Comments on: In defense of partnerships http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/ Travel places, look at things, think about them, write your thoughts down. Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:38:40 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: RjZ http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-363 RjZ Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:08:49 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/#comment-363 The relationship between the government thinking it can decide what is and isn't marriage and poor single mothers is this: 'the first line of of the 1996 welfare reform act is “Marriage is the foundation of a successful society.”' One of the points I was trying to make is that the government was attempting social tinkering even more than just providing economic protection to it's citizens. This is fundamentally what often disturbs me about, and what is the hidden dirty secret in, many government programs. It was Dr. Edin's observation that women get pregnant out of empowerment and while I can't argue with her conclusion, I can agree with Elena that that is terrible news. Their, presumably false, assumption results not only in little empowerment but possibly endangerment of their child. Elena makes the point well: motherhood may save them from drugs, crime etc., but at what cost? Surely there are less risky ways to save oneself. The relationship between the government thinking it can decide what is and isn’t marriage and poor single mothers is this: ‘the first line of of the 1996 welfare reform act is “Marriage is the foundation of a successful society.”’ One of the points I was trying to make is that the government was attempting social tinkering even more than just providing economic protection to it’s citizens. This is fundamentally what often disturbs me about, and what is the hidden dirty secret in, many government programs.

It was Dr. Edin’s observation that women get pregnant out of empowerment and while I can’t argue with her conclusion, I can agree with Elena that that is terrible news. Their, presumably false, assumption results not only in little empowerment but possibly endangerment of their child.

Elena makes the point well: motherhood may save them from drugs, crime etc., but at what cost? Surely there are less risky ways to save oneself.

]]> By: Elena http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-362 Elena Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:48:01 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/#comment-362 I did of course agree with the main idea of this discussion immediately. “The government should get so out of this business [marriage]… partners should be able to call it whatever they wish” (R.J). And this was what almost all readers’ comments and even R.J.’s response to Penelope’s comment supported. Great. Everybody agreed, including me! However, something was bothering me in all this, and it took me a little while to realize what it was. My problem with all this is following: how is this in any way related to the motivations of poor women to have children outside marriage, or to have children at all? I don’t think there is any relation at all, but it seems to be an interesting topic on its own. I haven’t read the book by Kathryn Edin, therefore I can only comment on R.J.’s interpretation of it, so here it goes. I don’t doubt that most women have greater motivations for having children, then getting money from the Government. However, good intentions don’t necessarily make this decision on their part the right one. Remember, we’re not talking about those successful single female professionals in their 30s and 40s, who decided to become single moms. Here we’re talking about those who might have ended on welfare even without children. “These women have children because it’s one of the few forms of empowerment they have open to them” – sorry, I don’t buy it! For many reasons, the first and foremost one being, that using a child as the means of your own “empowerment”, the means to be considered an “adult” in your miserable environment, without any regard to this child’s future, probably sentencing the child to the existence, similar to your own - and statistics show this to be the most likely outcome. Of course, they don’t have access to these statistics; otherwise they could’ve at least started to wonder… Because, how can you not?! How can you NOT want something BETTER for your child? By one of the definitions "empowerment” means “the restoration to individuals of a sense of their own value and strength and their own capacity to handle life's problems." Do you see any of this happening by having a child at the age of 16? I don’t. Some claim, motherhood saved them from the life of drugs, crime, etc. Save yourself by different means, master the ability to move beyond fears and limiting beliefs – that’s what empowerment is. I did of course agree with the main idea of this discussion immediately. “The government should get so out of this business [marriage]… partners should be able to call it whatever they wish” (R.J). And this was what almost all readers’ comments and even R.J.’s response to Penelope’s comment supported. Great. Everybody agreed, including me! However, something was bothering me in all this, and it took me a little while to realize what it was.
My problem with all this is following: how is this in any way related to the motivations of poor women to have children outside marriage, or to have children at all? I don’t think there is any relation at all, but it seems to be an interesting topic on its own.
I haven’t read the book by Kathryn Edin, therefore I can only comment on R.J.’s interpretation of it, so here it goes.
I don’t doubt that most women have greater motivations for having children, then getting money from the Government. However, good intentions don’t necessarily make this decision on their part the right one. Remember, we’re not talking about those successful single female professionals in their 30s and 40s, who decided to become single moms. Here we’re talking about those who might have ended on welfare even without children. “These women have children because it’s one of the few forms of empowerment they have open to them” – sorry, I don’t buy it! For many reasons, the first and foremost one being, that using a child as the means of your own “empowerment”, the means to be considered an “adult” in your miserable environment, without any regard to this child’s future, probably sentencing the child to the existence, similar to your own – and statistics show this to be the most likely outcome. Of course, they don’t have access to these statistics; otherwise they could’ve at least started to wonder… Because, how can you not?! How can you NOT want something BETTER for your child?
By one of the definitions “empowerment” means “the restoration to individuals of a sense of their own value and strength and their own capacity to handle life’s problems.” Do you see any of this happening by having a child at the age of 16? I don’t.
Some claim, motherhood saved them from the life of drugs, crime, etc. Save yourself by different means, master the ability to move beyond fears and limiting beliefs – that’s what empowerment is.

]]> By: Traveling Hypothesis » Senate Tackles Gay Marriage Ban, Proposal Backed By President Has Little Chance Of Passing - CBS News http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-358 Traveling Hypothesis » Senate Tackles Gay Marriage Ban, Proposal Backed By President Has Little Chance Of Passing - CBS News Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:48:09 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/#comment-358 [...] CBS News thinks the senate is ‘tackling’ gay marriage. Ha! What they’re doing is wasting time! Regardless of your views on the marriage rights of U. S. citizens,(you can read some of mine here) unless you’re a member of Focus on the Family, you’d be hard pressed to believe that this is the most important thing on the Senate’s agenda. Not to mention it, thankfully, has little or no chance of passing. [...] [...] CBS News thinks the senate is ‘tackling’ gay marriage. Ha! What they’re doing is wasting time! Regardless of your views on the marriage rights of U. S. citizens,(you can read some of mine here) unless you’re a member of Focus on the Family, you’d be hard pressed to believe that this is the most important thing on the Senate’s agenda. Not to mention it, thankfully, has little or no chance of passing. [...]

]]> By: Penelope http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-356 Penelope Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:35:51 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/#comment-356 I agree that it is only fair that the government refer to everybody's government-sanctioned union by the same name. It's ridiculous for the State to lay a holy name on any union--that's not in its power. It's even more ridiculous for the State to decide who does and doesn't get the preferred title. As for all of the other layers of connection, I hope we'll all remember that, just because they're none of the government's business, we should freely refer to our loved ones by whatever title--religious, family, or personal--we know them by. If your religion or a personal promise you made says that you're married, you should still be proud to introduce your wife (whether you're a man or woman) or husband (likewise). Heck, the government doesn't care that I have a "best high-school friend," a couple of "really cool ex-boyfriends," or a "guitar and frisbee buddy," but I happily think of and introduce people by those names. The love of one's life deserves at least as much recognition. We should call the people we love whatever title is meaningful to us, not what the government tells us to. I agree that it is only fair that the government refer to everybody’s government-sanctioned union by the same name. It’s ridiculous for the State to lay a holy name on any union–that’s not in its power. It’s even more ridiculous for the State to decide who does and doesn’t get the preferred title.

As for all of the other layers of connection, I hope we’ll all remember that, just because they’re none of the government’s business, we should freely refer to our loved ones by whatever title–religious, family, or personal–we know them by. If your religion or a personal promise you made says that you’re married, you should still be proud to introduce your wife (whether you’re a man or woman) or husband (likewise). Heck, the government doesn’t care that I have a “best high-school friend,” a couple of “really cool ex-boyfriends,” or a “guitar and frisbee buddy,” but I happily think of and introduce people by those names. The love of one’s life deserves at least as much recognition. We should call the people we love whatever title is meaningful to us, not what the government tells us to.

]]> By: RjZ http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-355 RjZ Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:18:00 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/#comment-355 Penolope <a href="http://anitasweeklycolumn.blogspot.com/2006/06/marriage-business.html" rel="nofollow">said the same things</a> as I did in her post, but as she's described above, she's added many layers to this discussion and her post is well worth reading. I strongly agree with her though. She adds that governments aren't the only ones who are interested in the financial and filial stability that "marriage" engenders. She holds that our western cultures used to see it this way and that many other cultures still do. And it's an important distinction, because, actually, I struggled with the name of my "partnerships." Personally, I think the government should get so out of this business that partners should be able to call it whatever they wish. Civil unions sound like a good compromise, but it isn't really fair to a religious gay couple to be forced to call their holy bond a civil union when another pair may call theirs a marriage simply because they're more common (and one man and one woman.) I know the U.S. religious right finds this view repugnant, but as I said, I am not asking them to call these people anything; I am asking them to stay out of their business if they don't like it. To quote the bumper sticker I saw recently "If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one." Penolope said the same things as I did in her post, but as she’s described above, she’s added many layers to this discussion and her post is well worth reading. I strongly agree with her though. She adds that governments aren’t the only ones who are interested in the financial and filial stability that “marriage” engenders. She holds that our western cultures used to see it this way and that many other cultures still do.

And it’s an important distinction, because, actually, I struggled with the name of my “partnerships.” Personally, I think the government should get so out of this business that partners should be able to call it whatever they wish. Civil unions sound like a good compromise, but it isn’t really fair to a religious gay couple to be forced to call their holy bond a civil union when another pair may call theirs a marriage simply because they’re more common (and one man and one woman.)

I know the U.S. religious right finds this view repugnant, but as I said, I am not asking them to call these people anything; I am asking them to stay out of their business if they don’t like it. To quote the bumper sticker I saw recently “If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t have one.”

]]> By: Penelope http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-354 Penelope Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:28:46 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/#comment-354 I feel strongly about this issue, and have many layers of thoughts on it. I wrote my response, then read it over and imagined Ron reading it and shouting at his computer, "Don't you have your own blog?" Well, yes, I have, and I'm long overdue to update it. If any of y'all are at all interested in all the ideas Ron's entry sparked in my little brain, check out my response <a href="http://anitasweeklycolumn.blogspot.com/2006/06/marriage-business.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a> I feel strongly about this issue, and have many layers of thoughts on it. I wrote my response, then read it over and imagined Ron reading it and shouting at his computer, “Don’t you have your own blog?”

Well, yes, I have, and I’m long overdue to update it. If any of y’all are at all interested in all the ideas Ron’s entry sparked in my little brain, check out my response here.

]]> By: Hedda http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-349 Hedda Mon, 29 May 2006 19:06:59 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/#comment-349 Nice article and well-written. FYI - There's a broader definition of relationship recognition in Tasmania. If it can work there, it could work here. Of course there are still many gaps in their <a href="http://www.buddybuddy.com/d-p-taz.html" rel="nofollow">Relationship Act of 2004</a>, but it's a start. And of course, it would never pass in America. I wouldn't mind living in another country again soon though. If I ever want to go get not-married with someone, maybe I'll go to Tasmania to do it. Nice article and well-written. FYI – There’s a broader definition of relationship recognition in Tasmania. If it can work there, it could work here. Of course there are still many gaps in their Relationship Act of 2004, but it’s a start. And of course, it would never pass in America. I wouldn’t mind living in another country again soon though. If I ever want to go get not-married with someone, maybe I’ll go to Tasmania to do it.

]]> By: Rachel http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-348 Rachel Thu, 25 May 2006 03:02:06 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/05/24/in-defense-of-partnerships/#comment-348 You assume that social conservatives are interested in practical outcomes, such as laws/policies that objectively strengthen social institutions. On the whole, religious social conservatives aren't interested in practical outcomes, however; they're interested in what they see as moral outcomes, like the abolition of non-procreative sex. They're not worried that they personally will have to condone homosexuality; they're upset that *anyone* condones homosexuality. They don't want to be "entitled" to their own view, they would like you to be obligated to their view. Keep in mind that large numbers of Americans believe that the separation of church and state is a myth cooked up by activist judges, and that the Founding Fathers intended the U.S. to be a "Christian" nation. Oh, and of course it's always been a crock of crap that poor women sit around plotting to get knocked up, because, gee, it's totally worth physical pain and danger and a lifelong commitment to a child to score a couple hundred bucks a month. It's always astonished me that anyone could make this argument with a straight face, least of all those "social conservatives" who claim they respect the noble vocation of motherhood so. You assume that social conservatives are interested in practical outcomes, such as laws/policies that objectively strengthen social institutions. On the whole, religious social conservatives aren’t interested in practical outcomes, however; they’re interested in what they see as moral outcomes, like the abolition of non-procreative sex. They’re not worried that they personally will have to condone homosexuality; they’re upset that *anyone* condones homosexuality. They don’t want to be “entitled” to their own view, they would like you to be obligated to their view. Keep in mind that large numbers of Americans believe that the separation of church and state is a myth cooked up by activist judges, and that the Founding Fathers intended the U.S. to be a “Christian” nation.

Oh, and of course it’s always been a crock of crap that poor women sit around plotting to get knocked up, because, gee, it’s totally worth physical pain and danger and a lifelong commitment to a child to score a couple hundred bucks a month. It’s always astonished me that anyone could make this argument with a straight face, least of all those “social conservatives” who claim they respect the noble vocation of motherhood so.

]]>