No promotion of marriage in TANF!

Fineman, Martha ; Mink, Gwendolyn ; Smith, Anna Marie 等

Executive Summary

WE OPPOSE THE WELFARE MARRIAGE PROMOTION INITIATIVE BECAUSE IT violates women's right to shape their own intimate lives, diverts valuable resources, and does nothing to address poverty. The TANF marriage promotion initiative:

l. Puts governmental pressure on women's intimate decisions;

2. Fails to support women's family choices and caregiving work;

3. Discriminates against same-sex couples, single parents, and parents who choose not to marry their partners; and increases the chance that TANF recipients will be exposed to religious proselytizing;

4. Perpetuates the myth that single mothers, especially African-American and Latina women, are to blame for poverty in the United States;

5. Shifts needed resources away from women's economic empowerment and codifies the specious claim that marriage itself can solve poverty;

6. Exacerbates the risks and problems of domestic violence;

7. Wastes taxpayers' money on conservative anti-feminist, anti-choice, and anti-lesbian-and-gay organizations that promote marriage.

Poor single mothers should not be subjected to moralistic propaganda in exchange for their benefits. We oppose this measure in solidarity with the poor, in support of poor single mothers and in a feminist, anti-racist and pro-lesbian-and-gay rights spirit.

Preamble

The following position paper summarizes our views about the welfare marriage promotion measure that will be included in upcoming legislation. We have formulated these arguments as a result of our own activism and our extensive academic research.

We call upon poverty advocates, feminists, civil rights activists, and leading lesbians and gays to work together to defeat the TANF marriage promotion initiative.

We invite Americans from all walks of life to join us in saying no to marriage promotion in welfare law!

The Problem: The 2003 Welfare Bill and the Promotion of Marriage

The major welfare reform bill passed in the mid-1990s, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, set the federal government on the marriage promotion path. It established that the welfare program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), ought to "end the dependence of needy families on government benefits by promoting ... marriage."

TANF law came up for reauthorization in 2002. The Bush administration announced its proposal to spend $300 million each year to promote marriage for TANF recipients in February 2002. The Republicans subsequently introduced legislation in 2002 that would have implemented this proposal. Their TANF reauthorization bill would have earmarked funds for the states to pay for pro-marriage advertising aimed at the general public, and for marriage preparation classes and divorce avoidance classes for TANF recipients. The 2002 bill, however, was one of the many pieces of legislation that died at the end of the session.

The House Republicans introduced and passed a TANF reauthorization bill, HR 4, in one day on February 13, 2003. The bill appears to earmark $100 million per year--a total of $500 million over five years--for the promotion of marriage as a solution to poverty.

In addition, HR 4 conceals the fact that federal spending for the promotion of marriage as a solution to poverty could go much higher.

First, the $100 million in federal funds under the promotion of marriage section are to be provided to the states on a matching grant basis. The states must provide at least 50% of the grant for each marriage promotion project. However, the state can elect to earmark part of its federal block grant money that it receives for its entire TANF program and have those funds counted as its "own" half of the marriage promotion grant. In other words, the state can direct federal TANF block grant funds--money that could have been spent on job training, education, child care, and so on--toward its marriage promotion program grant projects, ask the federal government to count those federal dollars as the state's contribution, and then request the same amount again of federal dollars to "match" the "state" contribution. In short, the total federal allocation could amount to as much as $200 million a year or $1 billion over five years. And there is, of course, no ceiling on the expenditures that could be made by the states.

Second, HR 4 establishes funds--$100 million a year--for special demonstration projects that are intended primarily to promote marriage. Third, HR 4 also provides federal funding for a Fatherhood program. The Fatherhood initiative will pursue, as one of its objectives, the promotion of marriage as well.

Finally, HR 4 introduces some new technical language in welfare law that (1) directs the states to set concrete goals where marriage promotion is concerned, and (2) allows the states to count any promotion of marriage for any part of its population--even if the marriage promotion program is directed at both the needy and the non-needy--as a legitimate part of its entire welfare program. When the federal government reviews the states' TANF programs, the states need to show that they are truly working to reduce poverty. Under HR 4, the states would get "credit" for any marriage promotion activity as part of its TANF activities. A state could therefore cut an existing service that is offered solely to needy families--childcare, job training, transportation assistance, etc.--and replace it with a publicly funded marriage counseling program for the general population, and nevertheless be recognized by the federal government as maintaining a consistent effort where the state's TANF performance is concerned.

Here is a summary of the pro-marriage provisions in HR 4 (written by NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund):

 Though current law allows states to use TANF funds for marriage
 promotion, most states use TANF funds exclusively for economic
 supports. H.R. 4 mandates that every state TANF program set
 numerical performance objectives for promoting marriage, and
 allocates $300 million in federal funding annually for marriage
 promotion, $200 million in new funding, and $100 million from
 basic TANF funding.

 TANF marriage promotion diverts welfare funds from basic economic
 supports to activities of unproven effectiveness which may
 coercively intrude on fundamentally private decisions and
 place domestic violence victims at increased risk. Beyond this,
 the H.R. 4 marriage promotion provisions lack essential
 protections such as voluntariness; coordination with domestic
 violence organizations; a prohibition on discrimination
 because of marital status; rigorous evaluation; and a prohibition
 against the use of funds for advocacy to restrict the right to
 marry or divorce.

 H.R. 4 authorizes $100 million a year in specifically dedicated
 federal TANF funding for a Marriage Promotion competitive grant
 program ([section] 103). States would be required to match the
 $100 million, but would be allowed to use their basic federal
 TANF allocation to do so, thus potentially diverting an
 additional $100 million of TANF funds from economic support to
 marriage promotion.

 H.R. 4 also authorizes an additional $100 million a year for new
 TANF demonstration project funding to "be expended primarily" on
 "Healthy Marriage Promotion Activities" ([section] 115,
 [section] 103).

 H.R. 4 also creates a fatherhood program funded at $20 million a
 year" to promote and support involved, committed, and responsible
 fatherhood, and to encourage and support healthy marriages"
 ([section] 119).

 Federal Mandates for State Marriage Promotion. H.R. 4 adds
 new requirements that in order to participate in TANF, states
 must have a program to "encourage the formation and maintenance
 of healthy 2-parent married families" and must set "specific,
 numerical, and measurable performance objectives" for promoting
 such families ([section] 115). This language suggests that in
 order to qualify for any TANF funding, states might have to set
 numerical goals for increasing the state marriage rate and
 reducing the state divorce rate. While there is no proven method
 for achieving these goals, the approaches which the Bush
 Administration has suggested for states to consider include
 paying a $2,000 cash bonus to poor couples who marry and reducing
 welfare payments to poor couples who choose not to marry.
 ("Strengthening Healthy Marriages: A Compendium of Approaches,"
 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [August 2002],
 available at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/region2/index.htm.) Several
 of these marriage promotion organizations which the Bush
 Administration has cited to the states recommend reducing the
 divorce rate by restricting the right to divorce. Some teach that
 the husband should be the leader/breadwinner, and the wife the
 follower/homemaker. Several are for-profit commercial ventures
 that claim that they can help couples avoid divorce for a fee,
 which can be quite substantial.

 Authority to Use TANF Funds for Marriage Promotion Programs
 That Target the General Population. Under current law, states should
 not use TANF funds to pay for marriage promotion programs that
 target the general population because the TANF statute mentions
 marriage promotion only in connection with the TANF goal of reducing
 the dependence of "needy parents." See 42 U.S.C. [section]601(a)(2).
 H.R. 4 rewrites the TANF purposes to allow marriage promotion
 without regard to the economic status of those whom the marriage
 promotion program serves. ([section]101, amending 42 U.S.C.
 [section]601(a)(4); see also [section]111 amending 42 U.S.C.
 [section]609(a)(7) to count state funds spent on marriage
 promotion as MOE without regard to the economic status of those
 who are served.) This could divert TANF funds from the economic
 needs of the poor to the counseling needs of the more well to do.

(For more information on H.R. 4, please see our excerpts from the Section on the Promotion of Marriage and the Section on Fatherhood.)

Why We Oppose TANF Marriage Promotion: It Is a Violation of Women's Rights

All women--rich and poor alike--have the right to shape their intimate lives themselves. The government has no business promoting one type of family --the traditional heterosexual married-couple family--over other types. We believe that households headed by single parents and lesbian and gay parents are just as healthy and legitimate as those headed by heterosexual couples, and that unmarried heterosexual couples can raise children just as well as married heterosexual couples.

The marriage decision belongs to the individual, not to the government. Likewise, the right to bear a child belongs to individual women, not to the government. If a woman does decide to bear and to rear a child, she also has the right to choose whether or not she will do so on her own, or as a member of a parenting couple. And if she does form a parenting partnership with another adult, she should be free to decide between a heterosexual or homosexual union. Heterosexual women, by the same token, should have the right to decide whether to have a relationship with a male partner, and exactly what kind of relationship it should be.

Marriage can be a satisfying union. But as a prescription rather than a choice, marriage is a one-size-fits-all contract full of dangers for some. Although marriage has provided some women the cushion of emotional and economic security, it also has locked many women in unsatisfying, exploitative, abusive, and even violent relationships. Given the wide range of marriage preferences and marriage experiences, government's focus on marriage in anti-poverty policy is misplaced. Government should foster the conditions for security and stability in all families, regardless of structure. It should attend to the economic resources, supports, and opportunities available to women and families, not to the intimate arrangements in which women and families live.

The promotion of marriage in the TANF program violates these principles. It celebrates one specific type of family and therefore denigrates all others. It also perpetuates the sexist myth that every mother ought to be dependent upon a man.

The TANF marriage promotion project selects poor women in particular as its target audience. We note that the government is not taking the promotion of marriage campaign to professional women's associations or to expensive women's health spas. It is singling out mothers who are so poor that they must turn to the already harsh TANF program--with its overly demanding work requirements and cruel time limits--for assistance. If middle-class Americans can obtain a mortgage interest tax deduction without attending a marriage promotion course, then why should TANF benefits come packaged with a moralistic lecture?

Government should get involved in families, but only to ensure that those adults who are caring for a dependent--such as a child, a severely disabled or ill person, or an elderly person--have adequate resources. Caregivers deserve a basic income, adequate housing, and affordable health care and support services.

TANF Marriage Promotion Will Lead to Discrimination and Exclusion

The Bush administration says that the marriage promotion self-help groups and counseling sessions will be "voluntary." We are not satisfied by such remarks. We remain concerned that women who choose not to participate will face discriminatory treatment by caseworkers. Caseworkers will be pressured to fill up marriage preparation and divorce avoidance classes; poor mothers who are not interested in marriage or who are lesbian may be treated unfairly when they do not opt into this program.

We are especially concerned about the treatment of women of color in TANF-based marriage promotion activities. Women of color have been subjected to discriminatory treatment since the inception of America's poverty programs. Will African-American and Latina women be seen as special targets for marriage promotion and subjected to extra pressures to participate in marriage preparation classes or divorce avoidance counseling? Will the rights of immigrant women to shape their own intimate lives themselves be respected, even when they choose to leave abusive husbands?

Given the inevitable participation of "faith-based organizations" in the delivery of the marriage promotion initiative, and the Bush administration's efforts to allow religious entities to express their religious viewpoints while delivering social services, we also anticipate further coercion, discrimination, and exclusion against poor mothers who do not want to be exposed to specifically religious teachings about marriage and the family.

Public Problems Cannot Be Solved with Private Solutions

We believe that the TANF marriage promotion measure is just one more instance in which the federal and state governments are transforming the burden of caring for our needy sisters and brothers into a private obligation. The whole workfare model, for example, is based on the erroneous idea that poverty is caused by a lack of initiative on the part of the poor. Like the marriage promotion project, "workfare" is based on a "blaming-the-victim" approach. Most welfare recipients cycle on and off welfare not because they are lazy, but because there are not enough decent paying and secure job opportunities to go around. Workfare makes it look as though we could eliminate poverty by just "getting tough" and pushing poor mothers into wage-paying jobs. Almost two million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. The real solution to poverty wages would take massive investment in educational opportunities and in job creation.

We think that all mothers already do publicly valuable work by raising their children and that their essential contributions to society ought to be recognized. And we think that poverty is a public issue that requires a public solution: poverty is a problem that concerns all of us. We believe that society has a collective obligation to take care of the least well off; poor mothers especially deserve our support. And that public support should not come with moralistic strings attached. The TANF marriage promotion project is yet one more way that "welfare reform" says to poor people, "It's your fault that you are poor," while saying to the wealthy that they need not help the poor since the poor have only themselves to blame.

Marriage Promotion and Fatherhood Programs: Resources Will Be Diverted from Poor Women

Some experts say that poor women would be more likely to marry and to stay married if more poor men had decent paying jobs. As a result, we are seeing many efforts to provide public funds for fatherhood programs aimed at poor men, precisely in hopes that they will produce a larger pool of "marriageable" men. Poor men and poor women alike deserve public support because they are valued members of our neighborhoods and communities. They should not be treated as pawns in a conservative "family values" campaign designed to change the marriage statistics.

We are also concerned that because there is already a desperate shortage of funds to support poor mothers--child care, for example, remains extremely under funded--we will see a diversion of funds away from poor women toward the fatherhood programs and that, yet again, poor women will lose out.

TANF Marriage Promotion: It Doesn't Help the Children

The data on poverty show that when poor mothers do form intimate partnerships with men--either through marriage or cohabitation--most of the men in question are too poor to lift them and their children above the poverty line. The wedding ring is not a ticket to a better life. Studies show that children do best when they are raised by a least one caring and competent parent--and that the marital status and sexual orientation of the parent is unimportant where their well-being is concerned. Locking a poor mother into a legal contract with a man is not the answer.

It Won't Work: It Is a Waste of Precious Poverty Program Funds

Like the abstinence education programs, the promotion of marriage idea is not supported by any credible social science evidence. A few hours of counseling, a couple of billboards, and some television advertisements will not have any effect on the intimate decisions made by large numbers of poor women.

Marriage is becoming less popular and less stable. Many women prefer cohabitation instead of marriage; others are divorcing abusive husbands. Still others are lesbian. Women who do not want to get married have very good reasons for choosing not to do so. The proposed program will interfere with women's independent decision-making and will violate their right to live independently.

Initial evidence about the implementation of welfare reform actually suggests that the TANF caseworkers themselves are not very enthusiastic about the promotion of marriage program. That makes sense to us: with their years of experience on the frontline of the fight against poverty, they know very well that it is a waste of time and money. Federal funds are desperately needed to support the poor, and to help needy women with children in particular. They should not be wasted on a social engineering experiment.

TANF Marriage Promotion: A Windfall for the Religious Right and Anti-Feminist Organizations

If it is obviously doomed to fail, then why are Congress and the White House supporting the TANF marriage promotion program? This measure allows the Bush administration to portray itself as taking some sort of action on a symbolic and rhetorical level to address poverty. By dreaming up these sorts of schemes, Bush hopes to portray himself as a "compassionate conservative." The reality is that the Bush administration's top priority is to serve the wealthy with its grossly unfair tax cuts, to protect large corporations, and to build up the military. For all of Bush's rhetoric, the poor are not getting the help that they deserve.

The promotion of marriage project is also a gesture of support by the Republicans for its religious Right base. Common wisdom says that President George Bush lost the White House because he did not cater enough to this small but highly mobilized fraction of the electorate. President George W. Bush, by contrast, appointed John Ashcroft as his attorney general, and promises to continue naming notorious right-wing and anti-choice extremists for judicial openings. His administration has censored safer sex information at the Centers for Disease Control and has blocked international aid to organizations that support women's reproductive rights. Using an Executive Order, G.W. Bush has revitalized the faith-based initiative that will inevitably weaken the separation between organized religion and the state. The promotion of marriage through the TANF program is part of a much larger effort on the part of the Republicans to empower the religious Right--a group that is, again, a tiny proportion of American society and that is viciously opposed to the rights of women and lesbians and gays.

Finally, the promotion of marriage project gives the federal government a legal vehicle through which to funnel public monies to conservative nongovernmental organizations. We will probably not see masses of poor mothers flocking to marriage; but we will definitely see right-wing, anti-feminist, and anti-lesbian-and-gay organizations winning public grants, hiring more staff, renting bigger offices, gaining more respect in the media, enlarging their influence in political circles, and becoming more active in communities across the country.

We Need to Work Together to Raise Our Voices and Get Our Message Across

TANF reauthorization, with its marriage promotion provisions, will likely be taken up by the House and Senate late this winter or in early spring. Now is the time for welfare rights, feminist, civil rights, and lesbian and gay organizations to work together in support of poor women--by opposing the Bush welfare plan, especially its marriage component.

We need to let the Republicans know that we oppose their attacks on poor single mothers.

We need to tell the Democrats who have consistently supported "welfare reform" and "workfare," and who are now about to cast their vote for the TANF marriage-promotion project as well, that they should reconsider. And we need to build toward an entirely different approach to poverty assistance that would respect the rights and dignity of poor single mothers.

Signed,

Martha Fineman, D.S. Clarke Professor of Feminist Jurisprudence, Cornell Law School

Gwendolyn Mink, Professor of Women's Studies and Government, Smith College

Anna Marie Smith, Associate Professor of Government, Cornell University

MARTHA FINEMAN is D.S. Clarke Professor of Feminist Jurisprudence, Cornell Law School; GWENDOLYN MINK is Professor of Women's Studies and Government, Smith College; and ANNA MARIE SMITH is Associate Professor of Government, Cornel University.