Debunking the Campaign for Marriage

I was surprised when, on my way to work last month, I saw a bus shelter advertisement with a picture of a bride and groom, proclaiming “Married people make more money. Marriage works.” I was pretty confused by this advertising campaign and, being cynical, I was quick to assume that it was a James Dobson-esque effort to infuse the world with their heterosexual vision of the acceptable nuclear family.

I did some digging online and found the story to be a bit more complicated than that. The advertising campaign is run by a group called Campaign for Our Children, which, according to their website, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established in 1987 that works to lower teen pregnancy rates with “abstinence-plus” education. The campaign’s slogan is “marriage works” with taglines including: “Kids of married parents do better in school” and “Married people enjoy better health.”

Who is Campaign for our Children? The group is headquartered in Baltimore, and has an out-of-date, austere website. Their online materials seemed to ostensibly be abstinence-only, and they tout them as acceptable for federal abstinence-only funding. Their online materials do include some mention of other birth control methods, though I was disturbed to find sterilization listed as a method of birth control in educational materials geared towards teenagers. They state “Sterilization is the most effective method of birth control except abstinence.” The obvious issues of medical ethics involved with such discourse are not even worth mentioning here, and I’m sure no certified physician would be willing to sterilize a child, but it gives you an idea of the type of organization behind these advertisements. In reference to the ‘teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancy epidemic’ in Baltimore, Hal Donofrio, Campaign for our Children’s CEO said:

“If we were in Hitler’s Germany, we would sterilize a generation and focus education on very young children to break the cycle. But we’re not. We’re more civilized than that.”

Let’s hope so.

Campaign for our Children’s Coffers- The Taxpayers: I was still curious to know more so I looked up their 990 form, which is the form that 501(c)(3) organizations file with the IRS to report their revenue and expenditures. The group brought in almost $5.5 million in 2007 and spent just over $3 million (clearly not spent on their online materials). Where is this money coming from? It turns out it’s through a multi-year contract with the State of Maryland and the Federal Government. I guess in this administration, this shouldn’t shock me, but as a U.S. citizen and former Maryland taxpayer, I am disgusted to see my money used for abstinence-only programs and for a campaign for marriage focused towards ‘older teenagers.’ The remainder of their income seems to be coming from investments and interest. Their CEO, Harold ‘Hal’ Donofrio earned a salary of $120,000 this year.

Their CEO- An Ad Exec: Now that I know who their coffers are, who is this Donofrio character? According to Urbanite Baltimore magazine, Donofrio was a well-established advertising executive in Baltimore when a local coalition approached him about the high teen pregnancy rate in the city. He started The Campaign for Our Children to promote marriage and abstinence, believing that people who intend to marry will use better judgment when it comes to sexual activity.

Diverting Funds Away from Fighting Poverty: Where did this marriage promotion idea come from? Interestingly enough, it begins with the Congressional welfare reform efforts in 1996. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, stated that marriage is an essential tool in fighting poverty, is the foundation of a successful society, and is in the interests of children. The Alternatives to Marriage project* argues that diverting funds from poverty-fighting programs into pro-marriage media campaigns eclipses the needs of Americans living in poverty. I couldn’t agree more.

The funding for this unsubstantiated idea that marriage can fight poverty was ramped up during the first term of the Bush administration, due to the agenda of one child psychologist, cum head of the federal Administration for Children and Families, Wade Horn. (And you thought you couldn’t make a difference in this world…) According to the Wall Street Journal, Horn started by allocating $200 million from the Administration for Children and Families towards what he dubbed “the Healthy Marriage Initiative” and later succeeded in getting Congress to allocate $500 million in funds for marriage promotion. He has rightfully gained the ire of women’s groups who argue that marriage promotion can cause women to stay in unhealthy or even violent relationships, and civil libertarians who say tax dollars should not be used to meddle so deeply in people’s personal lives.

And then there’s another pesky problem with their campaign. It’s not actually substantiated by research. There’s no research showing that a campaign for marriage will do anything to alleviate poverty. And while there are statistics showing that married people make more money, Andrew Cherlin, a Johns Hopkins sociologist, points out that these studies address correlation, not causation. There is a correlation with married people having higher incomes, but that does not mean that marriage causes people to make more money.

The Soapbox: Why I Strongly Disagree with This Campaign:

• It is paid for with taxpayer money. If you have personal moral or religious beliefs that inspire you to promote marriage, then fine. I believe in free speech, and, of course, you should be allowed to purchase such advertising with your own money. However, I strongly object to my tax dollars being used to pursue this agenda, for the following reasons:
• The research is lacking. Dr. Cherlin points out that there is a high rate of marriage in the United States, yet the United States has a high rate of child poverty among industrialized nations. Public policy should not be influenced so heavily by the thoughts and opinions of one individual, in this case Dr. Wade Horn.
• There are better ways that we can use taxpayers’ money that is meant to fight poverty. Better public education, better pre-kindergarten programs, better job training, more affordable higher education, better nutrition programs, better medical insurance and treatment options for kids and adults, to name just a few.
• Marriage is not the solution for everyone. How many older teenagers- the demographic the campaign is targeting- are ready to make a life-time marriage commitment, especially teenagers who under the pressure of becoming a young parent? Encouraging teenagers, parents or not, to get married is in my opinion, a lousy idea. Rushing into marriage will not solve their problems, and in some cases it is going to make them worse. I believe that an unhealthy marriage is worse for kids, not to mention the people in the marriage, than no marriage at all.
• Justice for women. Marriage promotion could pressure women who are in a controlling, abusive, or otherwise violent or unhealthy relationship to stay in that relationship.
• Justice for single parents. Marriage promotion demonizes single parents who are already having a hard time getting by. Being unmarried may be the best decision for their children, given the circumstances.
• Justice for GLBT People. Last, but not least, a marriage campaign is unjust considering that gay and lesbian Americans do not have the right to marry.

~Iron

* (The Alternatives to Marriage Project is a 501(c)(3) that advocates for equality and fairness for unmarried people- 2006 revenue was $38,137 and their website is frequently updated. But I digress.)