Prof. Bradford Wilcox at the University of Virginia has proposed that the federal government spend funds to promote marriage as a social institution. According to the article
“We need to appreciate that marriage is more than an emotional connection between two people,” Wilcox said. “There are kids; it’s a kind of economic cooperation, a form of social insurance.”
Wilcox says churches, the entertainment industry and other cultural institutions would have to embrace this view of marriage, not just the government. He proposes federal funding for public-service announcements and other social marketing to promote marriage, modeled on anti-smoking campaigns.
And to discourage divorce, he says, states should change marriage laws so spouses who are being divorced against their will and have not engaged in abuse or adultery would be given preferential treatment by family courts in determining alimony, child support and custody of children.
I don’t have a problem with this concept as a whole, but I think the approach needs to change. Federal campaigns focus on what you don’t need to do: Drink and Drive, Use meth, Harm your spouse, Smoke cigarettes, etc. Rather than a pro-marriage campaign, it should probably be an anti-divorce campaign or an anti-infidelity campaign. Thoughts?
Source: Washington Post
Hmm, that didn’t work so well with Prohibition or the “War on Drugs”. Personally, I like the idea of lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness, i.e. promoting commitment rather than condemning infidelity. Infidelity gets “condemned” in the media constantly but it also gets a lot more attention. So many people vilify cheaters but then cheat themselves. Maybe instead of highlighting bad behavior, it might work better to highlight positive models.