Ooms,in her essay “,” asserts that there is a need tosupport all forms of marriages: single, unmarried, married witheconomic and non-economic resources for health and stability. Oomssupports her claim of fact and her evidence is up to date. The authoris against pro-marriage initiatives that are against individualautonomy and decision on marriage formation. In particular, theauthor criticizes the government welfare legislations in claim thatit will promote two-parent family marriage and reduce out-of-wedlockpregnancies. She supports her claim by arguing that, the proposal bythe government to support only two-parents families is beendiscriminatory to many single-parent families who have left abusivemarriages or had other good reasons to remain as single parents. Sheasserts that, even children from two-parent families suffer andwelfare programs cannot be limited to only two-parent families(Theodora 261). In this way, Ooms warrants sufficiently justify herclaim.
Oomspresent valid argument that all forms of marriages should besupported. She agrees that, it is undisputable fact that two-parentfamily is beneficial to spouses and children. However, she seesgovernment proposal to support two-parent families as beendiscriminatory. Ooms observes that, according to social survey, atleast 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, a third of most birthsare out-of wed-lock and at least 40 percent children do not live withbiological fathers. Furthermore, she observes that not all singleparents are poor, and not all married people are rich other factorssuch as level of education lead to lack of job opportunities makingit hard for parentage. In addition, she asserts that most individualsregard marriage as a private affair, and can decide to remain single,get married or end distasteful marriages. Therefore, governmentlegislation policy to support two-parent marriages as a way ofreducing social problems is myopic.
Theargument given by Ooms is justified that government proposal supporttwo-parent families is like an attempt to coerce people to remain inmarriages. Ooms relies on various sources to support her claims forinstance, she uses constitutional tenets on individual liberty andvalues, to explain that a welfare program aimed at coercing people intwo-parent marriages goes against individual autonomy and privacy(Theodora 257). It is true that, a legislative proposals aimed atsupporting only two parent families is discriminatory and insensitiveto the underlying factors that make people remain as single-parents.She endorses her claims with debatable facts that the policyentrenches blames for single parents and stigmatizes single parentschildren on the lines of ‘illegitimacy’ and discriminatory toother minority families such as lesbians and gays (Theodora 258).
Theodoraagrees that, a marriage plus strategy is more effective in thisstrategy all forms of parentage are assisted in order to cooperate inchild raising (Theodora 256). It is true that the goal should bepromoting marriage, not for the sake of it but to facilitate in theprovision of both economic and non-economic resource support. In thisway, marriage stability and health is enhanced as co-parentingrelationship is made easier (Theodora 260).
Ooomseffectively convinces the reader through her elaborate suggestion ofwhat governments need to do to eliminate social problems. Forinstance, she says that, the governments need to invest in provenprograms that lower out-of-wedlock pregnancies rather thandiscriminatory welfare policies based on two-parent families. Ooms isright on her suggestion for government facilitated programs. Marriageprograms that are accompanied with welfare incentives are workablesolution which the government needs to apply through marriageeducation programs. In addition, the government needs to reduce taxpenalties on two-income earners in the family as a way of enhancingmarriage. Therefore, the alternative offered by the author is morelogical and practical than the egalitarian marriage policy advocatedby the government (Theodora 261).
Appealsto needs and values
Inher marriage-plus strategy, Ooms appeals to the safety needs of theAmerican audience through her proposal. She lucidly explains whatconstitute effective marriage supportive welfare that includesincentives and programs for marriage sustainability. In herexplanation of marriage plus, Ooms appeals to the values of theaudience since Americans can relate to her workable marriage plusstrategies. Ooms further appeals to the value of information that isintegral in the American society as she expounds on what constitutean effective supportive marriage policy. This is what most Americansdesire in such debatable matters. Theodora’s uses many examples inher marriage plus package to convince readers on effective measuresthat can facilitate salvaging the institution of marriage, unlike thegovernment policy. These appeals are convincing and help inuncovering the needs and values that lack in the proposed governmentpolicy (Theodora 259).
Overall,the claim and justification made by Ooms against discriminatingmarriage support on the basis of a two-parent marriage is valid. Mostexamples given are workable and relevant in comparison to governmentproposal. However, she fails to explain how inputs from faith, legal,media and business institutions could help in strengthening marriagesand reducing social welfare dependency (Theodora 262). Nonetheless,Ooms argument against government proposal to support a two-parentfamily and providing an alternative strategy of marriage pluspresents a convincing and valid argument.
TheodoraOoms. “Marriage –Plus: The role of the Federal government inStrengthening Marriage.” VirginiaJournal of social policy and law.2001. Pg. 255-262. Print.