Healthy marriages

Healthy marriages are at the heart of strong societies and provide the ideal environment for the nurturing of children.

The conservative support for traditional, marriage-based families is shared by the British public.

But everyone knows that some marriages fail and that a few marriages can become abusive (although most abuse is in disordered families – particularly when a woman’s partner is not the natural father of her child(ren)).

To say that cases of husbands beating their wives invalidates the overwhelming evidence for marriage is a ‘When-I-visited-Manchester-it-didn’t-rain argument’. The fact that a minority of marriages are unhealthy does not invalidate the fact that most marriages provide children with better life prospects and more stability than unmarried set-ups.

Nonetheless Dr Wade Horn – the man George W Bush put in charge of his administration’s family policy – has helpfully said that conservatives should talk about ‘healthy marriages’ to avoid any idea that they are defending the failures of some married relationships. Dr Horn has written:

“Our emphasis is on healthy marriages — not marriage for the sake of marriage, not marriage at any cost — but healthy marriages that provide a strong and stable environment for raising children. It is about helping couples who choose marriage for themselves gain access to the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain healthy marriages.”

Visit the Bush administration’s healthy marriage initiative website.

Comments

[Nick Gulliford]

Am I the first person to make a comment about the Healthy Marriage Initiative? If so, that seems strange if it has really been in the Dictionary since August 2005. The lack of comments does not suggest a burning interest in the subject. But for those that do follow the link they may eventually get to http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/marriageedu/?d=D725B5B6-1549-4CCE-A861-520A6B27B387. FOCCUS is available in the UK at www.foccus.org.uk

[Daniel]

bogus dissability cilamsA female friend of mine works for a state entitlement program agency (as she puts it). Recently she told of how many welfare families have kids with some sort of disability, usually behavioral. She also described how she may take one of these kids to a doctor's appt, etc and they display no signs of a disability.She works there because she needs a job, but despises the system and the corruption/dependence cycle it creates.Today my 15 year old daughter went to get her nails done in preparation for her first high school prom. I had to wait 10 minutes when I picked her up. There were two young women there, together probably sisters, with no wedding rings and 3-4 kids between them. I didn't think about from where the financial support but, rather, what a pitiful childhood those kids will have with self-absorbed mothers and probably little fatherly presence in their lives.I could go on for hours about self-absorbed, entitled women between the ages of 18-35 that I've come across. Some of them become familiar with reality when they get older.

[Naya]

@Cham:See post #1 and use your imagination.I don't know if it's true, but I came aorcss a little factoid that stated that in the State of California, there have been a number of attempts to enact a law called "Marital Informed Consent." I'm sure you know what medical informed consent is, and this law (barely an expense to the state, and intended to reduce the number of divorces due to stupid people getting hitched for the wrong reasons) sought to get the husband and wife to study a prepared document that outlined the salient legal realities that would be in place in the event of a divorce. Wouldn't YOU want to know what might happen in divorce court before you signed on the dotted line? Isn't it wise to read the contract BEFORE signing it?Sounds kinda intelligent, huh?It was repeatedly defeated...by lobbyists from the National Organization of Women and other feminist groups.Apparently, someone doesn't want someone else to know what's down the line if things go south.Mystery solved.