When the state rejected the health-care cash, Gov. Sam Brownback distributed a press release in which he said, "There is much uncertainty surrounding the ability of the federal government to meet its already budgeted future spending obligations. Every state should be preparing for fewer federal resources, not more."
Get it through your head, guys. The federal gravy train is over for Kansas. Well, not really. The Kansas City Star reports: "The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services is seeking $2.2 million a year for three years to pay for counseling that encourages unwed parents to marry. Free marriage licenses would be given to those who do."
That's a $50 value!
The administration tried to explain to the paper why it was right to send health-care cash back to Washington, but it is fine to make it rain in order to promote marriage: “The administration doesn’t have a blanket policy regarding grants. … Each potential grant and the federal requirements that come along with them are evaluated on a case-by-case basis with an increased watchful eye toward long-term mandates with short-term funding streams,” according to statements released to the Star."
So Kansas doesn't want to accept federal money except when it does. Thanks for making sense, guys.
Showing 1-14 of 14
Marriage is a religious ritual and has no business being recognized by the government in any way shape or form. If you want to get married great but it should be between you, your spouse, and your church. Leave me the hell out of it. We need to STOP giving tax breaks to people that encourage them to get married and pop out a bunch of kids who will further tax our already overburdened planet. Now this ass clown wants to use our valuable recources (which might be used for I don't know taking care of people that are suffering, ensuring that everybody has access to the basic necessities, etc.) and throw them away on some "councilors" who's purpose is to encourage people to go through a religious ritual. And people think we've made it out of the dark ages lol. Btw I'm curious as to who will be administering these "counsoling" services.
Frank says "In the end there are mounds of evidence that show kids that grow up with both parents at home are less likely to get involved with drugs, gangs, and other crime, and in general do better in life." True, as far as it goes, but a little incomplete, and to be honest, not exactly on point. After all, you don't have to be married to have a two-parent family at home. And in fact, those same studies have shown better outcomes for children raised by two women than by male/female couples, but I don't see Brownback promoting gay marriage.
Yes, in general, children do better in a two-parent home (regardless of the sex or marital status of the parents), but I haven't seen too many studies suggesting that a dysfunctional two-parent home is better than a functional relationship between the parents, even if they live separately. Married parents isn't a magic bullet - there are many other factors that come into play, and it's a fallacy to assume that encouraging marriage will magically fix family problems.
Oh, and the comment about the age at marriage? Statistically, couples marrying at a younger age have a higher chance of divorce. Children who go through a parent's divorce generally do worse - not because they're no longer in a two-parent home, but because of the upheaval involved in a divorce.
Incidentally, the idea that couples can be helped by 6 counseling sessions in 3 years is beyond ridiculous, but that's what would be offered by Brownback's plan. Seeing a therapist for an hour every 6 months is somewhere right around useless unless the couple already has a pretty healthy relationship - and those people don't need counseling. Not to mention, it's not a proper role for a therapist or counselor to encourage marriage.
Perhaps I should state before someone assumes I'm just whining about not being paid, that I work with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, most of which are married, usually with children. My job would not exist if not for dysfunctional relationships, so I can say from every day experience that marriage in and of itself is not the answer.
So my paycheck funded by grants from the governor's office can be held for weeks without explanation or apology, but they're asking for millions to encourage people to do something they don't want to, all the while denying gays who DO want to marry? Yeah, I'm not really feeling supportive of This idea.
Perhaps some of this money could be funneled into parenting classes, instead of assuming a two-parent household is all that is required to give children the stability they need. I have seen countless cases of "traditional" families churning out highly dysfunctional kids due to lack of parenting skills and moral principles. Just saying...
Well, a marriage license is cheaper than an abortion, but I'm not sure which one ends up being the better value to the state, especially if the resulting crotch-spawn and its parents go on the dole.
"Marriage" is a religious institution, is it not? That's what those against same sex marriage are saying, correct? Gays can't get married because the biblical definition is a union of man and woman, right?
So how can the state ask for federal dollars to support marriage? That's an offense to the constitutional laws of this country. It is blurring the lines of church and state.
You can't have it both ways.
What a waste of my money. Talking to people about getting married. When you have people that want to get married but wont let them. This does not make sense. Let those that want to marry marry and leave the rest alone.
"Individuals have the right to accept or decline assistance from others (money or otherwise). The author seems shocked that the state would have the same choice. "
I think the problem comes down to this quote from Sam Brownback's statement: "Every state should be preparing for fewer federal resources, not more."
So the state decides to ditch the healthcare money (and the reason seems to be this new found libertarian ideology of the right wing) but ask for money to promote marriage among unwed couples. It makes the cries of the right against socialism and the spending of federal money ring hollow. I guess it isn't socialism or wasted money if your state needs the cash or if your ideology supports the program.
I understand wanting children to have a solid foundation, but telling people to get married and stay married even in awful situations is just wrong.
I also thought Republicans want government out of people's business. Marriage is a pretty personal situation.
Additionally, can someone in Brownback's administration answer the following? You want people to get married to ensure stablity for children. Do you want people to marry others with a violent history? Maybe a criminal record? Would that actually ensure a better future for the kids?
Individuals have the right to accept or decline assistance from others (money or otherwise). The author seems shocked that the state would have the same choice.
Also, from the previous post, I don't understand what the age of marriage has to do with the article? Can you share more on your thoughts?
In the end there are mounds of evidence that show kids that grow up with both parents at home are less likely to get involved with drugs, gangs, and other crime, and in general do better in life. Sounds like the state is trying to help kids by encouraging parents to be responsible.
In Abe's comment above, Abe is playing the race card because he wants to be offended, but HAD TO FIND A WAY to do it.
like
dislike
