The Bush administration is planning a $1.5 billion effort to promote marriage, primarily targeted to lower-income people. The initiative was leaked to the press on Jan. 13, in anticipation of its inclusion in the State of the Union address.
The program will spend $300 million a year, spread out over five years, to help couples better prepare for marriage and deal with problems that arise within marriage. Its roots are in welfare reform proposals made two years ago.
Most observers see it as a relatively inexpensive way for the President to play to his conservative base in an election year. And who can oppose the ideal of healthier marriages?
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as the legal union between a man and a woman, precludes extending program benefits to gay couples.
But Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary for health and human services for children and families, surprised many when he told The New York Times, 'I don't have any problem with the government providing support services to gay couples under other programs.'
Gay kids with heterosexual parents might benefit directly from the program. It also might help address some of the challenges that AIDS can bring to a marriage.
'We're all for healthy marriages,' said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, the organization that is working for marriage equality for gays and lesbians. 'Healthy marriages begin with choice, personal commitment, and two people working together through life's ups and downs—not government interference.'
He found it 'ironic that this government wants to spend tax dollars to 'promote marriage,' while spending other tax dollars to block same-sex couples who want to marry.'
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force labeled the Bush proposal 'a cynical election year ploy to exploit the hot-button issue of gay marriage in the African American community. Struggling families do not need $1.5 billion worth of marriage counseling ... they need jobs, health coverage, and decent schools for their children.'
But as one reader wrote to The New York Times, 'Indeed, such a program would serve a useful purpose if it merely gave the administration the political courage to avoid the unwise proposal of a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.'
Leaders of the religious right don't seem to be buying into that (though less is known about their rank and file). They barely muttered appreciation for Bush's efforts to strengthen marriage before chastising him for not bashing gays by endorsing the antigay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
'The Bush administration must also recognize that cohabitation and divorce are not the only threats to the institution of marriage,' said the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins. 'Efforts to redefine marriage out of existence must be stopped, and the President's support of a federal marriage amendment would go a long way in making sure that marriage is not only promoted, but also protected.'
'This administration is dancing dangerously around the issue of homosexual marriage,' screamed Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America. 'What they view here as a way of addressing the marriage issue and pacifying conservatives is an insult to all who really understand the issue.'
Other conservatives disagree. 'Obsessions turn people off,' said Grover Norquist, chairman of Americans for Tax Reform. The Washington Post recently ran a long article on Norquist as one of the leading conservative power brokers in the city. He is building a national network for turning out the vote on election day.
A number of leading conservative politicians and columnists have articulated their opposition to amending the constitution for social purposes.
