A discriminatory marriage proposal
The other day I got a press release announcing the state's plans to spend $500,000 to promote marriage. The state suggests possible uses for the grant money, including marriage education, "marriage enhancement training programs," and - no joke! - public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage.
The money comes from a $3.2 million bonus the state earned for doing a good job with its welfare-to-work program. The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services deserves praise for the award, but its decision to put half a million bucks into marriage promotion is questionable.
I tracked the budget process this year as the governor and legislators approved plans to lay off public health nurses, kick kids and pregnant women off Medicaid, cut grants to domestic violence and sexual assault shelters, and continue gutting maternal and child health services. What do these funding decisions say about our political leaders' priorities?
When I called the department, Bob Buttcane, the "faith-based initiatives" point person, graciously entertained my litany of questions. Asked how he defends spending public money on an ad campaign promoting marriage, he paused and said the list of potential projects on the state's press release came from a Web site for the federal marriage initiative.
Likewise, when I asked for sources for the press release's claims that marriage reduces poverty and better ensures the well-being of children, Buttcane referred me to the federal Web site. When I checked out that site, I found more unsubstantiated claims and bland platitudes (one of the benefits of "healthy marriage" for women is "more satisfying relationship." Duh!) And I noticed that the primary argument was that healthy marriages are better than unhealthy ones. Double duh! Next thing, the government will be telling me that taking a brisk walk is healthier than playing with chainsaws blindfolded.
But what bothers me most is that the state is creating a program that is inherently discriminatory. Gay and lesbian parents are ineligible for services provided with this money. Buttcane was careful to point out that that's because Alaskans in 1999 voted to amend our constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
That's no excuse. State officials could have defined this as a healthy families initiative, but chose to tailor it specifically as a "healthy marriage" initiative. Our world may now be safe from gay marriages, but there's no law to stop gays from having kids. So now the gay and lesbian parents in my neighborhood - stable two-parent families who organize block parties, read to their kids, and scoop their dogs' poop like the rest of us - are legally barred from participating in government health and social welfare programs.
And this gets to the heart of the problem. Religion is craning its neck too far into the business of government. It should come as no surprise that the grants are targeted for "community and faith-based organizations," the latter being the government's euphemism for organized religion.
Buttcane confirmed that Catholic pre-marital courses could qualify for grant money under the state's program. I can't say firsthand what goes on there, but friends have told me they learned in Catholic marriage school that marriage is a three-way union: him, her, and God. If that works for you, fine, but why should the public pay to promote a religious message - particularly when the Murkowski administration says we can't afford to maintain current spending on public health nurses, domestic violence shelters, and children's health insurance.
The marriage initiative is one example of a growing trend the Bush administration calls "charitable choice," which allows religious groups to accept public money to provide services on behalf of the government. The national umbrella group Union for Reform Judaism warns that "charitable choice" violates the separation of church and state, and permits religious organizations that receive public money to discriminate in their employment practices on the basis of religion. "Of all the legislation on the church-state front, charitable choice is the most pressing concern," the union warns.
The state is wading into dangerous waters. It's too bad, because helping parents maintain healthy relationships is a laudable goal. There are plenty of ways to do it without sending the message that some parents are inferior, and without getting religious organizations mixed up in the state's agenda and the public's money.
• Rebecca Braun of Juneau is co-editor of the Alaska Budget Report.