Archive for Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Kansas to seek federal grant to promote marriage

August 16, 2011, 8:04 a.m. Updated August 16, 2011, 10:31 a.m.

Advertisement

— At the same time as Gov. Sam Brownback's administration announced it would return a $31.5 million federal grant that would help implement the new health care law, it was applying for a $6.6 million federal grant to promote marriage.

When Brownback announced last week that the state would reject the health care grant, he cited a concern that the federal government would not be able to meet its financial commitments. He also said states should be preparing for fewer federal dollars, not more.

But those concerns did not prevent the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services from seeking $2.2 million a year for three years to pay for counseling that encourages unwed parents to marry, The Kansas City Star reports. State officials said the effort would help reduce child poverty by encouraging stable families.

Kansas Sen. Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat, said the Brownback administration's worldview is influencing which federal dollars the state pursues.

"When it benefits their philosophical ideology, everything is fine," Hensley said. "Where it doesn't fit in or goes against them — either from a policy or political standpoint — then the federal money isn't OK."

In statements issued to the Star, Brownback's staff said the administration does not have a blanket policy regarding grants.

"Each potential grant and the federal requirements that come along with them are evaluated on a case-by-case basis with an increased watchful eye toward long-term mandates with short-term funding streams," the statements said.

When asked if the state had rejected other grants, Brownback's staff said it's more accurate to say the state has declined to apply for some grants.

For example, the state isn't pursuing any part of the $900 million that the federal government will disburse in the next five years to help communities reduce chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. A spokeswoman for the state health department said the grant wasn't in line with state priorities and concerns were raised about strings attached to the money. She also said the state could use existing funds to implement some of the same programs.

Brownback has long been an advocate of promoting healthy marriages, contending that children raised by married couples are more likely to succeed in school, less likely to have behavior problems or live in poverty.

He promised a focus on family life when he appointed Rob Siedlecki, a former board member of the National Fatherhood Initiative, to lead the social services agency.

"The governor's priority issue is reducing child poverty in Kansas. This is part of that approach," said Angela De Rocha, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

If the state receives the grant, the federal government would pay to send unwed parents to six counseling sessions offered by either secular or faith-based counseling services chosen by the state. The parents would volunteer for the program and could choose the kind of counseling service they wanted.

If the parents completed the program and marry, the federal grant would pay the $85.50 cost of their marriage license.

The state estimates that more than 7,600 mothers or couples would begin counseling at $25 to $50 per session. Sixty percent of those are expected to finish the program and qualify for a free license.

Even if the couple doesn't marry, the grant application said, the parents will learn how to maintain relationships and work together for the good of their child.

Comments

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

The Brownbacks are nuts. This man knows not what he is talking about. Excellent paying jobs for everyone keep children out of poverty unless republicans kill the economy one more time.

Better keep a close eye on how this money gets spent IF it comes through.

JOBS JOBS JOBS help support children

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Since about 1/2 of the KS budget comes from the feds, according to the governor himself, is he planning to send all of that money back?

And, why is it ok to get money from them for one thing, but not another?

Finally, since this initiative is clearly related to religious beliefs, isn't there some sort of separation of church and state issue here?

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

Sigh; Mullah Sam knows what he is doing; just relax and give him time. I don't think the great ESSENE teacher was that hung up on marriage. St. Paul seemed to start a lot of this malarky, trying to keep the new christians pure since the 'second coming' was just around the corner a mere 2,000 years ago. Bishop Spong has an interesting perspective on this early leader: http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Yes - I blame Paul for a lot.

And Spong is fascinating, and quite controversial.

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

Good ol' St. "women need to shut up and obey their husbands" Paul, the first televangelist-style preacher capitalizing on the faithful followers of Jesus.

MattyPro12 6 years, 3 months ago

We have enough meth heads as it is here in Oklahoma. Why not send them to Missouri where they belong?

Mike Hoffmann 6 years, 3 months ago

I just don't know what to say anymore about this guy. How are we going to make it 3 more years?

Michael Sizemore 6 years, 3 months ago

+1 - I'm almost hoping he DOES hitch a ride with Perry as VP, just to get him out of the state! Any petitions circulating for a recall?!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

Even if he runs with Perry, his chances of winning aren't that great, and he'll still have two years left on his term.

roadrunner 6 years, 3 months ago

OMFG!!! Screw healthcare! What we need is more men and women getting married and less of those undesirables around! That will make everyone healthier! What a joke!

Liberty275 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Wow!

You really should move, as soon as possible.

Liberty275 6 years, 3 months ago

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Mr Liege, I don't share your taste in women, but if that's what you like, who am I to question your choice? However, If you ever meet your fantasy girl, can you straiten her out on fire melting steel?

Liberty275 6 years, 3 months ago

Not a bad idea. Can I get scotch goggles instead? Single malt if possible.

gatekeeper 6 years, 3 months ago

Of course, make fun of women who are liberal. We're all hippies that don't take care of ourselves.

How about some of you idiot men clean up your act and grow a brain? Maybe then marriage rates would increase.

ferrislives 6 years, 3 months ago

What say the GOP/Tea Party supporters here on this forum about Brownback's hypocrisy on grabbing federal grant dollars when he chooses to do so? Do you support his flip-flopping?

Brock Masters 6 years, 3 months ago

I am an America supporter, but I do tend to agree with the GOP/Tea Party more than I do the Democrats so let me tell you what I think.

Promoting stable marriages is a good thing even if it means partnering with faith-based organizations provided that the state is not promoting one religion.

Now with that said, it is obviously hypocritical to give back one grant because the feds have no money, etc. etc. and then accept this one. Obviously, the reasons that Brownback stated for giving the early innovator grant were bogus and it was a bad idea that will hurt KS in multiple ways - we'll have to fund the exchange ourselves and our credibility is hurt by seeking, accepting and then reneging on a grant.

Poverty is an issue of major importance that we must solve. My solution is not to make the rich less rich, but to provide the tools to help the poor become more wealthy. It starts with children. Children must have access to proper nutrition and health care in order for them to succeed in school. We must get back to basics in our education - talk about separation of church and state, we must separate politics from education. Teach kids how to read, write and learn math and science without the political/social commentary that accompanies it now.

We need programs to support/encourage/require parents to take responsibility for their children and make sure their children get an education. Yes, it is the parent's responsibility but many parents have fallen down on the job and simply saying its their responsibility won't solve the problem. It is in our nation's best interest that we break the cycle of poverty that is dragging down and dividing our country.

So that is what I think.

ferrislives 6 years, 3 months ago

Thank you Fred. I appreciate your thoughts. Regardless of party affiliation, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me.

Brock Masters 6 years, 3 months ago

+1 on being bothered by hypocrisy regardless of party. Drives me nuts. Probably why this administration drives me nuts LOL

gatekeeper 6 years, 3 months ago

Good post.

What I don't think you realize is that your stance is actuallly pretty liberal and against what the Tea Party and GOP want.

I was brought up believing that we are only as strong as our weakest link. Your last paragraph basically says that. Until we really work on poverty in this country, we will stay divided and weak. Unfortunately, the wealth gap just keeps growing. 2% of the nation controls most of the wealth. We can't fix our nations problems without there being shared sacrifice and that means that the wealthiest amoung us must sacrifice as well. They already pay some of the lowest tax rates they've ever paid (look at all the loopholes that lower their actual tax rate to disgustingly low levels) and have shown in the last few years that they are just hoarding their funds. Having them pay the same tax rates paid in the 90's and closing loopholes would put us on the correct path.

Unless we look at this nation as whole, stop the class warfare and start sacrificing as a whole for the good of all, we will continue to decline.

Brock Masters 6 years, 3 months ago

As I said, I tend to agree with the GOP/TP more than the Democrats, but I am not a Kool-aid drinking conservative that can only spout talking points. I like to think for myself and try to respect other points of views knowing that I don't have all the answers or that my opinion is simply that, my opinion and it doesn't necessarily trump yours.

You are right that we are only as strong as our weakest link. Yes, people should take personal responsibility but how can they when they don't have the tools or even a clue about how to do it?

One has to be blind not to see that poverty is a problem that affects all of us. We need to open our eyes, say what has worked, what hasn't worked and let's work together to find solutions. Liberal ideas are not bad, nor are liberals and vice versa.

wood451 6 years, 3 months ago

One of the undeniable truths of life is that there will always be poor people. Poverty is a fact of life. Blaming the rich does not and will not solve the problem. The "Problem" can not be solved.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Why is that an unsolvable problem?

The fact that we haven't solved it yet doesn't make it inherently unsolvable, especially in one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 3 months ago

Sorry, jafs, but the only way to "solve" this is to change human nature. To eliminate greed and selfishness. To eliminate fear of failure. To eliminate the desire to strive for more. To eliminate the willingness to accept less. To eliminate jealous and resentment. The list goes on and on and on...

Quite frankly, the thought of how changing human nature might be accomplished...and the results...gives me the creeps - because it assumes that the human nature of the people doing the changing would have changed first. And changed to something positive and generous. And I ain't holdin' my breath on that one.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Well, human nature, if there is such a thing, includes the various negative aspects you mention, but also a number of positive ones.

The most obvious facet of human nature is the ability to choose from a wider range of possibilities than other animals.

So, it's not at all suggesting that we "change" human nature - it's rather a suggestion that the positive aspects of human nature can be cultivated, and better choices can be made.

Hooligan_016 6 years, 3 months ago

This really sounds like some sick, twisted joke. So it goes.

kantubek 6 years, 3 months ago

Like the Affordable Care Act is set up to do? But we can't be taking THOSE federal dollars because it was Obama's idea. Instead we'll just ask for some different money. Yeah.

Sam the hypocrite strikes again.

Liberty275 6 years, 3 months ago

I think the sick and twisted joke is thinking a paltry sum of money will somehow support stable families.

tolawdjk 6 years, 3 months ago

So let's say momma and baby daddy do get hitched and stay hitched.

Neither one can find a job. SRS offices to possibly get assistance are closed and the car don't work to drive down the 4 lane highway to the next one. The church coffers are bare as the economy sucks and offerings and tithes are way down (I don't know about yours, but my church has spent every other Sunday with 10 minutes asking for more giving.)

You were elected for Jobs, Sam. So far all I have seen is platitudes, fiat, hypocrisy, and posturing. Alot of that would have been able to be stomached if you had focused on Jobs first.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

Promote marriage? A sensible use of money, right up there with fed funds spent to increase consumer confidence in cars they've already purchased.

Time for our system of government to make some serious changes. Number 1: every state becomes led by a Minister of Common Sense. They are anonymous so special interests can't lobby and they serve a one year term only.
- 6 mil for marriage promotion? Nope, we'll use the money for crumbling infrastructure. - frivolous lawsuits, like suing a land owner because you fell out of YOUR deer stand YOU shouldn't have built on his property to start with (happening to a friend of mine in Georgia right now)---- Hell NO! - labeling someone a sex offender for life because they took a leak behind a dumpster at a Taco Bell - Cop a clue! - statutory rape for a 17 year old boyfriend with his 16 year old girlfriend -- never again. - id to vote? Of course. - welfare for drug users? Of course not. - convicts suing for crunchy peanut butter? Stop making me laugh. - known to be running a gang from INSIDE a prison? 23 hour lockdown and no outside contact. - murder a child? no parole. Rape? no statute of limitations. child molester? no parole. - protesting at a funeral? Not any more.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

Good list. I agree with all, except the ID to vote. That is a limitation on a right that isn't necessary and is driven by unsubstantiated fears of illegal voting. If someone really wants to vote illegally, a fake ID isn't all that hard to come up with. Otherwise, a fine list.

dogsandcats 6 years, 3 months ago

Hypocrite! I thought he wasn't accepting any more federal money... oh wait, he will if it furthers his agenda.

What exactly is he going to do with this money to promote marriage, anyway?

kernal 6 years, 3 months ago

my comment was going to be "Unbelievable!", but then considering who we're speaking of - just another head shake.

Jimo 6 years, 3 months ago

A. How anyone would be surprised when the Jon Stewarts and the Bill Mahers of the world make fun of Kansas I don't know. B. One assumes this Pro-marriage program won't be focused on the families most marginalized by government in Kansas -- same-sex marriages. C. Did the libertarians who pulled for Tea think they were going to get right-wing social engineering on steroids?

Liberty275 6 years, 3 months ago

I wouldn't spend a lot of time harping on the social engineering part. The left is as bad in that regard.

A: Kansas is an easy target. It's most liberal city was born of a god-cult. What do you expect?

B: Of course not. I don't think the state recognizes same same marriage, so why would it support them.

Jimo 6 years, 3 months ago

A. After Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, Utah, Florida, and West Virginia? No, Kansas is not an easy target. But it is a willful one. (One wonders if this constant acting-out isn't a pathetic form of advertising?)
B. Yes, if we don't "recognize" something, it doesn't exist! What's "conservative" about sticking your head in the sand, wishing that the reality of the world would just go away? C. Ah, but only one side hypocritically denounces what it favors. As one wise Congressman long ago said: A liberal is someone who believes it immoral for a wealthy man to be valued a million times more than a poor man; a conservative is someone who believes it immoral for government to interfere in the social hierarchy whose foundation is that the poor remain (if not poor then at least) poorer than everyone else.

Fossick 6 years, 3 months ago

C. Of course - we realize that both parties love nothing more than to spend tax money on social engineering.

EJ Mulligan 6 years, 3 months ago

Reduce child poverty by promoting marriage, but definitely close SRS so the local children can't get their food stamps and families monitored by local authorities for abuse and neglect.

50YearResident 6 years, 3 months ago

Remember, Brownback ran for Govenor of Kansas only as a stepping stone to the White House. He doesn't really care about Kansas, he just wants to go to Washington (as Vice President now). He is doing these things to get into the news and be noticed. (Hey, look at me, I am saving the World and Marriage!)

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

I'll bet he uses the money to hire a few more cronies for $100K admin jobs and funnels the rest to high-donor churches to develop and implement their "premarital counseling" programs. Non-christian churches need not apply. They'll probably use a chunk to replicate the statistics that are already being kept by the state.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

"He doesn't really care about Kansas, he just wants to go to Washington (as Vice President now). " ======== Probably a good point; we'll see how it goes. When he last ran in a presidential primary in Iowa, where he should go over well, he bombed. Slow learner, Mullah Sam is. He could be VEEP in charge of marriage and 'faith-based' initiatives I suppose.

parrothead8 6 years, 3 months ago

There's no longer any defense for this guy's blatant, moralist, discriminatory agenda. Everyone who voted for him is responsible for turning the state of Kansas into a fundamentalist cesspool.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

We'll come down to the bus station and wave goodbye when you move out, parrot.

thebigspoon 6 years, 3 months ago

Great reply, snap. Don't address the issue but attack the messenger. You think little, and speak a lot, with very little of substance emerging. Why not try understanding the other viewpoint and then perhaps your knee-jerk reactions will be of use in a real debate about the real issues.

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

Were you under the impression that snap actually cares about the real debates of real issues? Or that he was anything at this point other than an anti-liberal troll, at least on political pages?

true_patriot 6 years, 3 months ago

Another and quite ironic aspect to this is that all the job cutting that Brownback has done or has supported (from budget cuts and turning away large amounts of federal matching and stimulus money that affects towns and counties to all the state agencies, K-12 and higher education job cuts on up to the federal level of undermining economic recovery at every turn and keeping unemployment high for political reasons) - the job cutting and prevention of recovery has a negative impact on the marriage rate.

it also tends to increase abortions, make life miserable or untenable for infants pre and post delivery, destroys family stability in general and contributes to higher crime rates. But the fact that it negatively impacts marriage is even more crazy and ironic in a way than the obvious hypocrisy of denying Kansans and their children better health care quicker and with more latitude in defining our health care while chasing after funding from big government to score some "values" points with his base.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

Brilliant. Spoken like someone that doesn't know jack about the world outside of their county.

MattyPro12 6 years, 3 months ago

So making sure people in Kansas have healthcare & accepting federal funds to ensure Kansans have healthcare is bad, because Obama was the one who came up with the idea.

However accepting Federal funds to promote Fuehrer Brownback's warped version of marriage is good.

Nope, no hypocrisy in that whatsoever. It would be wonderful if the money came with strings attached, namely the funding must be used to promote ALL types of marriage and not just the version of marriage in Fuehrer Brownback's book of fairy tales that he subscribes to.

Liberty275 6 years, 3 months ago

"namely the funding must be used to promote ALL types of marriage"

Are you sure you mean what you wrote?

MattyPro12 6 years, 3 months ago

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know what I meant, but for those lacking in common sense I will clarify.

Promotion of Same Sex marriage as well as traditional marriage as defined by the big book of fairy tales.

Liberty275 6 years, 3 months ago

So you would limit marriage, just like the homophobes. Strange bedfellows you are.

Also, "ALL", especially in caps has a meaning. If you don't mean it, don't write it.

thebigspoon 6 years, 3 months ago

What meaning have you attributed to "ALL" that upsets you? I don't think there's any misconstruction possible there--the writer is attempting to point out that funding initiatives to promote marriage can not be aimed at only traditional, man/woman marriages or it is unconstitutional in that it attempts to define that which has yet, under the constitution, been undefined in that way.

verity 6 years, 3 months ago

It seems to me that those who marry because of pregnancy or a child often only compound the problems. Marriage doesn't automatically make for stability and those who wouldn't marry without government/religious interference probably shouldn't be married in the first place.

Free birth control for all! Along with better sex and health education.

TinmanKC 6 years, 3 months ago

This is just a ploy for churches to get government handouts to do what they do for their members for free. I wonder why Sam's "free market", social darwinist philosophy suddenly doesn't come to play in the marriage issue.... Everything I have heard so far from the Brownbackistan administration is just the governor's initials in reverse order.

kernal 6 years, 3 months ago

In sixty years, I've yet to see a shotgun marriage work and I've known and met hundreds of people in various large cities and medium sized towns. Many of those divorced couples are Christians who went to church every Sunday. Also, too many young people today come from broken homes and don't know how to accomplish, or work out, a healthy marital and family relationship. And, that Sammy boy, is the problem.

tomatogrower 6 years, 3 months ago

" A spokeswoman for the state health department said the grant wasn't in line with state priorities and concerns were raised about strings attached to the money."

They don't want strings attaced to them, but they intend to put strings on the citizens of Kansas. Hypocrites every one of them.

mom_of_three 6 years, 3 months ago

My grandparents shot gun marriage worked, but I haven't seen too many others work.
I don't care what the study says - kids from divorce or single parents do not get into any more trouble than those from two parent homes. Kids are kids. It all depends on how much time their parents spend with them, not how many parents there are.
He just needs to support kids in this state period - the ones going to school hungry and worrying about where their next meal is coming from.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 3 months ago

Didn't this state change its Constitution not too long ago to restrict who can get married? Now they want a federal grant to promote marriage? Welcome to bizzaro world, Kansas!

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 3 months ago

"Citing the federal government's debt obligations, Gov. Sam Brownback said Tuesday he will return a $31.5 million federal grant intended to help implement the new federal health care law." So what's changed since last week? Why does he want a federal grant now? Is the USA suddenly flush with cash, or is our governor just a lyin', stinkin', bone-headed hypocrite? We all know the answers here. Let me know when the posse is heading to Topeka...I've got my pitchfork tines shapened and my torches ready for action.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 3 months ago

Marriage is a religious institution and should not require government promotion. How exactly will Sham use $6 million to promote marriage? Start a dating service? Mail-order brides? This is pure whack...

Brock Masters 6 years, 3 months ago

How do you figure marriage is a religious institution when the government performs marriages? Maybe the government should get out of the marriage business all together. Really, think about why does the government marry people?

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 3 months ago

"Holy Matrimony" might have something to do with it.

While marriage is now licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government and, depending on the society and it's structure, was a religious ceremony.

The majority of people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church – not the day they received their marriage license from the state.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

That would be a good solution - removing all of the civil benefits of marriage, and allowing to be a purely religious institution.

The way it is now is a mish-mash of both civil and religious.

Of course, then people would start to complain about losing their tax, etc. benefits when they get married.

gudpoynt 6 years, 3 months ago

+1

Someone should ask Siedlecki if he intends to enroll in these marriage saving programs.

cowboy 6 years, 3 months ago

I want to complement the LJW on the " Talk of the Town" compilation that appears a few times a week. Now I want to save you some time writing headlines every day and suggest a " Stupid Crap Brownback Said or Did This week " column that appears most days and with a special Friday edition to highlight his Friday prayer day activities which usually involve firing or laying off democrats and hiring some random religious whack job.

WilburM 6 years, 3 months ago

+1 (although the LJW may have to beef up the number of pages that it prints each day)

verity 6 years, 3 months ago

Made me chuckle right out loud. Great idea!

Fossick 6 years, 3 months ago

It was federal funding for marriage counseling that caused me to turn in my conservative card years ago. Good grief - no person who supports federal money being spent to promote marriage has any right to complain about Obama Care being unconstitutional.

Shane Garrett 6 years, 3 months ago

Well, perhaps if folks stayed married, their children would be better off. NPR had a report on today stating that single parents have children with emotiona. and physcological problems. And if women & men tried harder to stay married then perhaps state money would not be wasted by single moms feeding the cat albacore tuna and the children lobster.

gatekeeper 6 years, 3 months ago

You are an idiot!!!!! The study NPR referenced was done by right wing groups. It is a biased study. You can't even read the study because they want you to pay for it. Take a look at the groups that did the study.

I have seen many families that would have been better off if the parents were divorced. My sister is a perfect example. Loser husband (hmmmm, married because pregnant at 20 and was told marriage was the only correct thing). Endured years of mental abuse from a jerk who cared more about himself than his family. Once she finally divorced him years later, the kids were happier, did better in school, were healthier.

Children being raised by at least ONE loving parent is what is needed.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Yes.

I'd be willing to wager that we don't see a nice range of religious groups favored - Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc.

Anybody think that this group won't be made up of overwhelmingly predominant Christian (probably right wing) organizations?

Pastor_Bedtime 6 years, 3 months ago

Yet another bible-thumper who presumes to know what's best for you. Focus on your own Da@n family, Sam.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

I'll bet the state spends the $6.6 million and are told by people in troubled marriages that things would be a lot better and the marriages a lot stronger if the entire family had access to health care.

verity 6 years, 3 months ago

My opinion: The State (by this I mean any level of government) should not be in the marriage business. There should be civil unions with contracts and if people want a religious marriage, then it should be a function of their religion.

If a church or other religious institution doesn't agree with same sex marriages, marriages between people of different races or whatever, that's their business, but it should have no effect on civil unions.

And, Beatrice, you're right. Health problems and the related financial problems can put a lot of stress on relationships.

roadwarrior 6 years, 3 months ago

exactly. support the health care initiative and those services are already covered.

voevoda 6 years, 3 months ago

If two individuals are living together and having children, they might as well make their relationship legal. Why don't they? Sometimes, it's a matter of how public benefits are calculated. Sometimes it's a philosophical opposition to marriage as an institution. Sometimes it's because the relationship is unstable. Will six free counseling sessions and a free marriage license actually result in an appreciable number of marriages? And more importantly, is there any evidence that marriages that form this way are more likely to last? Or are better for the children?
It looks like a waste of our tax money--exactly the sort of thing that "smaller government" types ought to condemn.

verity 6 years, 3 months ago

Exactly.

This is, of course, just anecdotal, but my experience has been that many long term relationships break up shortly after the couple gets married.

I remember some years ago when a co-worker got divorced and they were forced to go through some kind of counseling, maybe because they had a child. It was just a big joke to them and they took nothing from it. I suspect most of this proposed counseling and interference will also be taken as a joke.

4accountability 6 years, 3 months ago

Every child deserves someone to provide for their needs.

Even better if there are two people doing that. A healthy marriage can make that happen.

But the critical piece is the "healthy" part.

jayhawxrok 6 years, 3 months ago

Brownback is a hypocrite and a zealot, he's setting the stage to be the worst governor in our history and the GOP will excuse everything he does and every instance of hypocrisy because its a cornerstone of their platform.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

I hope that's not true.

But we'll see - it's hard to analyze given that about 1/2 of the eligible voters in KS didn't even vote at all.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...