Can marriage reduce poverty? Marriage rates among the poor have dramatically declined since the '60s


Return To Article
  • sallys clovis, CA
    Oct. 4, 2012 3:58 p.m.

    A Catholic coworker who was determined to fornicate under the excuse that he was saving enough money for a wedding also used that old trite expression "it's just a piece of paper." I tried to talk to him about the holiness of matrimony, seeing as he is Catholic, but he just brushed me off with, "I know that." Yeah. He knows what God expects and he went against God anyway. There's one person I will not be surprised at all to see in hell. Eyebrows raised at the stark reality? How could I mention hell? Well, everyone knows that the Lord will not be mocked. And He won't.

  • sallys clovis, CA
    Oct. 4, 2012 3:56 p.m.

    Oh please. These couples who can't "afford" to get married are having sex out of wedlock, right? Cry me a river! If they think they can afford to fornicate, instead of getting married, they'd better think again. This reminds me of a Catholic coworker who insisted that he and his "fiance" were going to marry, but that they wanted a big wedding, so they were waiting until they could "afford" it. I figured he didn't want to marry the girl, just sleep with her, and that at some point he would break of his so-called "engagement" and move on to the next idiotic girl who would be stupid enough to fornicate. I was right. He eventually dumped the girl and moved on. By the way, he makes a good living and there was no reason for him to refrain from marriage other than he prefers fornication.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 3:32 a.m.

    They are asking the wrong question. The real question is why are the poor choosing not to get married, or get separated or lie about not knowing the name of father of their children?

    The reason is money, and lots of it. Utah has the most generous welfare and richest poor people of the nation. Those in poverty and on welfare are the richest residents in the state of Utah.

    A married woman with children can't get welfare or health care for their children, but a single mother with fatherless children and resident boy friend (father) can make a killing off of welfare, $50,000+/yr on fraudulent claims in addition to their working income and multi billion dollar Romney/Obama health care scam Utah spearheads. Being poor in Utah is a billion dollar high income job funded by the tax payers.

    Getting married cancels all this wealth the poor have in state benefits. And its a closely guarded poor class collaboration scam involving news media, state government, education, business benefits (subsidized labor), illegal foreign nationals, and Mexico's cheap labor suppliers. Remember the 1300 illegals committing fraud and ID theft exposed and covered up by all government agents?

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    People living in poverty do not marry because marriage would reduce their access to government programs and entittlements. A single woman with a number of children gets far more entittlments then a married couple. Our own government encourages unwed parenting and living together.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 7:35 a.m.

    Someday we will look back on this and be ashamed of how we allowed society to become so self absorbed that women would place a fancy wedding above the futures of their children.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Oct. 1, 2012 9:30 p.m.

    I think that question is backward. Can poverty ruin a marriage. I think that is a lot easier to answer.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    Why the sudden fixation about poverty at Deseret News?

  • RunAmuck4Good Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 12:30 a.m.

    As I've read this article and the one about poverty being passed down from 1 generation to offspring, I sit here flabbergasted. Times when I've needed the system, it was there to help me for my children. I dont see the sense of blame or finger pointing for being poor. As far as marriage, it's $75 for a marriage license and dresses can be found at the D.I. or Salvation Army for less than $100. As far as punishing single parents by giving them less because they are single-FOR SHAME for thinking that way. I did not ask to be single, as I'm sure many other did not due to serious circumstances. I'd love to find a loving, hard-working, good. kind, responsible man to be a part of me and my children. There are no easy answers for the problems in our culture/society but the solution is in unity, the giving, and the knowing what to give and when, graciously receiving, working hard at raising the children and/or providing for them, to reach a position to then give in return. (my heart n' hands are in the right place.)

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 6:58 p.m.

    Addendum to my previous post:

    Of course Hollywood set an impossibly high cost of marriage in that disagreeable movie "Father of the Bride", although it seems to have been made clear even in that flick that the couple themselves would have been happy with an elopement.

    It costs only a small amount to marry, I think it was about $30 or so last time I checked, in Salt Lake County I believe. It is unnecessary even to purchase a wedding ring to be legally wed, and an engagement ring is optional. No ceremony at a church or elsewhere is mandatory and no formal dress can be legally required especially an extravagant outfit that will often only be worn once. Expensive weddings do not make marriages last any longer; arguably they set marriags up for failure in some cases by starting off in debt.

    As has been mentioned wedding (verb) can actually save couples money and, if based on a well matched and mutually caring couple, a legal wedded relationship may create emotional stability. Having said that I'm afraid earlier generations were led to expect Ward and June Cleaver and were served up Mr and Mrs Roseanne Barr.

  • Sqweebie Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 6:44 p.m.

    @kargirl - here's the scoop on disabled spouse on medicaid - the "able bodied" spouse IS NOT counted as a member of the family towards the spouses medicaid benefit providing that the spouse is unemployed BUT once the spouse goes to work the spend down goes way up as that person all of a sudden becomes a member of the family because of its income. I know this as it has happened to me and my better half. When I worked his spend down has gone up to over $600 a month and I could only be making $1000 a month. And at the same time I don't qualify for regular medicaid but my income can be used towards his spend down.

    I don't know of anyone on SSI whose check was reduced because the spouse worked.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 6:40 p.m.

    Some of the respondents on the thread seem to confuse poverty with being on welfare. Many employed and hard working people are nonetheless poor, even without costly addictions, and others, especially fraudulent claimants, may actually do quite well on welfare.

    Having got that out of the way I find it remarkable that, having destroyed traditional marriage pretty effectively "institutions of higher learning" seem to be interested in solving the problem they have greatly helped to create in their irreligious an promiscuous society.

    We should be encouraging traditional values that include marrying before intimacy, not teaching those despised working class supposed "inferiors" how to get and use contraceptive devices and get cheap abortions.

    We ought, on the contrary, to be extolling marriage and increasing personal exemptions to income tax for married couples. We ought, in short, to be rewarding virtue instead of punishing it. If we cannot teach abstinence in our schools or at least warning of the impossibility of guaranteeing that a succession of casual partners will be free from STD's, we ought to leave instruction to churches, parents. good nighborly advice or private philanthropy.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Sept. 30, 2012 11:42 a.m.

    Truthseeker, that is also true of any needs-based assistance program. Anyone on them knows that, and is also required to report changes. Also, I noticed no mention in this article of people who were Medicaid-eligible for disabilities and on SSI, who would marry if they had access to continuing medical care, but who may not be eligible on their potential spouse's medical insurance, or whose insurance would be so costly as to prohibit coverage if they were. This will, in effect, convince the couple in question to not marry in order to preserve the medical care for the vulnerable potential spouse. The Medicaid, were it continued for these people, would answer this problem, as would continuing a reduced SSI payment if they couple is low-income. There are more sides here than some have considered, and all should be looked at.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 30, 2012 11:04 a.m.


    Fantastic! My wife and I were married in 1976, and we had a $150 open house. Today we're out of debt, and happy.--good for you too.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    In East St. Louis, Illinois, next to Belleville, where we lived for 9 years, people got hooked on welfare in the 1960s as Illinois was one of the highest rates for welfare. People came from everywhere to seige on that city, which was similar to Provo city at the time. The city went down over the past 40 - 50 years and even though the people came for welfare, they ended up with broken families, a city that was corrupted in private and public lives. It was not safe at night and the State took over managing the city and police force. They city had built a lot of high rise low income housing that was beautiful to start with but ended up in shambles and closed due to the type of living it made for people. These families learned that they could make more on welfare if the father's lived separate from the family. Some families had multiple fathers and children from these various unions. Drugs entered into full force, schools suffered, families were distraught, whether married or not. Gambling then came into town and that brought business but not what is good for families. Marriage helps society succeed.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 30, 2012 10:28 a.m.


    Foodstamp recipients are required to disclose household income. If you know fraud is occuring you ought to report them, just as you would with any other crime.

  • Lentzeh South Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    When I got married in 1976, I bought a long white dress at a sidewalk sale and borrowed my sister's veil. My future husband and I paid $150 for the rings and the food for the reception was paid for by my in-laws since my parents traveled 2,000 miles to be there. I sang "Far from the Home I Love" to my sweetheart and were told by many of those who attended that it was the most moving wedding they had ever attended. We didn't go into debt, but started off our marriage on firm ground because the true meaning and reason to get married were valued above all else. Our marriage is stronger now than ever before because that has been our priority and focus. An expensive party would have done nothing to improve on that.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    Sept. 30, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    @worf....my observation over the last 60 years says you're spot on about 80% of the time.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Sept. 30, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    Unfortunately the tax structure benefits those who live together but do not marry. I suspect that is at least part of the reason people feel "they cannot afford to get married." I also find that for many people today "getting married" means they have decided to have children, which in today's society is a costly venture. There may be other reasons why marriage is beneficial, but I'm not sure it is a cure for poverty.

  • chaliceman Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    I know I am in the minority here, but I think couples should be given a test to see if they understand the responsibilities of marriage and what resources are available if their marriage runs into trouble in order to get the license. There is too much fantasy about what marriage is, especially for young adults and too many don't know where to turn when problems arise. Education is always a good thing. It would help them appreciate and value more the marriage status bequeathed to them by the state and hopefully help them have successful marriages.

  • Mom of 8 Hyrum, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    The claim about not having enough money to get married is just an excuse.

    The real problem is that people don't want to commit, because someone better might be just around the corner. Why claim only one cow when you might have a shot at the herd?

    People want all the perks of marriage (i.e. sex) without all of the effort. That's "poor thinking," in every sense of the definition.

    That's also the definition of immorality, and we've been told for decades it's what will destroy our society.

  • LongDX Anoak, MN
    Sept. 30, 2012 5:37 a.m.

    Our welfare and tax system provide tremendous financial reasons for couples NOT to marry.
    Some couples don't marry because their disability benefits would get cut.

    Even more disturbing: I am aware of several couples who essentially commit welfare and tax fraud while living together. The man has a high-paying job. The woman works part-time and has a few children, perhaps involving a deadbeat dad who's not in the picture. Despite sizable household income, she collects all kinds of state aid and gets food stamps. The man claims one of the kids, uses head of household status on his tax return, and gets a tax break with that filing status. The woman gets earned income tax credit (fraudulently, because household income is not disclosed). She knows just how much to make in her job to maximize the credit.

    All of this together is worth tens of thousands of dollars a year to each couple. With this kind of economic incentive and the unlikelihood of getting caught in their fraud, they have absolutely no reason to marry, since they would lose all of those benefits.

    This kind of fraud is common. The system is broken.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 3:05 a.m.

    When entitlement programs started their big push 40-50 years ago, children saw their parents work around the system and get cars, homes and even household goods when they didn't even work to get those, except to show up at the unemployment office. Over those years, the situation didn't work for what people got. Wal-Mart and other stores have taken advantage of those people using tax payers through the systems to get their non-durable goods. Those same stores knew that plenty of food money came through those same hands of the government to the entitled people and Wal-Mart and other stores then started providing food goods in their stores in the 1970s and 1980s. Grocery stores in the 1970s started the non-durable goods movement to take advantage of the same tax payer system to provide non-food items that was not included in food stamp issues.

    Businesses start up to take advantage of the government system but those are service industries and not production businesses. Washington is full of those types of businesses and government workers who make high end salaries. Span and control requires the government to have many employees not producing economy.

  • Sqweebie Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 30, 2012 12:16 a.m.

    If you are going to live together with or without kids you don't need the "big party" just a small get together with a few close friends and family and a justice of the peace to perform the ceremony. It costs a lot less and the love is still strong. maybe after 5 years go on that honeymoon.

    The wedding isn't a party the reception is and it's just something that lasts about 15 minutes unless your I believe catholic then it could take up to an hour. You end up with a marriage and that is a lifetime commitment that needs to be worked on every day.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 29, 2012 11:10 p.m.


    Marriage increases the motivation for learning.

    Like many men, I would never had finished college without the influence of my good wife.

    In my opinion, poverty increases as marriages decline.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 29, 2012 9:35 p.m.

    Education is the key to decreasing poverty. Marriage can be a factor but in and of itself doesn't reduce poverty.

    Non-marriage is often a result of poverty and economic insecurity rather than the other way around.
    The quality and stability of marriages matters. Prodding couples into matrimony without helping them solve problems that make relationships precarious could leave them worse off.
    Two-parent families are not immune from the economic stresses that put children at risk. More than one third of all impoverished young children in the U.S. today live with two parents.
    Single parenthood does not inevitably lead to poverty. In countries with a more adequate social safety net than the United States, single parent families are much less likely to live in poverty. Even within the United States, single mothers with high levels of education fare relatively well.

  • fresnogirl Fresno, CA
    Sept. 29, 2012 9:20 p.m.


    Hope he doesn't like football??? What kind of women do you know? ;)

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Sept. 29, 2012 9:03 p.m.

    No worf, that's a wedding for a little girl. Women are smarter than that. Of course we didn't get married as soon as we could either.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 29, 2012 8:38 p.m.

    Wedding for a woman:

    * focus of attention
    * does this guy have money?
    * hope he doesn't like football.
    * how can I change him?
    * love his muscles
    * my wedding dress
    * my diamond ring
    * is he better then my old boy friend?

    Marriage can reduce poverty if both are in love and would give their life up for each other.

  • On the other hand Spanish Fork, UT
    Sept. 29, 2012 7:48 p.m.

    Our society places an inordinate value on weddings. Young women in particular look forward to the wedding as their once-in-a-lifetime chance to live the opulent life of a princess. Turns out that a day of royal treatment requires a royal fortune. Not only is it impractical for most couples to throw that much money at a one-time event, it's often downright irresponsible. If marriage is important, let's work to reshape expectations for weddings. If ever there was a time for sensibility, this is it.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 29, 2012 6:41 p.m.

    Cause or effect?

    "Cannot afford to get married?"

    Is that because they want to spend $$$$$ on a fancy dress and big party, or because they do not want to cut off welfare benefits for "single moms."?

    A wedding can cost almost nothing for a civil ceremony, and then a husband and wife living together have one household of expenses, not two. Prudent couples then delay having children until they can afford to raise them. Thus the marriage rate declining among the poor may be more indicative that those who make bad choices and don't bother with marriage, or self discipline tend to be poor than that those who do not marry are doomed to a life of poverty.

    Really, folks, We don;t need billion dollar government programs to fix poverty. Just force every kid to listen to Dr. Laura Scheslinger and Dave Ramsey for 2 hours a day and warn them that is they make bad choices that their expenses will be their problem, not to be paid by taxpayers or necessarily by parents.

    Anyone can donate to charities to help others, but don't tax people who work hard and live by the rules.