Megan Twohey

He’s not the only one who thinks so. Ten years later, most anyone involved in child development agrees that two parents are preferable. He beamed while pointing out a recent New York Times headline that read “The Controversial Truth: Two-Parent Families Are Better.”

“I was right at the time, and I feel that way now,” said Quayle.

He still can be hard to follow. Quayle said he still disapproves of the “cultural elite” for continuing to glamorize sex outside of marriage on the screen, but added that he’s heartened by stars who embrace family off the screen, including (notorious Lothario) Warren Beatty and Sarah Jessica Parker — whose character in “Sex and the City” seems to have an almost pathological fear of marriage. Later, he even said that Ozzy Osbourne, star of his own real-life sitcom on MTV, is a decent role model because as a father — believe it or not — he counsels his children on the importance “of not doing drugs, of not doing alcohol.” The show reveals the “positive things you can get out of a crazy home,” he said.

But the fact that Quayle seemed confident making today’s speech demonstrates that the politics of family have changed significantly during the last decade. Bill Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president at the time of Quayle’s “Murphy Brown” remarks, attacked the vice president for being out of line. Even President Bush’s spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, suggested that Quayle was wrong, saying that Murphy Brown exhibited positive “pro-life values” by having her baby.

In 1992, discussing illegitimacy was taboo. Most politicians had steered clear of the subject since 1965, when a then-obscure assistant secretary of labor by the name of Daniel Patrick Moynihan released a report linking poverty among black children to the prevalence of out-of-wedlock births. The report was denounced, and Moynihan was labeled a racist.

During the 1990s, the climate changed.

Due to a push by conservatives — and some liberals — and to a growing body of research, the subject of illegitimacy became legitimate.

Press coverage of the topic grew. And, as welfare reform emerged as a major policy priority in Congress, Democrats and Republicans agreed that the government needed to take concrete steps to reduce out-of-wedlock births. A 1993 Atlantic magazine cover story was titled “Dan Quayle Was Right.” And later that year, Clinton declared, “I believe the country would be a lot better off if children were born to married couples.”

“We finally removed the gag,” says Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Rector has helped draft many family-formation provisions of Republican welfare reform bills in Congress. In the 1996 federal welfare reform law, Congress approved federal funding for sexual-abstinence programs and a bonus to states that reduce their ratios of out-of-wedlock births.

Today, in the midst of the reauthorization of the federal welfare program, both parties are embracing a Bush plan that takes the notion of reducing out-of-wedlock births a full step further: a marriage promotion fund, which would provide $300 million to state initiatives that help couples get hitched.

Quayle gave the president’s proposal a thumbs-up today, saying “most marriages create stability.”

But is Quayle overplaying his hand? While happy that the tide has turned, some illegitimacy experts worry that politicians could take the issue too far.

“The widespread recognition that children don’t do well when raised outside marriage is a positive development,” says Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “At the same time, we need to move cautiously in getting government involved in the marriage promotion arena. It would be easy for the whole marriage movement to get out of hand and end up encouraging marriage in situations where it’s not the best outcome for everyone.”

For seven years, McSally has been fighting military rules that formerly required and now “strongly encourage” women stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear a head-to-foot Muslim robe called an abaya, to ride in the back seats of vehicles and to be accompanied by men when off base.

McSally, who was stationed in the Muslim kingdom in 2000 and 2001, argues that the rules are unconstitutional because they improperly force women to conform to another country’s religious and social customs. Last year, after failing to secure change within the system, she filed suit in U.S. District Court to force the Department of Defense to eliminate the policies.

The department says it created the regulations to avoid offending conservative Saudi leaders and to protect U.S. troops from terrorist attacks. But in January, the DOD agreed to alter the rules, changing the requirement to wear the abaya and ride in the back seat of cars to a policy in which the practices are “strongly advised.” The department still prevents women in Saudi Arabia from driving off base alone.

The changes are sufficient, argues the DOD, to merit dismissal of McSally’s suit. But McSally has not been placated by the move. Instead, she has pushed forward with her lawsuit, arguing that when a commanding officer “strongly advises” a young enlisted women to do something, it is essentially an order.

Recently, with the suit still pending, McSally brought her case to Washington, crafting with her home state congressman, Jim Langevin, D-R.I., a bill that would prohibit the military from requiring or strongly encouraging servicewomen in Saudi Arabia to wear abayas.

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the bill, and McSally was there to watch. She spoke about her victory in an interview following the vote.

Today was a big day for you. How does it feel to win?

It was pretty overwhelming actually to be sitting up in the gallery of the United States House of Representatives and be listening to representatives of Congress speak so strongly on this issue and then to have this legislation pass after seven long years of being told that I’m the only one who cares about this issue, that I need to get over it.

It’s a very historic moment for this nation, but also for me personally. I was a legislative fellow, and I also know that many freestanding bills do not make it into law. So the battle is won, but not the war. We need to push the Senate and make sure that when this legislation gets into conference, the DOD doesn’t bully any changes to the bill’s language.

What do you think is the motivation behind the DOD policy?

I’ve done a tremendous amount of research on this over the years. The policy came about after Desert Storm. I was told initially that it was a State Department policy and that it was way above my pay grade. But I discovered that it was created by a local commander in Saudi Arabia. I don’t know the reason.

The reason I was given at the time was host nation sensitivity. But Saudis aren’t officially asking for it. My belief is that in the bureaucratic way, it was handed down from one commander to the next and that it took on a life of its own. I don’t think our DOD was going out to oppress women. But the problem is that the people who came up with the policy are not women. And they didn’t seem to think it was a big deal.

I’ve heard all sorts of defenses for the policy recently that are emotionally palatable at the moment. People say the policy provides protection from terrorist attack or safety for our troops. At face value, those things sound very noble. But in reality they’re irrational defenses and have only recently been presented.

Although there is no official Saudi policy requiring women to wear abayas, do you think it’s likely that those expectations are so ingrained in Saudi culture that American servicewomen will be at risk if they don’t wear them off the base?

Well, this nation is an ally of ours. This is not a combat zone. And this ally has said that the abaya is not a requirement. So I think that we could get assurances from our ally government that our people will not be assaulted in their streets, and that if they are, those who commit the assaults will be punished. Secondly, there’s been no evidence to say that wearing the abaya is more safe than not wearing it.

I’ve talked to women who serve in the embassy and don’t wear an abaya who have never been harassed because they’re clearly Westerners. Whereas, almost every single servicewoman I know who has worn an abaya has been harassed.

It’s like if you were to put on a military uniform and come on a base. I’m going to correct the way you wear that thing. As soon as you put that thing on, you’re inviting correction within the jurisdiction of the religious beliefs.

Are there any cultural circumstances in which you’d embrace an Arab tradition?

I’ve heard that when you go into a mosque, some of them ask you to wear the abaya. Personally, I’m not Muslim, and I would not choose to do that. The key is whether it’s your choice or not. If you want to put on an abaya in order to get a tour of a mosque, God bless you, feel free. But to be forced to wear it to do your duty is not right.

Is what’s going on here in Congress likely to affect your lawsuit?

Well, if this law passes, some of the issues raised in the lawsuit will no longer need to be approached. I met with some of my attorneys today. And we’re definitely excited about the legislation. It’s got to run its course. And we need to continue to fight the policy in parallel.

We made attempts to settle the lawsuit, but they were met with tremendous arrogance. Last Friday, we actually filed an amended complaint because of some of the statements they made in oral argument. We had, for instance, talked about the retaliation that has happened to me. I had tried to play that down. But in the oral arguments, when the other side started to question whether this really happened or whether we’re bluffing, we had no choice but to file an amended complaint claiming that the retaliation was real and support the statement with details.

Is there anything you can tell me about the retaliation you have experienced?

The real obvious one was my supervisor refusing to recommend me for squadron command, which is a clear flag for a lieutenant colonel promoted four years early that I failed in some way. Prior to that, the other subtle retaliation was that I was continuously undermined and berated for my disloyalty and poor leadership. You name it, I’ve heard it all. In America, if things are rough at work, you can go home and escape. In Saudi Arabia, there was no escape.

Do you think your recent transfer from Saudi Arabia to Arizona to work as a flight commander for an air operation center was part of a retaliation?

Actually, it was my choice to go to that job. But it was based on the environment I had going on at the time.

I was a national finalist for the White House fellowship. I made the final round of 30 people. They pick 11 to 19. In June, in the middle of all this, I was about to fly to my interview. I was told that I would need to make another three-year commitment to the Air Force after the fellowship.

With everything going on around me, I felt like I had no future in the Air Force. So I withdrew from the fellowship finals. I had always dreamed of doing that fellowship. My decision was an indication of what I was experiencing at the time. At that point, I had two years left of my commitment to the Air Force. If I accepted a flying job, I’d be committed for at least three more years. I have a home and close friends in Tucson, Ariz. Instead, I asked to be sent there for a non-flying job. I said, “Please send me to the job in Arizona, so I can at least recover.”

You flew as a fighter pilot in the combat zone over Iraq. What was that like as a woman?

I was immediately deployed to Kuwait to fly over Iraq once I finished my fighter pilot training in 1994. The military changed the policy in 1993 to allow women to be fighter pilots. They identified seven of us who had already passed training.

I very much remember the first day I looked down outside my canopy and saw the berm that divides Iraq and Kuwait. I was the most inexperienced person in our squadron. I said a little prayer and hoped I had paid attention in class. I then had over 100 hours of flying time over Iraq during the next several years.

What did you do in Saudi Arabia?

I was responsible for combat search and rescues for initially Iraq and then Afghanistan. After Sept. 11, we had to figure out how to survive in a whole new country with land mines and snow-covered mountains. To get out to every air base and every ship to make sure that all the air crew understood how they were going to survive out there — that was our first challenge. And then we actually kicked off our operation. The tally right now is that we’ve rescued over 250 Americans from Afghanistan. I wasn’t personally there for all of those. But I was there for several months.

How would you characterize your experience in the military as a woman, excluding the abaya issue?

We’ve come a long way, but we still have a ways to go. The military is still male-dominated. So you’re going to have to deal with some attitude problems from time to time, like whether women deserve to serve their country or whether they’re competent to be fighter pilots. So I’ve seen it and could write a book on it. Pretty much every time I’ve gone into a new unit or a new place, I’ve had to change people’s minds one at a time by my competence and professionalism.

Are you planning on writing a book?

I’ve thought about it. So many friends have said, “You’re keeping a journal of this aren’t you?” I haven’t had the time. I’ve actually been asked for the movie rights on this whole issue. So there’s supposedly a script being written right now. And I’ve had some informal offers on book things, but right now, it’s just not a priority for me.

If not a book, what do you plan to do when your duty is up a year and a half from now?

Well, I wouldn’t expect a book to be my livelihood. It would just be to educate people. I think that if I get out of military service, I will stay in public service for sure. I’ve always been fascinated with public policy. So maybe some sort of public policy job. Or ministry. I’ve always wanted to be involved in ministry. You don’t have to be a pastor to be involved in ministry. There are many kinds of ministry — you can go feed the people in Afghanistan. I don’t what my own ministry would look like. And I’m kind of open.

“There’s still one big set of documents that they continue to withhold,” said Sharon Buccino, an attorney with the NRDC. Specifically, Buccino said, the Energy Department refuses to release documents pertaining to the actions of Andrew Lundquist, executive director of the energy task force, and other top energy officials in charge of the effort.

“That glaring omission remains,” she said.

In a Feb. 27 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler gave the Energy Department until April 25 to release the list of withheld documents. The agency has released two batches of court-ordered documents. Nearly 11,000 pages of documents were released on March 25. An additional 1,000 were released in early April. But key documents or pieces of them were not released or blacked out — leaving the NRDC and Judicial Watch, a fellow plaintiff in the FOIA suit, unsatisfied.

Judicial Watch said it had received copies of the documents Thursday, but the organization has yet to comment on them.

The Energy Department’s list describes more than 4,300 documents that are being kept secret, including e-mails, memoranda and letters. “[Energy] withheld each document or portion of a document based on well-established exemptions from disclosure set forth in the Freedom of Information Act,” the department said through a press release. They include exemptions “for private personal information, security-related information, and pre-decisional materials relating to the agency’s deliberative process,” the statement said.

An initial skim of the list shows that the department’s main defense for withholding documents was the latter. In line after line, the department listed documents of internal comments, recommendations and views made within the agency before it delivered its official National Energy Policy. Deliberative privilege, it claims, exempts that information from FOIA requests.

A typical example was a citation titled “The White House Correspondence Tracking Worksheet,” dated June 6, 2001. The listed subject was “Concern About the National Energy Policy Development Group Recommendation on Nuclear Waste.” It was withheld from the public, according to the Energy Department’s list, because it was a “[p]re-decisional document withheld containing views, comments or recommendations pertaining to drafting of National Energy Policy.”

“In certain circumstances [the exemption] is justifiable,” Buccino said. “But we need to analyze each circumstance. The whole reason for the request is to evaluate whether their claims are justifiable. We’re not going to take the government’s word that they’ve complied.”

Certain items on the list appeared easy targets for challenge, including the summary of document No. 884, for which the Energy Department gave virtually no reason for why it withheld it from public viewing. “Document determined to be non-responsive to FOIA request,” was all the agency reported.

The item is “a red flag,” says Buccino. “We’ll tell the judge they haven’t provided enough information. They’ve withheld in the past and are likely to continue to keep critical pieces of the puzzle secret.”

Should the NRDC and Judicial Watch challenge the Energy Department’s defense in court, it will be the agency’s job to prove that its arguments are sound, says Thomas Susman, a lawyer with Ropes & Grey, and an FOIA expert.

“The burden of proof is always on the agency,” Susman says.

The new batch of materials released by the Energy Department included hundreds of pages of e-mails and documents passed between department officials and people outside the agency. Since the first round of documents was released, the NRDC has been demanding that all external communications be made public, arguing that such material is not covered by the deliberative privilege.

“DOE has released to date over 12,000 pages of documents relating to its participation in the National Energy Policy,” the Energy press release said. “In addition, as the released documents show, all preliminary drafts of chapters were circulated only within the government.”

Among the material released was a marked-up copy of a list of recommendations for a National Energy Policy submitted by the American Gas Association. It appears as if the recommendation was edited and used in energy legislation introduced by Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska.

“The bill introduced by Senator Murkowski contains almost every provision recommended by AGA,” says another AGA document. “Although much effort has already been invested, introduction of the Murkowski bill is only the starting point in the legislative process. AGA staff will work closely with Senator Murkowski, his staff, other senators, members of the House of Representatives, and the Bush administration in the weeks ahead to advance the AGA legislative proposals.”

And their message dovetails nicely with a preferred program by President Bush, an outspoken advocate of integrating religion into social service programs, who has called on Congress to allocate $300 million in annual federal funding for state and local initiatives that help nudge couples down the aisle.

“I love marriage because it’s ordained by God,” said Andre Boulware, a participant in the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, a national nonprofit that focuses on empowering fathers to become actively engaged in the lives of their children in a loving and nurturing way. The institute hosted the press conference jointly with the Alliance for Marriage and the Empowerment Network.

Getting married helped secure a family setting and steady income for Boulware to support his girlfriend and her children, who were on welfare, he says. It also helped free him from a history of drug addiction, child molestation and prison.

“God gave me the strength and the institute gave me help,” Boulware said.

Fathers, mothers and other family members at the institute receive comprehensive services that address personal and family development. The program helps participants land jobs, but is most focused on “turning the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers” and encouraging marriage.

Which sounds great, of course, but the president’s support for the programs has come under sharp attack from liberals who view the proposed marriage promotion fund as a misdirected means of social engineering.

Despite the criticism, the plan’s future seems bright. Last week, a Republican welfare bill that includes Bush’s proposal won the endorsement of a House Ways and Means subcommittee. Sponsored by Wally Herger, R-Calif., chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2002 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. It also reflects the president’s welfare reform proposals, including his plan to direct millions to pro-marriage initiatives that fund premarital education and counseling.

The same day the bill was introduced, Bush held a press conference to highlight his central goals for welfare revisions. They included, he said, an emphasis on “strong marriages and stable families.”

Herger’s bill is scheduled for debate in the full committee next week and is not likely to face much opposition from Democrats. “There’s not too much controversy about the [provision] that passed our subcommittee,” says Rep. Ben Cardin, D-Md., minority leader of the subcommittee.

But it’s still early. Counterproposals are already in the works, and critics are ready to strike.

The subject of single parenthood has been a part of welfare reform debates since the 1990s. The reason is simple: A growing body of research shows that children raised in stable, two-parent households fare better than those who are not. Children of single mothers are more likely to be poor than are children of married parents. They are also almost twice as likely to drop out of school, to have difficulty finding jobs and to become teen parents.

In 1996, conservatives successfully pushed through Congress two provisions aimed at reducing out-of-wedlock births. The first set aside federal grants for sexual-abstinence education programs — the only federal funding specifically allocated for any kind of sex education. The second created a “Bonus to Reward a Decrease in Illegitimacy” — $100 million each year to reward the five states that make the most gains in reducing birthrates among all unmarried women, not just those receiving welfare.

But “the illegitimacy bonus” has been a flop. The law does not require states to do anything to earn the bonus; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services uses data that the states routinely submit to determine the winners.

The prospect of winning $20 million through the illegitimacy bonus, however, did help to motivate many states to address out-of-wedlock childbearing. But variations in state strategies and an inability to show a cause-and-effect relationship between states’ activity and their statistical trends have made it difficult to determine who the real winners are in the battle to reduce illegitimacy.

As a result, Washington has haphazardly dished out federal funds to states based more on suspect statistics than on real action. While bonuses have been awarded to states that have taken concrete steps to address illegitimacy, they have also gone to states that have done little or nothing.

When the bonus winners in Round 2 were announced, a DHHS spokesperson acknowledged that the payments may be more a reflection of demographic changes, such as the increase in marital births or the decrease in the overall number of teenage women having children, than to successful state policies.

But instead of deflating interest in family formation, the failure of the illegitimacy bonus has simply altered the priorities of the welfare architects. Bush and Republicans in Congress have responded by shifting their focus from reducing out-of-wedlock births to promoting marriage.

Under the president’s plan, the money previously spent on “illegitimacy bonuses” would go toward a $300 million annual funding stream for states that “reduce non-marital births and increase the percentage of children in married-couple families.”

States would be able to spend the money on public advertising campaigns, programs that offer marriage counseling, skills classes for unmarried mothers and high school marriage instruction, among other things. The plan would boost initiatives already underway.

At least half a dozen states have already taken steps to fund these programs. Oklahoma has allocated up to $10 million to establish a marriage resource center, a public education campaign and youth outreach on the virtues of marriage. Arizona passed a $100 million marriage initiative. It funds community organizations that teach marriage skills, and provides vouchers to low-income couples who want to attend. West Virginia adds an extra $100 to a family’s monthly welfare check if the parents get married.

Critics, including many women’s groups, are voicing opinions of marriage promotion that range from outrage to extreme outrage. Many argue that instead of funding the promotion of marriage, the Bush administration should be pouring more money into economic aid and child-care assistance for single mothers — programs to make low-income women more self-sufficient.

“The proposal takes money away from welfare, an under-funded poverty program, to intrude into people’s lives, into the most intimate and private decision they can make,” says Terry O’Neill of the National Organization for Women.

Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and president of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, opposes the Bush plan for a different reason. She thinks Congress should continue to figure out ways to reduce the number of births to unmarried women, especially those in their teens.

“The agenda does not address the real source of the problem, which is that too many women are having children before they are old enough to raise them or get married,” Sawhill says.

More than half of first out-of-wedlock births are to teenagers, she says. They could be reduced if Congress funded sex-education and after-school programs that have been shown to reduce teen pregnancies, she says.

Certain Democrats in Congress hope to broaden the types of initiatives that could receive funding. Last month, Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., introduced a welfare reform bill that included a Family Formation Fund. Instead of limiting federal funding to marriage promotion programs, it would encourage healthy families, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in children’s lives. The bill also would authorize a program that provides support and education to teenage parents.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee are likely to push for similar changes to the Republican bill when it comes up for debate next week, Cardin says. “The president’s plan is an improvement on the illegitimacy bonus,” he said. “But there needs to be flexibility on how the money can be used.”

Charles Ballard, founder and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, hopes criticism of marriage promotion doesn’t obscure what he views as an important task at hand. To Ballard, different proposals will simply obscure what, to him, is a fairly simple issue. “We need to stop playing politics and support marriage,” he says.

“Everyone wants a loving, caring husband.”