Published: Sunday, Nov. 3 2013 3:46 p.m. MST
The solution to poverty is so simple, so effective and so inexpensive compared
to any alternative.
Really DN? Government, get out of my health care. Government, you can't
tell me I have to give my hard earned money to pay for the losers in Society.
Government, you can't tell me how to run my business. Government, you
can't tell me I can't deny service to that person....but please tell
me how to run my marriage..including who I can marry. We're
all for stable marriages, but I'll be if you look close you could hold a
mirror up to all the stats and they would show that poverty, lack of education,
and lack of opportunity cause unstable marriages, and it's ideology that is
causing you a reverse view.
By the same token -- Nothing de-stabilizes a good sound stable
marriage faster than poverty.
I don't think many would argue that stable marriages are not the best
environment for children to be raised. The column makes many good points.But, underlying an ideal domestic arrangement are economic forces which
are the foundation for whether families are formed to begin with, how well they
survive, and how widespread the institution is adopted - which has a major
impact for society at large.If young couples don't foresee
economic stability in employment, they're far less likely to form a family,
to have children. In a world where employees are hired & laid off at the
whim of employers driving at maximum profit, this results in diminished
formations of families, in a lower birth rate.Facebook, video games,
gay marriage and Obamacare are all tangents (at best) to the core economic
driver - the prospects for stable employment and the economic security that
facilitates family life.
But if people don't want to get married, that's where it ends.
It's not the job of government to force or even encourage marriage, lest it
be labelled socialism. In addition, how can you try to sell people on getting
into something so many want out of, or tell anyone of the benefits of it and, at
the same time, deny it to gay people? People are living different lives, and if
they do, or don't want the business contract that is marriage then we may
have to address this reality for what it is, not what it used to be or what we
want it to be.
"Children raised without married parents are 82 percent more likely to live
in low-income homes than those from married households. They are much more
likely to end up in trouble as teenagers, whether from inappropriate sexual
behavior or substance abuse. They tend to suffer more psychological and
emotional problems and perform worse in school."Yet more
evidence of the financial and social harm done by people who try to deny this
important family structure to gay couples.Marriage is an important
tool to increase social stability, financial security, and familial
effectiveness. This fact holds true for gay-led families just as much as it does
for straight-led families. Denying gay couples the right to marry
significantly harms both them and their children. Anyone who truly cares about
the well-being of children should SUPPORT gay marriage. Children being raised by
gay parents deserve to grow up in stable two-parent homes just as much as any
other children do.Stop punishing children just because you
don't like their parents. If you care about children, you should SUPPORT
If the premise in this article is true, then there should be support for
marriage (consistent with their affectual and sexual affinity) for ALL people,
gay and straight alike.
Literacy IMO is the best way to end poverty.
I am very convinced by the data showing correlation between poverty and a
traditional family structure. But correlation is not causation, and I am not
at all convinced that marriage by itself is a panacea to cure the statistics
cited in the article. Instead, I believe that common root causes drive poverty
and broken homes, and those are what society needs to address.
2nd tryMarriage in and of itself is not the key to ending poverty.
There are plenty of young, poor, married couples who soon file for divorce. High rates of poverty correlate with high rates of divorce.Education is the key to reducing poverty.People who put education first,
delay marriage and children until age 25 or later have lower rates of poverty
and lower rates of divorce.
Why would anyone tell us that a stable marriage between a man and a woman is not
in the best interest of a child? I used the word "best" for a reason.
The "best" interests of a child are fulfilled when that child's
parents properly conduct themselves, where the parents of that child refuse to
compromise the welfare of the child, where the parents of that child each fill
the role that God gave them as man and woman to provide for and to nurture that
child.Poverty comes when life is out of balance, when people misuse
their bodies, their minds, and their abilities.Of course there will
always be a small number of people who cannot provide properly because of
illness or serious handicap, but family and friends can help them handle their
responsibilities. Choosing to put "pleasure" before
"responsibility" is a sure recipe for disaster, both for a family and
for society.God made no mistake when he instructed us that marriage
is between a man and a woman and that each has a necessary role in the rearing
of children. A prophet clearly stated that no sucess can compensate for failure
in the home.
Yet there have always been poor families. Just look south, there are nations and
billions of Catholics happily married and poor. I think you miss diagnose.The facts are, we are safer, richer, less bigoted (more free) and more
educated than ever before in this nation's history. We have a lot of room
to improve but we're hardly in some moral decay that conservative's
rosy recollection and loss of privilege causes them to imagine. I
understand how much you want to rail against the rest of society and blame
everyone else for your problems but no matter what subject you pharisee on
it's still the same crippled psychological crutch of a victim complex in
which others are ruining your life. It's the opposite of taking
responsibility. You have no plan, you have no suggestions except everyone should
be married? But not EVERYONE obviously. You have only made accusations and half
baked theories that society is messing up - society.Shall I mention
the fact that conservative evangelics from which this theory springs actually
have a higher divorce rate than non religious people?
People are marrying in their later 20s on average these days (nationally, not in
Utah). Is it really that marriage is key to ending poverty or is not being poor
a key aspect people look for in marriage partners?
Put another way, if the 1% in their unbounded greed were not taken 95% of all
profits, a whole lot more people on the bottom could afford to have stable
marriages. Many who are married with children, and even with two college
degrees, have been out of work for years and longer lately due to this greed,
and this is certainly having an impact on family life.
Sorry, but I’m apt to side with my more conservative friends on this one
as the data (which has been confirmed for decades) is pretty incontrovertible
– having children out of wedlock is one of the most unrecoverable &
damaging things anyone can do to not only their own but their children’s
lives.No matter what direction the causal chain goes – poverty
causes marriage breakdown or vice versa – the government should never
incentivize unwed mothers having children, period. The great liberal
intellectual Daniel Patrick Moynihan presciently saw this fact in the
60’s.The government should support ALL unions between two
consenting adults as a solid foundation for child rearing. Free of children,
people can & should be allowed to do whatever they want (i.e., not pay a tax
penalty for being unmarried).
Love for you folks to get the facts on the "stable marriages" where the
Dad is gone a great deal of the time adding to his already large fortune.Mom dishes out the dollars to the youngsters as she makes excuses for
Dad's lack of time, family interest, and love.It's actually a
different kind of poverty that the family is suffering from. Lots of sad stuff
to discuss here.An stats available on this for the DN readers to study?
@riverofsonYour comment reminded me of an amazing article I read
several years ago called "The Company Man" by Ellen Goodman. Thank you
for your comments.
When I was middle-school age, I lived in a county that became newsworthy because
it was determined to have the lowest income per resident of any in the country.
Many of us were startled to learn we were so poverty stricken. However, we also
knew that most of us lived in homes with two parents, and that nice gardens were
found in even the most modest backyards. I didn't know anyone who thought
he or she was starving, or even poorly clothed. I left there before high school,
and didn't see most of my former classmates for decades. Then I had an
opportunity to meet with a man who finished high school there and kept up with
many of the people who grew up so notably poor. Nearly all of them became
successful adults, and many with stable marriages. We discussed individuals we
both knew for hours, and he told about business owners, ranch owners, museum
employees, and teachers as well as people who simply had good jobs working for
others. He didn't know of anyone who went to prison, despite our
distinguished spot at the very bottom of the economic ladder.
A few more statistics...the divorce rate in America is50% for 1st
marriages67% for second marriages74% for third marriagesMy parents were married 48 years and were blissfully happy. I, however, am
one of those horrible single mothers everyone likes to cast aspersions upon. :)
My daughter graduated high school with honors, clocked 800 hours of community
service in 4 years, did every activity conceivable, did tennis and swimming,
took part in all plays, received 5 full ride scholarships, graduated UC Davis
with a double major with honors in both. Her reward was to bum around Europe
for a year and she now has a great job. I was the parent at all activities, was
always class mom, sewed for the plays, cooked for the bake sales, fundraised for
all events, drove to all field trips--renting a van if there were not enough
parents to drive and held down a full time job.
Your editorial reflects your bias that individuals (and their partners) are
always at fault, and that the system they live under is blameless, that business
is blameless. It's a two way street of course. Does your point of view
reflect the notion that you can change individual behavior, but cannot affect
the system? This is a mistaken assumption if true.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments