There is a lot of research that supports the remark you are rebutting. In some countries, women get maternity leave, a cash gift to help with expenses when the baby is born, etc. They get these things regardless of marital status. In such countries, marriage is not actively discouraged if you are poor. In the U.S., marriage is actively discouraged if you are poor because benefits disappear if you get married.
The American welfare system was originally envisioned as a means to help "poor, single moms". It was framed that way at a time when having a baby out of wedlock was a huge taboo, so most poor, single moms were "the deserving poor": Widows. The framing changed the social contract and actively grew the population of poor, single mothers (by actively encouraging out-of-wedlock births) and actively discourages poor couples from marrying.
Some of the entrenched problems you see in the U.S. would improve if family support was provided independent of income level or marital status. Requiring someone to be "poor" in order to get help actively rewards failure and actively encourages people to remain broken enough to qualify. The system puts up significant barriers to escaping poverty. In many cases, marginally improving your income would cost you so much in lost benefits as to worsen your situation, not improve it. Most people cannot suddenly and drastically increase their income. Thus, punishing them for moderate improvements in the short run de facto bars some people from ever escaping poverty.
In an environment which does not actively punish poor, married couples, marriage is a very longstanding proven means to give people stability and buffer them against problems. Improved stability and buffering against problems does help reduce poverty in real terms. Pro-marriage policies have a very long track record of being good for both society and individuals. It is unfortunate that America has so many anti-marriage policies and attitudes.
The American welfare system was originally envisioned as a means to help "poor, single moms". It was framed that way at a time when having a baby out of wedlock was a huge taboo, so most poor, single moms were "the deserving poor": Widows. The framing changed the social contract and actively grew the population of poor, single mothers (by actively encouraging out-of-wedlock births) and actively discourages poor couples from marrying.
Some of the entrenched problems you see in the U.S. would improve if family support was provided independent of income level or marital status. Requiring someone to be "poor" in order to get help actively rewards failure and actively encourages people to remain broken enough to qualify. The system puts up significant barriers to escaping poverty. In many cases, marginally improving your income would cost you so much in lost benefits as to worsen your situation, not improve it. Most people cannot suddenly and drastically increase their income. Thus, punishing them for moderate improvements in the short run de facto bars some people from ever escaping poverty.
In an environment which does not actively punish poor, married couples, marriage is a very longstanding proven means to give people stability and buffer them against problems. Improved stability and buffering against problems does help reduce poverty in real terms. Pro-marriage policies have a very long track record of being good for both society and individuals. It is unfortunate that America has so many anti-marriage policies and attitudes.