The number one recipient of my charity last year was a church soup kitchen in the old home town. They don't do no proselytizin', they just cook and serve the food (and offer a few other services). The best time to complain about having these services provided by religious groups is after some other force in the community --not necessarily government, in fact preferably not government-- has picked up the burden. Doesn't happen very often.

Should I ask for the money back?

If the government actually stuck to the enumerated powers it was granted by the Constitution, we wouldn't need to read about this. The government should not be using the power of taxation to forcibly extract money from me for private charities.

If you don't like the strings attached to some organization's charity, don't use their services. Some charities do wonderful work and are efficient at helping the needy. Others are barely legal scams that mostly enrich the fundraisers. I wouldn't put much faith in government to distinguish between the two.

Then we hit the part where the "religious" component is part of the programs effectiveness. I believe one of AA's twelve steps could be construed as being religious. So, do we want a program that works, or ideological purity?

Once the government gets involved, you know the answer.

If the government actually stuck to the enumerated powers it was granted by the Constitution, we wouldn't need to read about this. The government should not be using the power of taxation to forcibly extract money from me for private charities.

If you don't like the strings attached to some organization's charity, don't use their services. Some charities do wonderful work and are efficient at helping the needy. Others are barely legal scams that mostly enrich the fundraisers. I wouldn't put much faith in government to distinguish between the two.

Then we hit the part where the "religious" component is part of the programs effectiveness. I believe one of AA's twelve steps could be construed as being religious. So, do we want a program that works, or ideological purity?

Once the government gets involved, you know the answer.

It *sounds* like an efficient use of our shared pool of tax money to turn jobs over to organizations that are already doing the kind of work being contracted out, rather than setting up a new bureaucracy from scratch. The unintended consequences can bite us in the ass, though. Look at marriage.

States figured, well, since ministers are performing the rite, let's get them to sign off on the government paperwork at the same time. Thus the "household registry" function got inextricably intertwined with "holy matrimony." As a result, citizens got saddled with a lot of needless complications in the kinds of households--like those including more than one race or fewer than two genders--they could set up.

It took us a long time to start extricating ourselves from that mess, and we've still got a ways to go. We need to be very wary of wading into another one.

I'll call your attention to a couple of things, that if you are typical, you have overlooked.

First: Congress routinely passes laws dealing with religious institutions, and has for a long time. Although most people know, or think they know, about the IRS regulations dealing with 503(c) non-profit status, steaming mounds of legislation like Public Law 103-141 come along now and then. Titled, "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act" and written as a knee-jerk to the Waco atrocity perpetrated on Vernon Howell's people, it actually gave the Attorney General the sole power to determine if a religious groups was a "cult" and disband it by force. Crazily, this was overturned as un-Constitutional, not because it was an obvious license to kill more people, but because it was an unfunded mandate!

This is made easy by something I point out second: Congress takes the most lax definition of "establishment" possible when legislating about religious areas. While most people have no problem pointing at a proprietor's establishment when they are talking about a neighborhood bar, and activists have no problem identifying the establishment favoring a public policy they find disgusting, all of a sudden "establishment" becomes a complicated formula whereby Congress can do what they want so long as a thousand factors don't conclusively show favoritism. On purpose. Inadvertent favoritism is apparently OK.

You should remain aware of this inherent dishonesty at all times.

I don't really care if the clients are a "captive" audience--esp. prisoners! What a dumb thing to write--of course they're captive. And if a homeless person needs a bed, and the bed comes with a prayer, say the goddamned prayer and get on with it.

Here in LA, the school system does try to not count dropouts, so I don't know what Jacoby's whining about. If the programs work and are cheaper than federal agencies with unionized employees--what's the problem?

I'm not remotely religious, but if faith-based organizations get tax breaks or funding, then let's get some work out of them. I think just about any private group beats a federal agency.

that's an excellent point axeman, and the primary direction I would love to see things go... get the govt. out of things it doesn't belong in, like certifying "marriage". They only need worry about the contractural part of the union of two parties.

Same with a lot of faith based initiatives. There are a lot of chruches that don't accept money simply because they don't want the govt. involved. I always tend to look with suspicion on groups that want govt. support. Dealing with govt. type is alwys going to cost you more than you think... unless the point of what you are doing isn't to help anyone but yourself.

> So, do we want a program that
> works, or ideological purity?

Excellent, excellent point.

> It took us a long time to start
> extricating ourselves from
> that mess

When thinking of all the marriages that have been formed over the last 10,000 years and all that life that's been nourished within them, I'm stunned that people could be so glib, self-centered and short-sighted as to call it a "mess". Has any/any/any institution or habit done more to civilize humanity?

> I think just about any private
> group beats a federal agency.

Exactly.

> They only need worry about the
> contractural part of the union
> of two parties.

No they don't. They need to worry about all the impacts upon the rest of the community (including —far too often— the couple's own children). This is one reason gays want to get married to each other: They want stuff out of government and the rest of us.

I agree with the author in that government funding of faith-based organizations is bad for those organizations, for the reasons given.

For the government, however, excluding faith-based organizations from funding is inefficient, because some faith-based organizations are very efficient. So in the short term (what politicians care about), it's to the government's benefit to provide social welfare services via some faith-based orgs because they can get more for their dollar. (Not necessarily, of course; I simply claim that faith-based orgs are not inherently less efficient than their non-faith-based competitors, and in some cases are more efficient.)

That said, I agree with MarkD and Axman. The unintended consequences of government welfare have hurt all of us, directly or indirectly.

Crid, I didn't mean marriage as an institution is a mess, though the typical individual marriage most likely is, since it involves sentient beings. What's a mess is the entanglement between church and state in managing our erotic impulses and breeding arrangements.

Those societies that existed before our idea of "traditional" marriage evolved and contemporary societies that have evolved alternative practices different from ours manage(d) to spawn and nurture children quite adequately. I would not characterize those practices as any more of a mess than the heterosexual monogamy that I fell into (and have no desire to climb out of). We need to step back and let everybody choose their own messes.

"alternative practices different from ours. . ."

As you can see, I was a teacher. Teachers always repeat themselve. They say everything twice.

"> They only need worry about the
> contractural part of the union
> of two parties.

No they don't. They need to worry about all the impacts upon the rest of the community (including —far too often— the couple's own children). This is one reason gays want to get married to each other: They want stuff out of government and the rest of us.

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 1, 2009 11:"

Seems like the impacts you are talking about are all spelled out in the contractural agreement. The point I was suggesting was that implicitly marriage is a domestic partnership with the trappings of religion overlaid upon it. Even in the Ur of Chaldes it had religious connotation... so why should the state care about that part? They should be concerned with the partnership part, and all the rules spelled out for that.

The second half of your comment seems to contradict the first half? Either marriage/partnership is good for everyone, or it isn't. Why do you think it is not?

> Seems like the impacts you are
> talking about are all spelled
> out in the contractural agreement.

If they were, there'd be no such thing as family court.

And when has the community ever received compensation from a couple who decided to renounce their vows?

> that implicitly marriage is a
> domestic partnership with the
> trappings of religion

"Domestic partnership" is pussyfooting language. It's cowardly, naive, and fraudulently academic. At best, its a term of law, not the human heart.

> Either marriage/partnership
> is good for everyone,
> or it isn't.

Says who? What on Earth makes you think so?

I think marriage is good for my brother and is wife, but it's not good for my little sister and me.

But looking over your comment this afternoon, I have a new recognition of the cynicism that gay marriage supporters are bringing to this issue. Every time a Britney Spears or a Madonna or some other goofball goes through a public divorce, some gays don't see as evidence of pathetic failure; they see the attention given to these serial dramas as validation of heterosexual love. And so they want some.

I suppose I knew that before, but it's still just insane when you think about it clearly. They really think that the reason McCartney & Mills got so much attention was that the guy on the street was weeping for love gone wrong. They thought we were commiserating!

hmm, seem like we are talking past each other in some way, Crid, at least I am failing to explain myself well.

I consider this whole thing from the perspective of a government. What makes the two people interested in clinging to each other is irrelevant to the government beyond some basic rules. You could head off to the justice of the peace tomorrow, and get hitched, and there is little that the government would do to prevent you. As long as the hitchee was human, in most states female, and above the age of consent in that state. Why you are doing this is not the govts. concern, as long as you both agree to it.

"If they were, there'd be no such thing as family court."

Disagree. Family court is no different than any other court presiding over the dissolution of a contract, save that there seems to be quite the built in bias on what the outcome is. As with any other contract the parties are either trying to change the terms or invalidate it.

"> Either marriage/partnership
> is good for everyone,
> or it isn't.

Says who? What on Earth makes you think so?"

From the govts. perspective, as long as the basic rules are followed, there is no reason for them to say no.

Think about how intrusive/impossible it would be for the govt. to figure out if two people are ACTUALLY compatible with each other. Partnership dissolution MAY be too easy at this point with no fault and so forth, but the alternative has been going on for thousands of years, and that is there is no such thing as dissolution. IF that was still true, people would likely search longer and harder before gettin hitched, but no-one can see the future. It is how people change over time that is the variable. Sometimes you coulda seen what was coming but didn't look, and other times the person does the unexpected.

In the end, it isn't the government that should be deciding who among your family should be married or should not, it is for you.

And? When a company dissolves or goes belly up or contracts are violated, why do you believe the community gets compensation for that? Customers MIGHT get compensated if they were the injured party, but not the community at large.

So, ""Domestic partnership" is pussyfooting language. It's cowardly, naive, and fraudulently academic. At best, its a term of law, not the human heart." I am talking in terms of law and public policy only, the human heart? Is a dangerous black box, that we must live with anyway.

> I consider this whole thing
> from the perspective of
> a government.

The government is not a third party. It's paid for by you and me, and it borrows its moral authority from you and me.

> Why you are doing this is
> not the govts. concern, as
> long as you both agree to it.

Great. So are you happy with the results we're getting from this arrangement?

I'm not. I think it's stupid. I think either [A] social forces other than government should do what they can to put a stop to it or [B] government should stop being so profligate with divorce decrees (and perhaps marriage licenses as well).

> Family court is no different
> than any other court presiding
> over the dissolution of a
> contract

I strongly disagree. Those courts fuck up the lives of oblivious children, do it on your & my behalf, and normalize cruelty and stupidity.

> as long as the basic rules
> are followed, there is no
> reason for them to say no.

Well, that's our topic, isn't it? What should the "basic rules" be?

> Think about how intrusive/
> impossible it would be for
> the govt. to figure out if
> two people are ACTUALLY
> compatible

I often do. So I think we have to count on other forces —friends and family— to help us pair off well.

> but no-one can see
> the future.

That's not true! That's not true! That's not true!

Here's a prediction: In the next week, a huge percentage of the couples who marry will, within a few short months or years (often following the delivery of children) decide that their spouse is an asshole. And they'll want a divorce.

You don't doubt that, do you? So, Ta-da! I can see the future. And I hate it.

> Customers MIGHT get compensated
> if they were the injured
> party, but not the community
> at large.

Precedents, penalties and reputations in business law penalize bad behavior protect the community from further misconduct by the same individuals... Not in family court.

> Is a dangerous black box,
> that we must live
> with anyway.

No. As noted above, the box ain't entirely black. When you imagine all the children in the chart above who were raised in fatherless poverty just because Mom & Dad were socially and emotionally incompetent, it's just not fair to say "Aw shucks, you just never know what can happen."

We do know what can happen. We even know what will happen.

so my Q? to you Crid is: Do you want govt. intervention, which you say already causes serious problems like family court etc. or don't you, ie. friends and family helping out to help you find a mate or not in the long run? My position is that govt. should stay the hell out, less intrusion. I just don't get what your plan is.

A plan? Well, I don't need to actually execute a takeover of world affairs before pointing out that we're fucking things up.

> My position is that govt.
> should stay the hell out

So you're saying nobody should ever be able to petition the government to garnish a recalcitrant father's wages? If you want government OUT, it's OK with me... Except that marriage, and families, and human warmth generally will cease to exist.

OK, just thinking out loud, here's a plan: Let's stop offering the services of government for free to anyone who casually demands them. No more Vegas chapels. No child support without a marriage license, or at least a responsibly-voided one. Tighten up government support of single motherhood (and fatherhood too, though people are much less likely to care.)

Tighten up everything. Three-month cooling off period for marriage licenses. Three-year cooling off period for divorces. No marriage licenses without testimony of approval from a married couple in each of four decades of life (30's, 40's, 50's and 60's) certifying that they know the couple well, believe the marriage will succeed, and will pay the court costs and other associated fees perhaps including child support if the marriage fails.

Har! When Cridmo Corporation finally consolidates power, this planet will really start to rock!

You know--you can get married w/o a license if the person marrying you agrees. I got married in NY state in a Russian Orthodox ceremony, and the priest never asked any questions about the license. 25 years in June.

So, just don't get one.

Is this what they used to call common law, or is it something else?

ALmost all states have done away with common law marriage. Yes, you can have a ceremony without the paper, but without the paper you have no automatic rights to inheritance, no rights to make medical decisions, no automatic parental rights to kids born, etc etc.

All of which can be remedied with some paperwork, but something that needs to be thought of.

Past that, I'm with Crid on most all things marriage.