Skip to comments.Marrying the welfare state to big government
Posted on 06/03/2012 4:31:14 PM PDT by ReformationFan
"Marital responsibility" is the priceless institution greatly missing in low-income households. Traditionally married couples and their children are the least likely to live in poverty, get in trouble, or need big government to incarcerate or care of them from womb to tomb.
The welfare state and same-sex marriage are issues deeply interwoven but not commonly understood. Behind the "rights" language is the socialist purpose of feminists who have fought for decades to create the right for women to marry each other.
In a nutshell: Feminists set out to destroy marriage and marginalize the influence of the church in the 1960's. With marriage significantly diminished, feminists set out to turn marriage into a feminist institution in the late 1980's. Feminist leaders believe that allowing women to marry each other will resolve the economic and social problems of poor single mothers, and give feminists more sociopolitical power over the dual institutions of marriage and family by harnessing public policies commonly assigning children as chattel regardless of the context of childbirth.
It is well-known that poverty is lowest in married families. If the welfare state could be downsized by allowing women to marry each other, why not allow it? Even budget-cutting Tea Partiers (who largely ignore social policy matters) understand this under-the-table math.
As with most feminist illusions, creating a publically recognized legal bond creates more of a loss to the public coffers than a gain. Take the case of Desmond Hatchett, who fathered 30 children by 11 different women in Tennessee.
The media failed to grasp the most important part of the story: Why did 11 different women want to have 30 children out of wedlock knowing that Hatchett could not possibly support them? Answer: They wanted the welfare income and benefits that arrives immediately upon getting pregnant out of wedlock to support themselves. Hatchett was the means to that end.
Despite having the most effective birth control methods at their disposal, the illegitimacy rate is at record levels. Why? Because for low-income women it is a path to a reasonable, steady income.
Most women do not accidentally get pregnant out of wedlock. Consider this: What would happen if unemployment checks were equivalent to what you could earn and were guaranteed for 20 years? Nobody would work for decades.
This policy paradox illustrates the insanity of the American welfare state. Unemployment policy encourages individuals to return to work. Welfare policies encourage women to avoid marriage and have children at the taxpayer's expense. Our economy always bounces back. The news about marriage, poverty, social problems, and crime has been increasingly negative since 1964.
Legal recognition of homosexuality does not predict smaller government or lower taxes. It doubles the destructive impact of the welfare state on marriage. We may be creating a disincentive for low income women to marry men and live on their incomes when they can marry other women, collect any number of welfare checks, sleep with whoever they want, and entertain men like Lady GaGa?
Why does the NAACP support homosexuality? The NAACP wants to expand the welfare state and will do anything to get it including policies that destroy marriage and permanently obliterating trust and functional social structure between black women and men.
I don't think this is true.
Feminism and all those other isms want to destroy the family and replace it with big government. They want the government to raise all children.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned his fellow Democrats that this would happen, way back then.
History has proven him right, even though he would now be considered heartless and racist by his fellow Dems.
Isn’t marrying the welfare state and big government
like marrying your own daughter?
With the direction our nation is headed in, I figure that’ll be legal by 2025.
I suppose if they were both lesbians, who would care?
True. States with small governments generally do not have big welfare programs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.