By David
R. Usher
June 9, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
“Marital responsibility” is the priceless institution greatly missing in low-income households. Traditionally married couples and their children are the least likely to live in poverty, get in trouble, or need big government to incarcerate or care of them from womb to tomb.
The welfare state and same-sex marriage are issues deeply interwoven but not commonly understood. Behind the “rights” language is the socialist purpose of feminists who have fought for decades to create the right for women to marry each other.
In a nutshell: Feminists set out to destroy marriage and marginalize the influence of the church in the 1960’s. With marriage significantly diminished, feminists set out to turn marriage into a feminist institution in the late 1980’s. Feminist leaders believe that allowing women to marry each other will resolve the economic and social problems of poor single mothers, and give feminists more sociopolitical power over the dual institutions of marriage and family – by harnessing public policies commonly assigning children as chattel regardless of the context of childbirth.
It is well-known that poverty is lowest in married families. If the welfare state could be downsized by allowing women to marry each other, why not allow it? Even budget-cutting Tea Partiers (who largely ignore social policy matters) understand this under-the-table math.
As with most feminist illusions, creating a publically recognized legal bond creates more of a loss to the public coffers than a gain. Take the case of Desmond Hatchett, who fathered 30 children by 11 different women in Tennessee.
The media failed to grasp the most important part of the story: Why did 11 different women want to have 30 children out of wedlock knowing that Hatchett could not possibly support them? Answer: They wanted the welfare income and benefits that arrives immediately upon getting pregnant out of wedlock to support themselves. Hatchett was the means to that end.
Despite having the most effective birth control methods at their disposal, the illegitimacy rate is at record levels. Why? Because for low-income women it is a path to a reasonable, steady income. Most women do not accidentally get pregnant out of wedlock. Consider this: What would happen if unemployment checks were equivalent to what you could earn and were guaranteed for 20 years? Nobody would work for decades.
This policy paradox illustrates the insanity of the American welfare state. Unemployment policy encourages individuals to return to work. Welfare policies encourage women to avoid marriage and have children at the taxpayer’s expense. Our economy always bounces back. The news about marriage, poverty, social problems, and crime has been increasingly negative since 1964.
Legal recognition of homosexuality does not predict smaller government or lower taxes. It doubles the destructive impact of the welfare state on marriage. We may be creating a disincentive for low income women to marry men and live on their incomes when they can marry other women, collect any number of welfare checks, sleep with whoever they want, and entertain men like Lady GaGa?
Why does the NAACP support homosexuality? The NAACP wants to expand the welfare state and will do anything to get it – including policies that destroy marriage and permanently obliterating trust and functional social structure between black women and men.
Fortunately, many of the black churches do not agree with the NAACP and are willing to confront the deep-rooted, socially-destructive sexual inequality established by the welfare state. Black church leaders are more aware than any other demographic group of the damage the welfare state did to the relationship between men and women, the decline of moral values, and even weakening of their own churches. Many black church leaders have shared this with me.
Arguments comparing racial discrimination to same-sex marriage are phony. Legal recognition of homosexuality is sexual inequality on steroids. It will institutionalize maximum socioeconomic inequality between men and women at all social, economic, parental, and property rights strata. It will make federal government the automatic statutory party collecting child support for even more millions of children born out of wedlock within the institution of marriage, with the taxpayer acting a guarantor for supporting the extramarital welfare complex.
Now, for the trillion-dollar question: Would low-income women marry each other for economic reasons? The answer: follow the money. Many poor women have abandoned marriage for welfare-state economic advantages. Too many will marry each other for the additional economic advantages, not to mention the impenetrable matriarchal legal structure that same-sex marriage is designed to establish.
Women marrying women does not imply a sexual relationship or a significant change from the matriarchal residential culture of the black underclass. However, it does establish a predatory welfare machine destined to make the federal government and the taxpayer the automatic third party in the vast majority of marriages between low-income women.
Liberal black leaders should no longer blame whites for problems in their community. They must own-up to the truth: the massive welfare state they created has destroyed the socioeconomic fabric of their constituents, held them down for decades, and aborted the migration of low-income blacks to educated, higher-income, safe neighborhoods.
Leading conservative policy advocates such as Star Parker, Herman Cain, Rep. Allen West, Cynthia Davis and Phyllis Schlafly are excruciatingly aware that marriage-absence is the primary reason why so many poor remain trapped in intergenerational crime and poverty, with no path to upward mobility. It is time to end the plantation arrangement of the welfare state, not embed it within a convenient government institution of faux marriage.
Marriage-absence is the greatest social and economic problem we face. The effects are felt most acutely in low income, welfare-addicted communities. The costly problem of illegitimacy and marriage-absence must be confronted to decrease demand social spending and balance budgets. We must transform the welfare apparatus to get government out of the business of actively destroying marriage.
I shall digress for one important point: The first presidential order signed by President H.W. Bush upon taking office required all federal agencies to examine their policies and remove any policy that unnecessarily interferes with marriage. The first Presidential order signed by Bill Clinton upon taking office rescinded H.W. Bush’s order.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Contrary to conventional wisdom in the Republican rhetoric, budget cutting cannot be the only approach to reduce social spending. French President Sarkozy and Andrea Merkel now know that “Austerity,” without social policy changes to get government out of the business of destroying marriage only result in an angry populace and massive political expulsion.
We must now focus socioeconomic policy on restoring the institution of traditional marriage, reducing welfare dependency with scrupulous budget trimming, and establish new roots for socioeconomic success of millions of our poor citizens.
Share
This Article
