July 11, 2004
Let Them Eat Wedding Cake
By BARBARA EHRENREICH
Commitment isn't easy for guys — we all know that —
but the Bush administration is taking the traditional male
ambivalence about marriage to giddy new heights. On the one
hand, it wants to ban gays from marrying, through a
constitutional amendment that the Senate will vote on this
week. On the other hand, it's been avidly promoting marriage
among poor women — the straight ones anyway.
Opponents of gay marriage claim that there is some
consistency here, in that gay marriages must be stopped
before they undermine the straight ones. How the married
gays will go about wrecking heterosexual marriages is not
entirely clear: by moving in next door, inviting themselves
over and doing a devastating critique of the interior
decorating?
It is equally unclear how marriage will cure poor women's
No. 1 problem, which is poverty — unless, of course, the
plan is to draft C.E.O.'s to marry recipients of T.A.N.F.
(Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Left to
themselves, most women end up marrying men of the same
social class as their own, meaning — in the case of
poverty-stricken women — blue-collar men. But that
demographic group has seen a tragic decline in earnings in
the last couple of decades. So I have been endeavoring to
calculate just how many blue-collar men a T.A.N.F. recipient
needs to marry to lift her family out of poverty.
The answer turns out to be approximately 2.3, which is,
strangely enough, illegal. Seeking clarity, I called the
administration's top marriage maven, Wade Horn at Health and
Human Services. H.H.S. is not "promoting"
marriage, he told me, just providing "marriage
education" for interested couples of limited means. The
poor aren't being singled out for any insidious reason, he
insisted; this is just a service they might otherwise lack.
It could have been Pilates training or courses in orchid
cultivation, was the implication, but for now it's marriage
education. As recently as 2001, however, Horn was proposing
that the administration "show it values marriage by
rewarding those who choose it" with cash "marriage
bonuses."
When I suggested that — with food pantries maxing out
and shelters overflowing across the nation — poor women
might have other priorities, Horn snapped back: "It's
fine for you to make the decision on what low-income couples
need." Silly old social-engineering-type liberal that I
am, I had actually doubted that marriage education might be
helpful to couples doomed to spend their married lives on
separate cots in the shelter.
Besides, he went on, low-income people are eager for
government-sponsored marriage education. Lisalyn Jacobs, who
tracks T.A.N.F. marriage policy at the women's group Legal
Momentum, told me she finds it "obscene" that, in
the face of coming cuts in housing subsidies and other
services, H.H.S. is planning to spend any money at all on
marriage, much less the $200 million now proposed. But she
may be unaware, as I am, of the mobs of poor women who
picket H.H.S. daily, chanting: "What do we want?
Marriage education! When do we want it? Now!"
If marriage were a cure for poverty, I'd be the first to
demand that H.H.S. spring for the Champagne and bridesmaids'
dresses. But as Horn acknowledged to me, there is no
evidence to that effect. Married couples are on average more
prosperous than single mothers, but that doesn't mean
marriage will lift the existing single mothers out of
poverty. So what's the point of the administration's
marriage meddling? Jacobs thinks that the administration's
mixed signals on marriage — O.K. for paupers, a no-no for
gays — are part of the conservative effort to "change
the subject to marriage." From, for example, Iraq.
But this may be too cynical an explanation. Quite
possibly, the administration wants to ban gay marriage so
that gay men can be drafted to marry T.A.N.F. recipients.
Think of all the problems that would solve, and, if the
Queer Eye stereotype holds true, how tastefully appointed
those shelters will become.
|