Ron Paul - Government and Marriage

House Web Site ^ | 1-20-2004 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[jmc813]

If government subsidized beaches, we would have a shortage of sand.”
Ronald Reagan

The president recently announced a new program designed to promote “healthy marriages” by using welfare funds to subsidize media campaigns and feel-good relationship counseling, all courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. In fact, Mr. Bush proposes spending $1.5 billion over the next five years, all to promote an institution that flourished for centuries without state encouragement.

The irony is that an initiative aimed at promoting moral values will be funded immorally, by taxing people who may have no interest in such government folly.

The idea is not new, as politicians have talked about using government to advance marriage for decades. But federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.

The failed history of welfarism and socialism in America shows that government programs ultimately erode our culture by damaging personal virtue. When government ostensibly attempts to promote culture, it always further erodes liberty. The administration’s proposal only expands the reach of the federal welfare state, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Healthy marriages are not the result of government programs. Healthy marriages are the result of individual conviction and personal responsibility, neither of which can be mandated by government.

Government is not morality, government is force- and forcing taxpayers to fund another silly program will not strengthen the institution of marriage. If Mr. Bush really wants to promote marriage, he should work to dismantle the soul-destroying welfare system that rewards out-of-wedlock births. He should work to end the judicial assault on religious liberty. He should urge Congress to cut spending and taxes, so that more money can flow into churches and private charities. The president certainly is correct that marriage is important, and the need for stable, two-parent families is apparent. We should all be quite skeptical, however, of claims that government programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.

[jmc813]

the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.

Worth repeating.

[StonyBurk]

Excellent post. However I wonder if Ron Paul has overlooked
that it was that branch of our national Govt. (the Judiciary)that first set about defining "Marriage" and
"Family" in respect to Law. (No fault divorce debacle)
And more recently (Lawrence v.Texas , and several lower
Court decisions granting custody of children to homosexuals--the Mass. S.Ct. decision requireing that State
Congress to reconcile homosexual unions to Marriage.--et all)Govt. intervention is allready a fact. The Bush plan
is but the Govt. speaking to itself.

[LizardQueen]

So is this:

"Healthy marriages are not the result of government programs. Healthy marriages are the result of individual conviction and personal responsibility, neither of which can be mandated by government."

LQ

[Dead Corpse]

Yes. I agree. But there are asshats out there that would scream BLACK if Dr. Paul said WHITE.

[jmc813]

Very good points.

[The_Eaglet]

The irony is that an initiative aimed at promoting moral values will be funded immorally, by taxing people who may have no interest in such government folly.

Ron Paul is right, again. Once again the Bush administration is usurping the powers of the states and the people by taking our tax dollars and spending it in a matter beyond the scope of federal authority.

[The_Eaglet]

Campaign finance initiative fails to make ballot -Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 39

[ConservativeDude]

people shouldn't get mad at ron paul.

they should get mad at the constitution.

actually, most people just ignore the constitution. whichis why it makes them mad when ron paul insists that it is still relevant.

[PersonalLiberties]

It is good to see that Ron Paul sticks to his guns. Just wish we had more like him.

[Straight Vermonter]

None of this would even be neccessary if not for the government welfare programs that work at destroying families.

The has never been a problem created by liberal programs that liberals (including Bush) did not think they could fix with even more programs.

[PersonalLiberties]

I agree that welfare helped destroy the low income families especially, afterall, a women did not need to get married anymore. But ironically govt. logic is instead of getting rid of the copious welfare industry (the cause) we will throw more money. Also, I think this is Bush's attempt to help keep support from the "religious right."

[Roughneck]

....by using welfare funds to subsidize media campaigns and feel-good relationship counseling, all courtesy of U.S. taxpayers...

Finally a use of my tax dollars that I APPROVE of. I'd rather it save marriages than support laziness and apathy through social "welfare".

[Dead Corpse]

If the Constitution is no longer relevant, then the Contract with America is broken and our government is completely illegitimate.

Step should be taken then to restore our Republic. "We the Willing" should do it as "We the People" are too f*cking stupid to realize what they are destroying in their endless search for more episodes of American Idol.

[longtermmemmory]

The "marriage" initiative is an effort to duck supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Given the strong contest that is upcomming, Bush can't affort to alienate the broken glass republicans. He needs to back this and have this move forward.

The homosexuals have an email campaign going to stop any legilation of one man one woman.

The author misses much in the article.

[LiteKeeper]

read later - SOCIOLOGY - MARRIAGE

[King Black Robe]

I'm curious where he stands on the FMA? If he is against it, how does he suggest we prevent the judicial branch from enforcing their values (or lack thereof) on all of us?

[GovernmentShrinker]

I'm curious where he stands on the FMA? If he is against it, how does he suggest we prevent the judicial branch from enforcing their values (or lack thereof) on all of us?

Has the judicial branch forced you to marry someone you didn't think you ought to marry?

[King Black Robe]

No. But they have forced Vermont and Massachusetts residents to embrace a a liberal value system against their will. And they might force a federalized liberal value system on the rest of us if we do not do something to stop them. Where's the self-government in that? Is our gov't now of by and for the judiciary? We might as well save money and get rid of elections and legislators all together.

[GovernmentShrinker]

No. But they have forced Vermont and Massachusetts residents to embrace a a liberal value system against their will.

Huh? How'd they do that? If the government in your state, or the federal government passes a law recognizing gay or polygamous marriages, am I to understand that you will immediately be "embracing" these family arrangements, because the government "forced" you to?

Where's the self-government in that? Is our gov't now of by and for the judiciary? We might as well save money and get rid of elections and legislators all together.

Self-government is when free people decide for themselves what they recognize as valid and worthwhile -- not when they buy into whatever list the government hands them. If we just ignore the government-authored lists, the government will eventually stop authoring them.