Grow Together by Growing Alone First

Bush marriage proposal cannot be accepted

opinion by Mike Seely, contributor

Unlike friends and acquaintances of mine who were raised out of wedlock or suffered the pangs of divorce in their adolescence, I was fortunate enough to grow up in a two-parent household. What has resulted from this upbringing of perceived normalcy is not a rose-colored view of giddy puppy love between my folks, but rather a keen appreciation for just how much work it takes for two people to persevere in a life partnership.

It is in this vein that I view the decision of whether or not to get married to be arguably the most serious consideration a person must undertake, which is why I consider the Bush administration's proposal to spend $100 million per year to promote marriage among low-income people to be among the most asinine ideas ever seriously floated in sociological politics.

In a February 19, 2002 article in the New York Times ("Welfare Chief Is Hoping to Promote Marriage"), welfare administrator Wade F. Horn states that "the empirical literature is quite clear that, on average, kids who grow up in stable, healthy, married, two-parent households do better than kids who grow up in some other kind of arrangement." He goes on to add: "Ninety percent of Americans either have been married, were married or will be married. It isn't like some product we have to sell. So how do we help people achieve the goal of a healthy marriage, which most people say they want?"

While that these statements may be irrefutably accurate, what Dr. Horn is not taking into account is: (a) roughly half of all marriages end in divorce and (b) that the negative impact a divorce has on a child's psyche is undoubtedly tantamount to or greater than growing up in a single-parent family.

One could also credibly point to the administration's unwillingness to promote safe sex (witness the hot water Colin Powell recently got himself in by suggesting that condoms may be a good thing) as a motivating factor behind Horn's ill-conceived proposal, but that's somewhat beside the point. I recently heard a report on CBS radio wherein sociologists had dubbed failed marriages among Gen-Xers "starter marriages." The wordplay creates an intentional parallel to a young homeowner's "starter home," the type of abode that is fine in the interim, before the desire for bigger and better takes flight. As a 27-year-old bachelor, I've sadly seen this "starter marriage" theory play out among my circle of friends. While some are able to work through their differences and forge on, the more likely scenario is that these marriages dissipate, with each respective ex-partner scurrying back into single life to rekindle wild streaks of independence and artful recklessness.

There are several factors--biological clocks, peer pressure and a desire to have kids among them--that compel young people to get married, and there is certainly no shortage of amorous, real-life fairy tales to support such motives. However, with world population spiraling out of control, why the rush to squirt out a human litter? And with medical advances ensuring longer life spans for all, why the urgent need to throw in the towel on the joys of single life after a quarter-century or so?

An old friend of mine once offered me the sage advice that it is impossible to grow as a couple until you allow each other to grow as individuals. Taking this to heart, I have become a person who has a fond appreciation for good marriages, but an equally acute understanding of the challenges therein. So I'll be taking my time, thank you very much.

One would think that, based on America's unseemly marital track record, the Administration might better use its clout to compel young couples to give a little more thought to the state of their union before shimmying down the aisle.

Mike Seely, who still eats frozen burritos occasionally, is also a regular contributor to Seattle Weekly, Tablet, and Seattle Magazine.