Not a Money-Back Guarantee
This morning's Star-Tribune had a Metro section front page (below the fold) story about a man who is suing his church to get back a major donation he made, he says, in the emotional aftermath of a divorce. (Story here. Free registration required.) Here's a snip:

[Mr] Mager, 55, anonymously donated about $126,000 to the church in 1999 at a time, he said, when he was clinically depressed over the breakup of his 18-year marriage. Five months after making the gift and after being treated with antidepressants and counseling, he asked for the money back. The church said no.

"It was totally out of character for me," Mager said Tuesday. "I was always very thrifty. I'd never given away a large amount of money like this." The money, he said, was a large portion of the life savings he and his ex-wife, Debbie, had accumulated.

Now, five years later, Mager and the church are at a stalemate. He has sued and contends that he made the gift under duress. The church's attorney counters that a gift to a church can't be revoked.

Now I don't want to get into the politics, the legalities, or the medical aspects of this. It just strikes me as more than interesting.

Every now and then one of these stories pops us. Sometimes it is suing the pastor because the person gave a tithe under the promise that God would bless them materially as a result. When it didn't happen- straight to the lawyer. Money is such an incredibly touchy subject. Just ask those around Jesus. It was all he ever seemed to talk about.

Government and Marriage
Jeff Jarvis is upset at the Bush administration's idea to spend gobs of money to support marriage. Here's a snip from the NYT article:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Administration officials say they are planning an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, and they are weighing whether President Bush should promote the plan next week in his State of the Union address.

For months, administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

The officials said they believed that the measure was especially timely because they were facing pressure from conservatives eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage, after a decision by the highest court in Massachusetts. The court ruled in November that gay couples had a right to marry under the state's Constitution.

"This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base," a presidential adviser said.

Jarvis says this:

Government is there to run the government, not our home.
Neither the sanctity nor the success of marriage is government's business.
This should cut across ideological lines.

He says that the Right should object because of the big-government money and the Left on the rigid moral stance coming from it. I think it is just downright opportunistic! It has absolutely nothing to do with preserving culture, people, marriage, or even the jobs of marriage counselors. It is a blatant vote-getting ploy- just like everything else all the candidates do.

Would it work? Probably only if it included significant raises in minimum wage so people can stay home instead of working two or three jobs. Probably if it included good incentives for quality drug and alcohol treatment programs. Probably if it included lots of things that many would love to avoid - like fairness and equality. I am saddened, but not at all surprised that the "family" continues to be a political football instead of what it can be- a place for hope and growth and love for all involved.