If marriage is so good, why would you need to pay people to do it?
Yet, according to Jen Vuk in the Sydney Morning Herald, that’s exactly what the conservative Christian Australian Family Association proposed last week. That couples who stay married should get a ‘reward’ from the state for doing so. I’m not sure if this would be a bribe for people to stay together when things are rocky, or a payment for ‘services rendered’ (surely not – that sounds too much like prostitution), but either way it’s just so wrong.
One of the things that bothers me about this is that it’s only for married couples. If you are in a de facto relationship, regardless of how long it has lasted, how good it is, you don’t qualify. It seems that your relationship, your contributions to society, and your children, just don’t have the same value.
Of course, gay and lesbian relationships are not even considered!
Another thing that really concerns me is that this payment implies (or is it explicit?) that a bad marriage is better than no marriage, and much better than a good divorce.
Can you imagine anybody staying in a bad relationship for a few hundred dollars? Particularly if you have to wait 10 or 20 years to get it. A quick vox pop of some divorced single mothers I know produced much laughter and no agreement. One even went so far as to say “I’d pay more than that to get out of it. As a matter of fact, I did pay more than that and it was worth every cent.”
I can’t tell you exactly how this would work, because when I checked on their website I didn’t find any mention of it. But I did find some very interesting information. On their “About us” page, under “What is a family” (and this is a cut and paste straight from the site) they say:
“SIX: Society should recognise the different biological and psychological functions of the mother and father. It should require the latter normally to maintain the family by virtue of his work, which society should reward with a minimum wage or salary sufficient to maintain a family. The maintenance of the family should be the financial responsibility of the father and not of the State, unless the father proves incapable of fulfilling his obligations. The law should not inhibit the legal or ethical right of the mother to engage in outside employment. Society, through its systems of taxation, family allowances and endowment, and similar provisions, should ensure, however, that no mother is forced to engage in outside employment through economic pressure.”
Imagine what that would do for child support and children’s living arrangements post-separation!
Maybe we should get the AFA to lobby the government for changes to the Family Law Act to remove the presumption of substantial or equal time. They seem to be very effective in pushing their ideas. Just after they suggestion a marriage bonus, the Coalition announced $200 vouchers for couples to use in marriage or parenting education.
Or could that be because the Coalition has the same ideas on what constitutes “real” families?
