One of the problems in America today is marriage has become “one of the alternative lifestyles,” former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said Tuesday.
Speaking to an appreciative crowd of more than 100 at the Historic Park Inn Hotel, the Republican presidential candidate said, “We need to have a national discussion on marriage and family.
“There are two things in this country that will assure you of never being poor — graduating from high school and getting married.
“So marriage is important for our economic security. It isn’t an alternative lifestyle. The bottom line is: Marriage works.”
Santorum spoke and answered questions for about two hours.
12 Comments
I truly wish Rick Santorum knew what he was talking about.
Rick is correct. Folks are free to live whatever "alternative lifestyle" they choose. They're not free to redefine marriage.
Redefine marriage then we will have poligamy women marrying two men. then the culture if you dont agree with SSM you will be arrested. the end of religious liberty. Also preversion teaching lilttle kids gay education and transexuals using the same bathroom as women. There can and will be a crazy that wants to marry an animal and he will sue.
Marriage needs to be strengthened and supported not torn away from its roots and then neutered.
Santorum: “There are two things in this country that will assure you of never being poor — graduating from high school and getting married."
That is not reality. I personally know a number of people who are married, and who finished high school, but who remain in the ranks of the working poor.
Completing high school and marrying (and STAYING married to the same person) will almost certainly help you in life, and may increase your chances of joining the middle class (or of not falling out of the middle class). But it is simplistic to claim that these things are some sort of magic bullet for ending poverty. The breakdown of marriage as an institution for increasingly large sectors of the population is as much an *effect* of reduced economic prospects as it is a cause -- probably even more so.
@ left- are you saying the reduced economic prospects are due to over population? Where is your research on this belief? Would it be fair to say and vision that a downturn economy is due to overreaching, over producing, debt payment delinquent or failing to pay your debt, companies taking more than they should from the consumer, fear of spending money. Would these factors be factual to influence any economy system for the worse? Just the opposite, you need a growing population to not only sustain an economy system but for economy growth. Lefty, this is fundamental for a working financial system! There are jobs out there but not enough qualified, skilled people to fill them; Big business in the US have the Capital to create jobs but fear to do so in a bad economy where the consumer is not spending money as they did in the past… I’m just making some basic examples here but the situation goes deeper…
In a nutshell, overpopulation is not an issue with the US current bad economy where there are fewer jobs and too many people are unemployed. I agree with you that, getting married does not guarantee financial stability and protection from poverty, but the prospects are good for financial wellbeing as the result of marriage and creating a family, as oppose to living a single life and trying to make it on your own…
Lefty - I agree that broken marriages contribute to poverty; that's why rescinding no-fault divorce laws is also part of the solution.
Santorum's message is a soundbite, because the public is unable to digest more. Marriage also helps stem poverty by assuring that children have two parents to raise them (this keeps single moms and the child off the welfare dole), which is a very big thing when you consider that 40% of children are born out of wedlock; 70% in the Black communities.
AND, long-term married households serve as the training ground for the children of those marriages to form their own long-term marriages. This is how marriage perpetuates a population that is independent of the need for government assistance.
Lefty: Santorum is speaking from a statistical perspective, based on empirical case studies. In general, what he said is correct. In particular, of course there are exceptions to the law of averages. You go gamble in Las Vegas, for instance, and you might just win something. That's what gets people over that way (airline profits, hotel profits), just to 'maybe' win something. In general, the casinos win, though exceptions make it 'credible' for the naive, that they could win more than they lose. Santorum is speaking with people who already know what he is saying...
Would gay people be allowed to participate in such a discussion about marriage and family?
Nick D,would they be prepared to consider arguments that their self-identification as "gay people" is harmful?
"Would gay people be allowed to participate in such a discussion about marriage and family?"
Why not? Sexual orientation is a non-issue in the definition of marriage, and it has no bearing on marriage eligibility laws.
Leo, when I said that marriage was collapsing as an institution among large sectors of the population, I wasn't referring to overpopulation, or anything like that. "Overpopulation" is a myth as far I'm concerned, so we probably agree on that issue.
Little man and ResistSSA, I'm saying that I *agree* with Santorum that there is a relationship between marriage and poverty, but I don't think that his claim of simple causation -- 'get married and you won't end up poor' -- is valid. I think that economic exclusion and social breakdown (including the disintegration of marriage as a cultural institution) clearly reinforce one another, and that for working class people, the breakdown in economic conditions happened first.