Heritage's Walker: Marriage Makes Fiscal Sense
February 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Andrew Walker of the Heritage Foundation wrote last week in conjunction with National Marriage Week:
"...Americans deserve to know the facts about marriage as an antidote to child poverty. That’s especially true of at-risk youth. How many times does a young person hear that she should stay in school, wear her seatbelt, and not smoke? Will she ever hear that marriage is important to her and her children’s welfare? Do taxpayers realize the significance of marriage for alleviating child poverty—or do they only hear messages about how much more we need to spend on welfare programs? That’s what National Marriage Week aims to change.
Policy can send important messages about the importance of marriage, but it doesn’t play the most important role.
Parents should personally communicate to their children the social and personal costs of unwed parenting—from economic hardships that can occur to the difficulty of raising a child alone.
The path to prosperity requires a robust marriage culture—it matters for both individuals and for America.
3 Comments
Which is, of course, why I support marriage. Straight marriage, gay marriage, it's good for the family and for children.
Oh, so homosexual marriage decreases poverty, on average, considering all adults? And your data is. . . where? Oh! You meant is as a joke
(I get it.)
Timothy has a blog with a link to the legal brief for SCOTUS against Prop-8. Thanks from me.
The brief is interesting. But it is illogical, because it usurps the use of SCOTUS meaning of marriage, and assumes SCOTUS used the word as a right to ANY kind or definition of 'marriage', a right for ALL individuals. Self-serving twist of word meaning. Typical SSm proposal (no pun intended).
SCOTUS has never used the word 'marriage' to mean anything else than opposite-sex marriage. But, of course, SCOTUS knows that already. So, what's happening? . . .
Note any adult man has the same right to marry an adult woman who is not blood-related closely. The same applies vice versa, but not between the same sex. Nothing the legal brief points out necessarily negates the conditions of marriage are discriminatory, or shows why. Better legal minds might see what's going on.
If this is the best Ted Olson and David Boies can do against Prop-8, their case amounts to just is a 'plea'. Note they get paid, whether they win or lose. Someone should have found some 'gay' attorneys instead. Olson and Boies are so astute, they win, either way
After this case, they are out of a job, per SSm. Someone finally made the case for 'aequalisexual' marriage, stripping out other same-sex partnerships from consideration!
They also leave out other ways in which 'gay' partnerships can register their intense friendship and gather some benefits like hospital visitation they so much want, without assaulting the institution of marriage.
(What happened to 'same-sex marriage' everyone was talking about? It's not the same as 'gay' or 'lesbian' marriage. But, in the brief, that's what is being discussed.
Yep, we know who paid for the expert lawyers. But they are turning on their clients, as lawyers can do. Am i incorrect?