Should Baby Mamas be Forced to Marry?

on January 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Here comes the bride ...

against her will

Should the state you live in be able to force you to get married just because you have a baby? Legislators in the state of Michigan say yes. In that state, birthing costs are waived if the baby's father marries the baby's mother. But what if the couple doesn't want to marry? Or what if they do— but not just yet? That's the case with Rebecca Witt, who gave birth to a baby girl, JaeLyn.

Rebecca wants to marry Gary Johnson, JaeLyn's dad, but only when she is good and ready. Here's the problem: Because they aren't married, the state has billed Johnson $3,800 for the hospital costs. If Gary and Rebecca were married, they wouldn't have to pay anything.

Like a lot of us, the couple doesn't have a lot of cash right now. They don't own a car or an oven, and the state is billing Gary $500 a month, which he can't afford. The state says too bad—the law is an incentive to "maintain the sanctity of marriage" and "until they can produce a marriage license, they have to pay."

"I don't think anybody should tell me when to get married," says Rebecca. "I would like to have a nice wedding, and I can wait for it."

What do you think? Should the government be permitted to force a couple to get married because they've had a baby together?

About the author Suzanne Murray

is the Parenting & Political editor at The Stir/Moms Matter 2012.

Filed Under: childbirth

Comments (55)

mom23boys679

on Jan 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Sounds communist to me.

Report this comment

NewMom2RAD

on Jan 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM

It doesn't sound like they are forcing anything, they just have to pay. It's their choice. Married couples have different rights than unmarried couples, a lot of stuff is waived when you are married. I don't see how this is different. You can't have it both ways.

yakamoz

on Jan 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Whoa, who is forcing them to get married? No one. Get insurance that will cover the birth if you don't want to pay out of pocket, or have the baby at home. Married couples are given a benefit; it's not that unmarried couples are being stripped of anything. It reminds me of the parable of the vineyard owner that Jesus told. If you don't think married couples should receive that benefit, write to the politicians and tell them so.

spiralbelle19

on Jan 20, 2009 at 2:42 PM

hECK NO, LIKE THE DIVORCE RATE ISN'T HIGH ENOUGH!!!

jaycee1124

on Jan 20, 2009 at 2:44 PM

They're not forcing anything, they are simply providing a discount to married parents.

Similarly...health insurance companies provide a HUGE discount to non-smokers. They are not forcing smokers to stop.

Young_GA_Momma

on Jan 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM

"maintain the sanctity of marriage"

The sanctity of marriage is two people wanting to make a commitment to each other, not being forced into it like some arraigned marriage. Forcing two people into a marriage that they may not want just sets the stage for a whole host of issues: spousal abuse, infidelity, etc. Not to mention the potential of a child being raised in a mentally and emotionally unstable, unloving, potentially abusive home.

Marrying "for the sake of the child" doesn't do anybody good. The divorce rate in our country is already 50%. How much of that percentage is because two scared kids rushed into something when the unexpected happened? What's going to happen 3 years down the road when these forced marriages inevitably fall apart?

Above that, this is an outrageous abuse of government power. Not only are they stomping all over the liberties given to us by the government, but they're using monetary threats during the current state of our economy for their own monetary gain.

Disgusting.

KatieCrandall

on Jan 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM

While I don't think people should be forced to be married, I am interested in how many couples would put more thought into family planning as a result. Fine if you're going to get married eventually, but why not do it before bringing children into the world?

madamekatekate

on Jan 20, 2009 at 3:05 PM

But someone please tell me how being married WARRANTS a discount.

Non smokers recieve discounts on insurance because they have signifcantly lowered risks of certain diseases/disorders...Diseases that would cost a LOT to cover. And that makes sense.

But what does marriage insure for childbirth that not being married doesn't?

It just sounds like a scheme. Quoting from the article itself "The state says too bad—the law is an incentive to "maintain the sanctity of marriage" and "until they can produce a marriage license, they have to pay."

TimeforKids

on Jan 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM

So they can't afford a car or oven but decided to bring a child into this world??? I think they have bigger problems than deciding when to get married. This girl wants me(tax dollars) to pay for her childs birth and I would suspect she is also on welfare, food stamps, etc. She should have had private insurance if she want's choices. Whats that saying, "beggars can't be choosers"