nach oben

Policy Sciences

Erschienen in:

01.09.2007

Do government sponsored marriage promotion policies place undue pressure on individual rights?

verfasst von: Karen Struening

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 3/2007

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The dominance of social science research in the debate over the Bush Administration’s Healthy Marriage Initiative may explain why questions regarding the proper role of government in regulating adult intimacy have received little attention. Social science research focuses on outcomes such as well-being and health. In contrast, rights-based legal theory considers whether state action undermines the rights of individuals. In this article, I intend to shift the debate over marriage promotion policy from questions of child well-being to questions of individual rights. I will ask the following questions: Do individuals have a liberty interest in making their own choices about intimate relationships, such as marriage? Do federally-financed (and frequently state-run) marriage programs compromise this liberty interest? Are there any constitutional grounds for objecting to marriage promotion policy?

Vorheriger Artikel NGO research program: a collective action perspective

Nächster Artikel Clark, Timothy W., Murray B. Rutherford, and Denise Casey (eds): Coexisting with Large Carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

The Marriage Movement is composed of a wide array of scholars, think tanks, social service professionals and faith-based groups. Some of the leading organizations are: the Alliance for Marriage; the Coalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples Education; Marriage Savers; and the National Marriage Project.

Republicans and Democrats disagreed primarily over what could count as a work activity and work requirements, not funding for marriage programs (Schott 2002).

While marriage promotion policy is a product of the Bush Administration, some prominent supporters of the Marriage Movement are associated with the Democratic Party. Political philosopher William Galston held the position of assistant domestic policy advisor in the Clinton Administration and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the author of the Atlantic article, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” has served as an advisor to the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to the Census Bureau, 32% of all births were to unmarried women in 2004 (Dye 2004). In 1950, one in three marriages ended in divorce; today, one in two marriages end in divorce (Cherlin 2003).

The purposes of TANF legislation are: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out of wedlock pregnancies and establish numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. See, P.L. 104–193, (H.R. 3734) Title 1, Section 101, August 22, 1996.

The other 5 activities are: education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting; pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples or persons interested in marriage; marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples; divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills; and programs to reduce the disincentives to marriage in means-tested aid programs if offered in conjunction with any of the other seven activities.

McLanahan and Sandefur claim that the remaining negative effects are due to lack of parental supervision and the decreased social connections available to children growing up with one parent as opposed to two.

Moreover, as Dworkin (1977) makes clear in “What Rights Do We Have?,” there is no right to liberty, as such, but only to certain fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech.

For a discussion of protecting the rights of individuals dependent on the state, see Nedelsky (1989).

Acs, G., & Nelson, S. (2002). What do ‘I Do’s’ do? Potential benefits of marriage for cohabiting couples with children. Assessing the new federalism policy brief B–48 Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Administration for Children and Families, Healthy Marriage Initiative. 2006. Healthy marriage initiative achievements and accomplishments, 2002–2005. Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/pdf/community2006.pdf. Accessed on: February 25, 2007.

Amato, P. R. (2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15, 75–96.CrossRef

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.CrossRef

Associated Press. 2001. Laws discouraging divorce spreading slowly if at all, Los Angeles Times, February 11, A41.

Cherlin, A. J. (2003). Should the government promote marriage? Contexts, 2, 22–29.CrossRef

Cherlin, A. J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & MacRae, C. (1998). Effects of parental divorce on mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review, 63, 239–249.CrossRef

Coontz, S. (2006). Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy or how love conquered marriage. New York: Viking Press.

Coontz, S., & Folbre, N. (2002). Marriage, poverty and public policy. Available at: http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/briefing.html. Accessed on: May 24, 2004.

Cossman, B. (2005). Contesting conservatisms, family feuds and the privatization of dependency. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and Law, 13, 415.

Duggan, L. (2004). Holy matrimony!, The Nation, March 15. Available at: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml/!=20040315&s=duggan. Accessed on: June 6, 2004.

Duncan G. J., & Brooks-Gunn J. (Eds.). (1999). Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Dworkin, R. (1977). What right do we have? In Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Dworkin, R. (1981a). What is equality? Part I: Equality of welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 185–246.

Dworkin, R. (1981b). What is equality? Part II: Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 185–246.

Dye, J. L. (2004). Fertility of American women: June 2004, Current Population Reports, P20–555, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005.

Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Edin, K., & Reed, J. M. (2005). Why don’t they just get married? Barriers to marriage among the disadvantaged. The Future of Children, 15, 117–137.CrossRef

Fagan, P. F. (2001). Encouraging marriage and discouraging divorce. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Available at: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1421.cfm. Accessed on: February 19, 2007.

Fineman, M. A. (1995). The neutered mother, the sexual family and other twentieth century tragedies. New York: Routledge.

Gallagher, M. (2004). Can government strengthen marriage? Evidence from the social sciences, National Fatherhood Initiative, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and Institute on American Values. Available at: www.americanvalues.org. Accessed on: February 18, 2007.

Galston, W. A. (1991). Liberal purposes: Goods, virtues and diversity in the liberal state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Horn, W. F. (2001). Wedding bell blues and welfare reform. The Brookings Review, 19, 39–42.

Hsu, S. S. (2005). Marriage fund for poor proposed. The Washington Post, July 22, B05.

Hughes, C. (2007). On heels of success, marriage supporters lobby for more welfare dollars, The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy. Available at: http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=5924. Accessed on: February 20, 2007.

Jackson, B. (2006). Compassion capital fund offers over $50 million to faith-based and community groups, The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy. Available at: http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=4307. Accessed on: February 12, 2007.

Jones-DeWeever, A. (2002). Marriage promotion and low-income communities: An examination of real needs and real solutions, briefing paper. Washington: Institute For Women’s Policy Research.

Kaplan, M. B. (1997). Sexual justice. New York: Routledge.

Karst, K. L. (1980). The freedom of intimate association. Yale Law Journal, 89, 624–692.CrossRef

Leiwant, S. (2003). Testimony of NOW legal defense and education fund on “welfare reform reauthorization”, Submitted to the United States Senate Finance Committee, Hearing on ‘Welfare Reform Reauthorization”, held on March 12, 2003. Available at: www.legalmomentum.org/issues/wel/marriagepromotion.shtml.

McClain, L. C. (2006). The place of families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What helps, what hurts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Milbank, D. (1996). Blame game: No-fault divorce law is assailed in Michigan and debate heats up. Wall Street Journal, January 5.

Mink, G. (1998). Welfare’s end, Ithaca. New York: Cornell University Press.

Nedelsky, J. (1989). Reconceiving autonomy: Sources, thought and possibilities. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 1, 34.

Office of Family Assistance, Department of Health and Human Services. 2007. Healthy marriage and promoting responsible fatherhood initiatives. Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/hmabstracts/summary.htm . Accessed on February 20, 2007.

Okin, S. M. (1989). Justice, gender and the family. New York: Basic Books.

Ooms, T. (2002a). Marriage and the government: Strange bedfellows? Couples and marriage policy brief no. 1. Washington: Center for Law and Social Policy.

Ooms, T. (2002b). Marriage plus. The American Prospect, 13, 24–29.

Ooms, T., Bouchet, S., & Parke, M. (2004). Beyond marriage licenses: Efforts in states to strengthen marriage and two-parent families. Washington: Center for Law and Social Policy.

Parke, M. (2003). Are married parents really better for children? Couples and Marriage Policy Brief No. 3. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Policy.

Pear, R., & Kirkpatrick, D. D. (2004). Bush plans $1.5 billion drive for promotion of marriage. New York Times, January 14.

Polikoff, N. (2004). Making marriage matter less: The ALI domestic partner principles are one step in the right direction. University of Chicago Legal Forum 353.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Roberts, P. (2006). Update on the marriage and fatherhood provisions of the 2006 federal budget and the 2007 budget proposal. Washington: Center for Law and Social Policy.

Sack, K. (1997). Louisiana approves measure to tighten marriage bonds. New York Times, June 24, A1.

Schott, L. (2002). TANF reauthorization: The congressional divide over TANF authorization. Seattle Journal of Social Justice, 1, 427–434.

Shanley, M. L. (2001). Making babies, making families. Boston: Beacon Press.

Shanley, M. L. (2004). Just marriage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Struening, K. (2002). New family values: Liberty, equality, diversity. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Wilcox, B. W. 2002. Sacred vows, public purposes: Religion, the marriage movement and marriage policy, the pew forum on religion and politics. Available at: http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/marriagepolicy.pdf. Accessed on November 3, 2006.

Zelinsky, E. A. (2006). Deregulating marriage: The pro-marriage case for abolishing civil marriage. Cardoza Law Review, 27, 1161.

Bowers v. Hardwick. 1986. 478 U.S. 186.

Eisenstadt v. Baird. 1972. 405 U.S. 438.

Griswold v. Connecticut. 1965. 381 U.S. 479.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. 2003. 798 N.E.2d 941.

Lawrence v. Texas. 2003. 539 U. S. 558.

Loving v. Virginia. 1967. 388 U.S. 1.

Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey. 1992. 505 v. 833.

Zablocki v. Redhail. 1978. 434 US 374.

District of Columbia Appropriations Act. (2005). Division B of Pub. L. No. 109–115, 119 Stat. 2396.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act. 1996. P.L. 104–193, H.R. 3734, Title 1, Section 101.

Titel: Do government sponsored marriage promotion policies place undue pressure on individual rights?
verfasst von: Karen Struening
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2007
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 3/2007
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9044-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner