ITHACA, N.Y. -- New marriage-promotion welfare rules proposed by the Bush administration will violate poor women's privacy rights and will not work, says a position paper written by three academics associated with Cornell University.

The rules are expected to be reintroduced in the House of Representatives next week as part of the welfare bill, and brought to a vote as early as Thursday, Feb. 13.

Martha Fineman is a professor of feminist jurisprudence at Cornell Law School. Anna Marie Smith is a professor of government at Cornell. Gwendolyn Mink, the daughter of the late congresswoman from Hawaii, Patsy Mink, holds a Cornell Ph.D. in government and is a professor of women's studies at Smith College. They warn that, with Republicans controlling both the House and Senate, the rules are likely to pass swiftly and become law. They hope to rally a broad coalition of people opposing them.

Their position paper, "No Promotion of Marriage in Welfare Law," is accessible at http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/ams3/npmposition.html .

The White House has proposed spending $300 million a year on marriage-promotion programs and initiatives in selected states. The dollars, which would come from the budget of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) -- the program that administers welfare today -- would pay for pro-marriage advertising campaigns aimed at the general public, as well as classes on marriage preparation and divorce avoidance for welfare recipients. States would be required to allocate TANF funds to finance such programs and would lose funding if they choose not to comply. The plan, which is part of the TANF reauthorization act, died when Congress adjourned at the end of 2002 but is expected to be reintroduced in the House and brought to a vote, with minimal discussion on the floor, as early as next week. While White House staff members say that participation in marriage-promotion programs will be voluntary for welfare recipients, Fineman, Smith and Mink fear that those who choose not to take part will face discriminatory treatment by caseworkers pressured to fill marriage-promotion classes. Many poor women may believe that if they do not participate, they will risk losing their family's only source of financial support, welfare benefits.

The scholars recognize that marriage can be a satisfying union. But they also warn, "As a prescription rather than a choice, marriage is a one-size-fits-all contract full of dangers for some. While marriage has provided some women the cushion of emotional and economic security, it also has locked many women in unsatisfying, exploitative, abusive and even violent relationships."

The marriage-promotion plan particularly discriminates against poor single parents, same-sex couples and parents who choose not to marry for diverse highly personal reasons, note Fineman, Smith and Mink. In addition, those most likely to be affected are poor black women and Latinas, groups with long histories of being discriminated against. The proposal threatens their First Amendment rights to privacy and to freedom of religion, say the scholars, who predict that marriage-promotion programs will be subcontracted to faith-based groups that will use them as an opportunity for religious proselytizing at taxpayer expense.

The scholars may have support from an important contingent: the people who administer the nation's current welfare program, who, initial reports show, are opposed to making marriage-promotion part of the package, state Fineman, Smith and Mink.

They also cite studies showing that the experimental marriage-promotion programs will neither lift poor women out of poverty (potential partners are likely to be poor and unemployed) nor significantly increase the number of marriages among welfare recipients.

What the marriage-promotion programs will do, warn Fineman, Smith and Mink, is give the federal government a legal vehicle through which to funnel public monies to conservative non-governmental organizations, enlarging their influence in political circles and communities.

Government should get involved in families, state the scholars, not to lecture them on how to run their lives but "to ensure that those adults who are caring for a dependent, such as a child, a severely disabled or ill person or an elderly person have adequate resources."

For more information, write Smith at ams3@cornell.edu or visit the Web site listed above.