Sound Politics: The "Fulfilling Marriage" Bill

February 04, 2005

The "Fulfilling Marriage" Bill

A bi-partisan group of Washington State Representatives is sponsoring HB 1252, a bill that would direct school districts to offer courses on "family preservation" and "developing the relationship and communication skills that are vital for a successful and fulfilling marriage."

I know the argument in support: lots of kids come from broken homes and have parent(s) in intimate relationships that are dysfunctional. So treat the problem that exists, rather than waxing nostalgic for the day when schools didn't have to teach "relationship skills."

I don't buy it. At a time when 60 percent of 10th-graders can't pass the NCLB-mandated state assessment on math, when more than a third can't pass reading, and when many college graduates can't write their way out of a paper bag, valuable classroom time should be spent on core subject areas.

At least the "fulfilling marriage" classes will only have to be "offered," as opposed to being mandatory.

But before you know it, there'll be legislation requiring that, say, any high school history or government course that fulfills graduation requirements must include "the culture, history and government of the American Indian peoples who were the first inhabitants of the state."

Oh, what's that? There IS such a bill already?

Gosh, whaddaya know.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 04, 2005 11:15 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Don't hold your breath, Matt. Expect to see classes on modern-day protesting before you see kids know how to take a derivative of x^2.

Posted by: bmvaughn on February 4, 2005 11:12 AM

2. You're off base with your criticisms of marriage education, but that's no surprise given that you're such a liberal, Matt. The tribal history bill, on the other hand, is way scary not because it takes time away from math (high schools have different classes for different subjects, duh) but because we can be certain that the subject won't be taught truthfully.

Gambling tribes depend on the public perception that they've been hard done by the white man and deserve reparations. If the archaeology were taught correctly, kids would learn that there was another "first people" here before the so-called native Americans arrived, and these real first people have no ancestral link to the casin0-operating tribes of today.

Native Americans teach a kind of creationism that finds much harmony with the Discovery Institute's creationism, interestingly enough. Perhaps we should teach it as part of the "controversy" manufactured around evolution in order to prevent kids from learning biology, too.

Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 4, 2005 11:16 AM

3. This bill seems really stupid. More social engineering tools in the hands of the "teachers" that cant even keep their own flys zipped.

If they really want to produce better marriages maybe they (politicians) should start by revising the idiotic no-fault laws that treat the instituion like a joke and make divorce a fast food check-box item.

The government (politicians) do not exactly hold the high moral ground in any social arena, for them to teach anyone anything about "Relationships" would be a disaster of the highest order.

Can you imagine "Bill Clintons" advice on the subject? Multiply that by 10 and I think you would get a pretty good idea of the efficay of such a program.

Posted by: Todd on February 4, 2005 11:23 AM

4. While John McCoy was writting this bill and getting co-sponsers, many of the residents of Mr. McCoy's district (the 38th) have e-mailed and called his office with no response in regards to the Tulalip Tribes announcing that they would not renew leases on the Tulalip Reservation. This action erased over $20 million dollars in value and leaves 360 families looking for a new home.

Maybe the reason he is not responding is that prior to his election he was the tribes lobbist in Olympia.

As a side note, isn't it strange that they don't have one now.

Posted by: Gary Simeral on February 4, 2005 11:23 AM

5. If this passes, I predict leftwing groups will complain that discussing 'fulfilling marriages' discriminates against couples who 'choose' to live together without being married. The horribly offensive words 'wife' and husband' will be dropped and subsituted with the highly sanitized, means-nothing-and-everything word "partner" (man, woman, dog, horse, lamppost, etc). Then the entire premise of the course will be watered down to meaninglessness.

Posted by: Michele S on February 4, 2005 12:38 PM

6. Michele, I agree, and I think it would go past "meaninglessness" to perniciousness. Five minutes might be spent, dismissively, on regular marriage, and the rest of the time on promoting liberal social re-engineering. Look at what they've done with abstention in some classes, which comes down to, "some people might want to wait until they're married, but for the rest of us . . ."

Posted by: Shannon K on February 4, 2005 12:58 PM

7. When I was in high school in the 60s, my school had a "Home and Family Living" elective that was precisely about married life, in all its aspects. Non-college-bound people took it, so I can't comment on the content, but the marriage class appears to be nothing new.

The creationism class is scary, however.

Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 4, 2005 02:32 PM

8. Hey this class elective sounds like a good idea to me. The schools need to teach children better communication skills, and the importance of family. Even if they come from broken homes, such as I have, that does not mean they can’t make a decent home for themselves. If a child comes from a home of divorce, they are more likely to get a divorce, so I believe it is imperative that they learn how to communicate with people of the opposite sex! Also communication is an important aspect of addiction, in that some drug users use drugs to compensate for the fact that they cannot communicate well with others. A class like this would probably be far more effective then the inept DARE classes of today!

Posted by: Dale Brennan on February 4, 2005 03:18 PM

9. The will include all the PC stuff about gay marriage, no question about that.

I bet you all (something) that what it will really boil down to will be scolding boys because they will grow up to be men. All boys are part of the "patriarchy" and their masculinity needs to be shamed out of them, otherwise they will grow up to beat their wives.

But, who cares? Most men opt out of marriage now because it is too high risk for them.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 4, 2005 04:56 PM

10. That's all they do in school already, DeadMan, so what's the diff?

See Christina Hoff Sommers' "War on Boys".

Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 4, 2005 05:00 PM