Monday, January 19, 2009

The State and Marriage

I just got through seeing a ridiculous news story on Yahoo! about a man being forced by the state of Michigan to either 1) pay the medical costs of his daughter's birth or 2) marry the mother.

At first, I was thinking maybe he is a dead-beat dad, and deserves to have the state breathing down his neck -- maybe not for 100% of the medical costs -- but at LEAST half of it. But after reading the article, you find out that he actually lives with the mother and daughter, and has a job (at a nursery, even!) in which he earns a paltry $8/hour... but at least he's trying. He and the mother intend to get married, but she wants it to be a nice wedding... and clearly they can't afford to pay for THAT right now.

When the daughter was born originally, the costs were paid by the state because the mother was on Medicaid. So, now, the state is trying to recoup their spending by forcing the father to pay-up!

This tactic was apparently proscribed by Michigan paternity law -- the law would waive the birthing costs for the father on condition he married the mother.

You wanna take a guess as to the reasoning behind the law? It is "an incentive to 'maintain the sanctity of marriage.'"

Now, maybe I'm being silly... but I don't see how on earth a law like this does anything of the sort. What business does the state have in telling a man and woman, "you need to get married NOW or else you're going to pay!" And how does THAT help to maintain the "sanctity of marriage?!?"

Couldn't this law do just the opposite? Couldn't this law promote marriages which are based on a financial whim other than what a marriage SHOULD be... things like... um... LOVE and committment?

What about dead-beat dads? Isn't it concievable that they could take advantage of a law like this... I'll leave it to you to imagine the details... but it COULD happen. So much for protecting the "sanctity of marriage."

I'm sorry... but I just get tired sometimes of hearing the government tell me about "protecting" something as sacred as marriage by trying to come up with laws which either force people to marry or PAY, or on the other hand, deny certain others the right to begin with.

The state, as far as I'm concerned, really has no business in deciding what has "sanctity" and what doesn't.

Maybe I'm wrong about this law... but the sad thing is that this particular story is talking about a man and woman who clearly are committed to each other and who are trying to make ends meet while raising a child. But now the state is trying to take $500 dollars a month from them unless they get married and produce a marriage license. Shouldn't we be trying to protect the sanctity of strong families, rather than being fixated on whether or not they are married on the state's timetable? Don't people's actions count for something more than a word being attached to a relationship?

Tell me I'm wrong (or right)! If you don't, you're not doing your part to uphold the ideals of this blog... and you should PAY me for that. Hmm... maybe the state's on to something after all!

No comments: