it at Cornell while leading alternative lifestyles! Women (and men) who are determined to lead independent non traditional lifestyles are free to lead the on their own dime!

Promoting traditional values! Yup - Why? Because they work!

[Nick Danger]

Man, they don't miss a buzzword, do they?

If they did, I missed it too.

I thought this was terrific. I'm reading along here, thinking "Listen to this feminist hoo-hah." They've been writing this crap for twenty years, and usually when I read it, it's in the context of some horrible new law that they've gotten Joe Biden to put in the hopper for them.

WHEREAS the Congress finds that men are scum.

NOW THEREFORE another $7 billion is appropriated to fund hate-filled Marxist lesbians setting up shop under color of social work to foment hatred and divisiveness amongst the heterosexual population.

But now I'm reading this stuff knowing that they're getting hosed. They have the same rant, only now it's all for nought.

Bwaa ha ha!

[Behind Liberal Lines]

While marriage has provided some women the cushion of emotional and economic security, it also has locked many women in unsatisfying, exploitative, abusive and even violent relationships."

Good catch.

Paging Dr. Freud...your slip is showing.