The editorial writer doesn’t like that because such an agenda suggests
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:42 am
So? Much research suggests that single motherhood is linked to all sorts of social pathologies: delinquency, unemployment, crime. It’s not clear why stigmatizing a lifestyle that leads to such problems is a bad thing. Because it might hurt the feelings of those who engage in it?
It [the stigma] scapegoats single mothers as the reason for poverty, even though the idea that marriage is the panacea for poverty is unproven.
Wait a minute. The Register is willing to take a mere two studies as proof that marriage promotion programs don’t work, but states that the claim that marriage results in less poverty is "unproven," despite the numerous studies to the contrary? This is sloppy, bordering on the intellectually dishonest, on the part of the editorial writer. Perhaps that is because this editorial was not written on the basis of thought, but on the basis of emotion. This is best exemplified in the next two sentences:
-It's dangerous for both women and children when the government suggests a two-parent household is always better. Is it better if a woman is married to an abusive man?
First of all, it isn’t clear that the government is going shop to suggest that marriage is always better, rather than suggest it is usually better. Second, even if it were to do so, it is hardly dangerous if one considers the alternative. What is worse, promoting a lifestyle—marriage—that has a small risk of leading to abuse, or being inactive toward a lifestyle—single motherhood—that has a high risk of leading children into crime? Indeed, the Register's contention of danger is highly ad hominem, suggesting that the real concern isn’t that marriage promotion programs will prove ineffective:
If President Bush refuses to listen to the findings of these studies, the public will have to wonder about his real motivation for prodding the poor down the aisle.
Perhaps, as was apparent all along, the idea was more about furthering conservative values regarding marriage than a genuine effort to help those who need it most.
Ah, there’s the real problem: advancing the conservative agenda of marriage over single motherhood. the lifestyle of marriage is better than that of single motherhood. Apparently the writer doesn’t want to face the fact that there are good choices and bad ones. Rather, he or she would prefer to live in the dreamworld based on the belief that there are only lifestyle choices. That the writer can persist in such a belief despite the enormous evidence that children are better off in married households than single-parent households is a testament to the power of self-delusion.
It [the stigma] scapegoats single mothers as the reason for poverty, even though the idea that marriage is the panacea for poverty is unproven.
Wait a minute. The Register is willing to take a mere two studies as proof that marriage promotion programs don’t work, but states that the claim that marriage results in less poverty is "unproven," despite the numerous studies to the contrary? This is sloppy, bordering on the intellectually dishonest, on the part of the editorial writer. Perhaps that is because this editorial was not written on the basis of thought, but on the basis of emotion. This is best exemplified in the next two sentences:
-It's dangerous for both women and children when the government suggests a two-parent household is always better. Is it better if a woman is married to an abusive man?
First of all, it isn’t clear that the government is going shop to suggest that marriage is always better, rather than suggest it is usually better. Second, even if it were to do so, it is hardly dangerous if one considers the alternative. What is worse, promoting a lifestyle—marriage—that has a small risk of leading to abuse, or being inactive toward a lifestyle—single motherhood—that has a high risk of leading children into crime? Indeed, the Register's contention of danger is highly ad hominem, suggesting that the real concern isn’t that marriage promotion programs will prove ineffective:
If President Bush refuses to listen to the findings of these studies, the public will have to wonder about his real motivation for prodding the poor down the aisle.
Perhaps, as was apparent all along, the idea was more about furthering conservative values regarding marriage than a genuine effort to help those who need it most.
Ah, there’s the real problem: advancing the conservative agenda of marriage over single motherhood. the lifestyle of marriage is better than that of single motherhood. Apparently the writer doesn’t want to face the fact that there are good choices and bad ones. Rather, he or she would prefer to live in the dreamworld based on the belief that there are only lifestyle choices. That the writer can persist in such a belief despite the enormous evidence that children are better off in married households than single-parent households is a testament to the power of self-delusion.