Quantcast
Opinion

Will Marco Rubio's marriage push solve the poverty crisis in America?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    It'd be nice if we weren't trying so hard to deny it to so many.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    Hutterite,

    Agreed. There are countless polygamists out there that just want the same rights as others. It would be nice if liberals starting truly fighting against discrimination.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    Absurd.

    Since Utah is spending $ 2 million dollars to fight marriage equality.

    I guess some want to fight to marry 5 women…

    but can't stand it when two men want to it.

    When the 'traditional' side wants to start fighting for monogamy, can someone let me know…?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    @Chris B
    "There are countless polygamists out there that just want the same rights as others. It would be nice if liberals starting truly fighting against discrimination."

    Do you think those who fought for interracial marriage were also hypocrites for not fighting for other types of marriage too?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    “What's magical about marriage isn't really what leads to the poverty reduction,” he concluded.' - From the article


    *'Marriage an important key to avoiding poverty' - By Jennifer A. Marshall, The Heritage Foundation - Published by DSnews - 10/17/10

    Waiting until marriage to have children is the second of three "golden rules" for avoiding poverty that researchers identified over the years: (1) graduate from high school; (2) marry before having children; and (3) get a job.
    Actually, being married is even more significant than graduating from high school for avoiding poverty. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, shows this in a new paper, "Marriage: America's No. 1 Weapon Against Child Poverty."

    Whoops.

    So easy to use Conservative studies…

    to disprove conservative claims.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    Gay marraige doesn't support the safety of children or ensures the integrity of raising children in an environment that will help them understand sexuality and help them avoid the destorying effects that follow homosexuality and other sexual perversions.

    True marraige where husband and wife commit to raising a family and try to stay together during the hard times to provide a stable world for children is what ensures families rising out of poverty. This is based on scientific research and natural common sense ideas. same sex marraige is a counterfiet and does not have the same kind of sacrifice and other natural elments found in heterosexual marraige couples who truly commit to raise children and bring them up in a stable home.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    'Gay marraige doesn't support the safety of children or ensures the integrity of raising children in an environment that will help them understand sexuality and help them avoid the destorying effects that follow homosexuality and other sexual perversions.'

    This claim has been debunked.

    Repeatedly.

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are NOT markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."

    'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 2002, pp. 339-340 - Published: 02/01/10

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)

    Heterosexual couples create stable homes?

    Kate plus 8. Eight children created through ininvitro fertilization in a marriage..

    now divorced.

    Can't claim something 'works'…when there is a 50% divorce rate.

    Sorry.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Marriage dosen't REALLY prevent poverty…?

    *'Marriage an important key to avoiding poverty' - By Jennifer A. Marshall, The Heritage Foundation - Published by DSnews - 10/17/10

    Waiting until marriage to have children is the second of three "golden rules" for avoiding poverty that researchers identified over the years: (1) graduate from high school; (2) marry before having children; and (3) get a job.
    Actually, being married is even more significant than graduating from high school for avoiding poverty. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, shows this in a new paper, "Marriage: America's No. 1 Weapon Against Child Poverty."

    And Utah will spend $2 million dollars to fight marriage equality.

    Whoops...

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 9, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    Researchers found that:

    Recent research adds to the growing body of evidence that promoting marriage is not the answer to the problems facing single mothers and their children.

    A nationally representative study of more than 7,000 women found that approximately 64 percent of the single mothers who married were divorced by the time they reached age 35-44. More importantly, single mothers who marry and later divorce are worse off economically than single mothers who never marry. Even marriages that endure appear to offer few health benefits to single mothers unless they are to the biological father of their first child.

    There is growing consensus among researchers that it would be more beneficial to convince women to delay childbirth rather than to promote marriage. But even this seemingly uncontroversial policy is more complicated than it sounds.

    A more promising approach is to focus on reducing unintended or mistimed births. Approximately 79 percent of births to unpartnered women under the age of 25 are unintended.

    ("Promoting Marriage Among Single Mothers: An Ineffective Weapon on the War on Poverty?")

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    Here's the thing though... does marriage actually solve poverty? I mean I guess if you're a poor person and you marry someone who makes 60k a year then you get helped, but that's nothing special about marriage, that's just convincing someone to (in effect) make you a dependent. Or is it just that those who are not poor are more attractive marriage prospects and are more likely to have a spouse because of that in which case this is just correlation and not causation?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    In the way-back I often heard the expression "Two can live a cheaply as one". Unfortunately, that is no longer true. In today's world, it takes several wage earners to match the wages of one of the old time providers, in terms of worth.

    Even so, marriage is still a good strategy to combat the economic oppression of business because of the rule that the sum of the group is more than the sum of the individuals. As a matter of fact, the current economy is a darn good argument for plural marriage.

    The real truth is that marriage by itself has little to nothing to do with poverty. Poverty is a natural consequence of our capitalist economical system the allows some people to have more because of their energy and wit. The winners are going to be in direct proportion to the losers; only it takes more losers to equal one winner.

    Since two individuals would buy more than a married couple, it is strange to hear a businessman tout marriage. I suspect an ulterior motive for blaming racist oppression on a phony cause.

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Jan. 9, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    It's interesting Rubio said, "it is true that a household with two adult members in it is much less likely to be poor than a household with one adult member," rather than saying "with a man and a woman."

    That was clearly deliberate. Astute politicians know that by 2016, opposing marriage equality will make presidential candidates unelectable.

  • Gregorio Norco, CA
    Jan. 9, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    Most out of wedlock births are not accidental. By a wide percentage, the mothers are intent on having a child, so increasing the availability of birth control does not even remotely address the issue. In fact, only 1 percent of the low income single mothers report that they did not have adequate access to contraceptives. We are simply failing to help prospective parents make the best decision- to marry first, establish a household, and begin a family thereafter.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    It doesn't matter which party we belong to, I think we all know that change is needed and there are probably many great ways to do it! We use the government as needed, but reduce as much waste as possible! Welfare shouldn't be a way of life for people. People get stuck and they stay there! There needs to be a better way of using it to help those who truly need it, and yes, we need to push many people into learning how to take care of themselves. I watched my little sister as she had to take her son and leave because her husband beat them. She had her child when she was 16. You know, she never once took welfare. Not once. She stayed at mom's for some time, but my sister is one tough lady. She has worked all these years and she remarried and raised three more children. Ever since we were kids we knew we had to find our way. I think that anyone can do better with someone is on their side. Marriage is a good way to pull oneself up

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    @Schnee - Do you support providing equal rights to polygamists?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 5:12 p.m.

    Talking about heterosexual marriage Pagan. No research yet on the other type of "marriage".

    This wage subsidy idea sounds like Ford and Nixon's wage/price controls from the 70's. A stupid idea that, like those in the past, shouldn't see the light of day.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:14 p.m.

    @Ken
    I mentioned in our previous back and forth that I support decriminalization of polygamy and mostly just oppose legalization of polygamy not due to my moral disgust with it but because I don't see how you could turn a 2 person system into a 2+ person system from a legal perspective (tax credits, benefits, etc) while keeping it logical and functional.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 11:33 p.m.

    Pagan,

    The research you repeatedly refer to is poor science. Small sample sizes, comparing cohorts that are not directly correlated, among other problems with the "research".

    Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770 presents some of the best & most thorough research to date. It states that children raised in same sex households suffer greater anxieties, more suicides, more confusion over sexual behavior, engage in sex at earlier ages, have more STDs. Also, we discover that many of these "children" are actually young adults. Their biological parent discovering their same sex attractions, divorcing & entering a same-sex relationship bringing their children. How is this good for children?

    The previous studies showing stable same sex relationships with healthy children are highly suspect, poor science. More recent studies are much better performed studies & are showing the harm done to children.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 10, 2014 2:58 a.m.

    Another politician wanting to sound as if he is for families, but not offering any help to improve them. You can say "marriage helps" as much as you like, but how does he plan to help people get more stable, responsible, and ready to be married?

    He is talking about poor people from culturally broken communities, complaining that they are better to marry, but not offering much help.

    NOTHING will change unless we work with low income and minority adults and children to get folks on the right track when they are young and learning.
    -- remedial efforts are expensive and have low effectiveness.

    Rubio is a hypocrite who says he is for the family and votes against funding Head Start and the PBS programs that have educated poor and middle class children.

    He wants fewer unwed mothers, but is against contraception and abortion

    If the politicians would all say:
    1-- try hard to not have children until you are ready
    2-- put the interest of the child above yours
    3-- read to them
    4-- turn off the cartoons and turn on Sesame Street in ENGLISH, even if it might offend Grandma, who only speaks Spanish.
    etc etc etc

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    I think Matthew Yglesias and the Heritage Foundation are both right. Part of the economic value of marriage is economy of scale and part is something else. But I wonder if that something else stems from the commitment of the marriage partners. I'm not sure it would be helpful to increase the number of marriages of people who are not really committed to one another.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    And just how does Marco Rubio propose to get more people married?

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    I don't know how Rubio proposes to get more people married. But I will tell you that liberal policies since Kennedy have destroyed families, especially minority families. In 1962, there were more black families with both mother and father than white families (you can look it up, as they say.)

    Because liberals are (apparently) completely unaware of the principle of unintended results, they remain oblivious to the historical data (willfully oblivious, I might add; blind by choice) to the consequences of their progressive policies and, in an incredible show of continuing insanity, they want to increase the damage even more with their implementation of more policies.

    Just one example: Liberals pushed legislation to require lending agents to make home loans to people who had no hope of repaying them; especially minorities. And of course, minority families invested everything they had into homes they could not maintain. When they defaulted, as was inevitable, blacks in particular lost billions of dollars of wealth. They joined the ranks of the poor by the millions. Now liberals want to blame greedy banks and mortgage companies for following the laws their party enacted.

    Blind by choice. Blamers by choice.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    IF we are to solve the poverty crisis through marriage, we can't go about it like the liberals are implying. You don't just match up people and marry them off, that won't work.

    What needs to happen to get the people out of poverty is to teach the youth that they should abstain from sex until they are married. Then you also teach them about how to be and find a good companion. Just being in love (or lust) does not make for a good marriage.

    If the youth understands how to form a lasting relationship BEFORE having children, they will be more likely to remain married throughout their lives. This would do more to relieve poverty than all of the government poverty programs combined.

    The problem is that it will take a generation or 2 for the fix to be realized, and that doesn't fit into a politician's career timeline.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    It would be better if our "jobs, jobs, jobs" president created a business environment that produced middle class employment. That kind of stability promotes marriage and families. Recently Sen. Durbin (D-IL) ridiculed the idea that jobs legislation was preferable to unemployment benefits. Counting those who have stopped looking for work, our national unemployment is at 11% with much higher rates in the young and minorities.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    David:

    Given the short duration of same-sex marriage as an institution, and the observation you made that many of the children in same-sex marriages are actually the products of divorced parents, how is same-sex marriage itself to blame? It could very well be that the scrutiny paid to the children of same-sex couples is a strong contributory factor, as well. I would imagine the biracial children of early interracial marriages had similar problems, with the problems diminishing over time as interracial marriages are less stigmatized.

    Divorce itself is very damaging to children, I think everyone can agree, as it economic instability that adds stress to parents and their marriages.

    It's kind of a toss-up as to whether children of parents who fight and can't get along are better off than the children of divorced parents. Some children seem to do better once the fighting and acrimony have ended.

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Yes marriage is important, but not everything. Also important are getting an education and avoiding alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drug addictions.

    Also, real harm to the working poor is the flood of cheap foreign unskilled legal and illegal labor. Wages just like all goods and services is a product of supply and demand. Millions of American jobs, especially for the unskilled and semi-skilled have been lost to automation, mechanization, and off-shoring. However, many of these jobs can't be taken by mechanization and off-shoring to cheap labor countries. So, millions of foreign legal and illegal workers are brought into the country in order to flood this labor market and depress wages.

    If most cheap foreign labor was prevented from entering the United States and taking unskilled jobs from students and the working poor, these wages would rise, and part of the poverty problem would be resolved by higher wages. When the unskilled labor market tightens, higher wages would result and poverty would decline.