DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE CHAZARI

Chazari (n.)
Anything bad or rotten; junk: That TV show is total chazari.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/yiddish1.html

So you may have heard, conservatives want to defend marriage from people who want to get married. Meanwhile, conservative evangelicals are getting divorsed at surprisingly high rates, according to statistics quoted in Ron Sider's latest book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience. (I can't recommend it, but more on that later.)


Regardless of which side you're on where gay marriage is concerned, it does seem that conservatives are interested only in defending marriage for some, not for all--even if you're straight. What's more they seem only to be interested in 2-parent families for some, not for all. Single parenthood is, perhaps, not as much of a concern for conservatives as one might think. That is, at least as measured by actions, not merely by rhetoric.

Consider this:

1. According to TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) regulations currently in force, states have a right to garnish (receive an "assignment" of) child support payments if the state has paid support in the absense of a child's father. That is, if a father who is behind in his child support payments should marry the mother of his child, the state can take a cut of future payments as reimbursement.

2. States are required to enroll 90 percent of the two-parent families receiving TANF assistance in work programs, while many fewer single-parent families are required to enroll. That is, if it's hard to find a job where you live, you're better off unmarried.

I'm really NOT suggesting that marriage is an economic decision, per se. Although, it's a well recognized fact that wealth accumumlates more rapidly to married couples than to individuals.

I mean, it isn't any more an economic decision for the poor than it is for the rich. Of course, the rich have made quite a bit of noise about the "marriage penalty" in standard deductions and income limits that determine marginal tax rates, which are not twice those used by single taxpayers. Most couples benefit from filing jointly. The "penalty" only becomes a concern for upper middle class families, for which earnings have been driven up by increasing women's wages.

Thank God for the successes of women, but marriage is no guarantee of even a livable income or improved quality of life in minority communities where men’s wages are declining. And, TANF regulations aren't likely to help the situation.

I'm happy to note that Barak Obama, in 2006, sough to eliminate anti- marriage bias in TANF regulation. He and senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) called for the elimination of a "marriage penalty" by urging that TANF legislation treat single-parent and two-parent families equitably and that the separate work participation standard for two-parent families be eliminated.

"While Republicans and Democrats certainly have their disagreements about how best to promote economic stability and long-term self sufficiency for low-income families, we all agree on the benefits to children of growing up with two responsible parents," Senators Bayh and Obama wrote.