The Death of Marriage I

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | February 5, 2004 | Roger F. Gay

[RightWhale]

What I worry about is the effects of this adulteration of marraige on our country, our children and our future.

That is the problem. The institutions of marriage are collapsing leaving some kind of economic hedonism to rush ionto the vacuum. You can point to a major public event such as the assassination of JFK as the critical catalyst of our downslide, but in fact it has been a continual series of events dating back as far as one wants to go that brought us to our present state, not that we will stay long in our present condition.

[Orangedog]

However, on a daily basis we see not "till death do we part" but rather, "when something better comes along, I am totally out of here."

The spiteful part of me wants to say "Let the homosexuals have whats left of the institution of what now passes for 'marriage.' Let them deal with the 50%+ divorce rate, the lawyers, the judges, the ruined credit, the custody fights, the alimony, the child support...the whole nine-yards>" Why? Because it will ruin them the same way it ruins millions of people every year.

As much as I hate to say it, "marriage" as we knew it is dead. From my perspective, I'm not in a real big hurry to defend the expensive joke that passes for the institution of marriage. It's a government-controlled scam that turned my life upside down, caused untold hardship for my child, stripped me of my rights, bankrupted me and cost me in ways that no amount of money can ever replace.

If people want to stand up and fight for "marriage" in it's current form, fine. But they will get the same amount of help from me that I and millions of other people got from them when "marriage" and the divorce industry ran through our lives like a bull through a china shop...none at all. Make marriage worth defending again it will be big enough to take care of itself again, just like it was before the 1970's.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Thanks for the ping! In his first message as ACFC president (January 7, 2004), Dr. Baskerville writes "We stand at a critical point. Families today are under attack as never before. But this attack does not come primarily from pornography, television, rock music, drugs, or even homosexuality. The attack comes from government, and it targets the family's weakest and most vulnerable point: the father."

I think Dr. Baskerville is an excellent choice as ACFC president.

The traditional family is the backbone of a nation. Targeting the father and traditional marriage is, imo, a direct assault on our culture, values, and our nation itself. I think there is a calculated reason for all of this chaos.

[RightWhale]

As it stands now, I do not see the point of marriage. Many of us have stories like yours. If the collapse of marriage means the collapse of our society, then we were doomed 30 years ago. Bag it and toss it.

[sandbar]

>The government should take no view as to what defines >a "marriage" or "civil-union" or whatever.

Talk about a probate nightmare.

[Orangedog]

That's why I see the idea of amending the Constitution is going to be a waste of time in the end. It takes super-majorities all the way 'round to amend the Constitution. The left will vote against it en masse, most of the moderates can't be bothered with taking important decisions like this. Not to mention that you and I can't possibly be the only ones in this country who think as we do. Even if the right makes up half of the voters and they all vote to pass it, there still isn't going to be enough votes in the general public to make this happen. IMO, this makes about as much sense as complaining about the crab-grass in the front yard after the foundation of the house has collapsed.

[Modernman]

Preserve mankind from evil and degeneracy.

How would marriage do that? Marriage is the union of two human beings. Simply being married in no way would eliminate or lessen the evils or degeneracies of the people involved.

[Orangedog]

Talk about a probate nightmare.

It would give all those divorce lawyers something else to occupy their time with.

[mfx007]

Really, "marriage" already exists for homosexual couples. Many companies recognize domestic partners for health insurance. And well ... what else does marriage buy you? A higher income tax maybe? Property transfer after death is easy to do in a will. I do not know of any other "rights and privledges" due to a married couple. So when people call for equal protection - what do they really want?

Child welfare law is probably effected somehow. Don't know how. I suppose the "spouse" will automatically retain custody. Not sure of the alternative contract method there. Maybe extended family can now take a child away without "marriage" protection? I guess this is probably a case where marriage will "protect" from interference by the government in that case. However, you do not hear this much as a case for homosexual marriage.

In that case,you can pretty much scrap the idea of marriage in favor of some sort of "child registration" since keeping track of kids is what matters. Each child needs to be assigned to their biological mother and father and they are responsible for that child. Transactions would be handled like child custody in divorce court.

You pretty much need to either leave marriage as it is or scrap it entirely. If you can't say that marriage is not for a man and a woman exclusively (because of the procreation element), there is no possible arrangement that can be excluded.

I guess child custody is the big thing that needs to be adressed.

[mfx007]

Really, "marriage" already exists for homosexual couples. Many companies recognize domestic partners for health insurance. And well ... what else does marriage buy you? A higher income tax maybe? Property transfer after death is easy to do in a will. I do not know of any other "rights and privledges" due to a married couple. So when people call for equal protection - what do they really want?

Child welfare law is probably effected somehow. Don't know how. I suppose the "spouse" will automatically retain custody. Not sure of the alternative contract method there. Maybe extended family can now take a child away without "marriage" protection? I guess this is probably a case where marriage will "protect" from interference by the government in that case. However, you do not hear this much as a case for homosexual marriage.

In that case,you can pretty much scrap the idea of marriage in favor of some sort of "child registration" since keeping track of kids is what matters. Each child needs to be assigned to their biological mother and father and they are responsible for that child. Transactions would be handled like child custody in divorce court.

You pretty much need to either leave marriage as it is or scrap it entirely. If you can't say that marriage is not for a man and a woman exclusively (because of the procreation element), there is no possible arrangement that can be excluded.

I guess child custody is the big thing that needs to be adressed.

[RightWhale]

I don't favor amending the Constitution for anything anymore except to reverse a couple of the most recent amendments that were more blunder than inspiration. We just don't have the simple purity of vision that the founders did and we can only screw things up further.

[Orangedog]

Simply being married in no way would eliminate or lessen the evils or degeneracies of the people involved.

As it stands today, the divorce laws will see to it that marriage never will eliminate or lesson those things.

[jwalsh07]

Marriage is the union of two human beings

That would be incorrect. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The current debate is whether the word marriage should be redefined to accomodate homsexual men and women who are not content with that meaning of marriage.

The debate subsequent to that in Massachusetts will be to further refine the meaning to include any or all combinations that accord with the individuals new "transcendent liberty" rights as waxed poetically about in Kennedys majority opinion in Lawrence.

Of more immediate concern is the courts, both federal and state, inclination to order legislatures to make laws or erase laws depending on the cultural views of the people who occupy those courts.

[Modernman]

I guess child custody is the big thing that needs to be adressed.

The system I've proposed (no state involvement in marriage) wouldn't change how we currently look at child custody. Courts charged with dealing with child custody would continue to handle those issues based on current laws. The status of marriage between the various consenting adults involved would in no way affect the power of such courts to rule in the best interests of the children involved.

Now, whether or not our current child custody regime needs to be changed, I leave to those who know more about the subject than I do.

[Modernman]

That would be incorrect. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The current debate is whether the word marriage should be redefined to accomodate homsexual men and women who are not content with that meaning of marriage.

Point taken.

[N. Theknow]

If it comes down to a Constitutional ammendment that marriage should be between a man and a woman, it better have a clause in it that it refers to a genetic man and woman.
Otherwise the lawyers are gonna have a field day defining "Man" and "Woman."

Also the crowd that thinks you can walk into a garden and take an axe to a prickly pear(pair?) and make it a rose bush will have to be taken into account.

[Orangedog]

The status of marriage between the various consenting adults involved would in no way affect the power of such courts to rule in the best interests of the children involved.

Now, whether or not our current child custody regime needs to be changed, I leave to those who know more about the subject than I do.

Children are what the industry uses to control parents. Any change in the system that doesn't curtail that power will do nothing to solve the problems with marriage. You may as well do nothing if that isn't part of it.

[Modernman]

If it comes down to a Constitutional ammendment that marriage should be between a man and a woman, it better have a clause in it that it refers to a genetic man and woman.

Interesting point. Such a provision would be the first time hard science would be mentioned in the constitution.

[Modernman]

Children are what the industry uses to control parents. Any change in the system that doesn't curtail that power will do nothing to solve the problems with marriage. You may as well do nothing if that isn't part of it.

You clearly went through a tough divorce. Though, from what I've heard and read on the subject, our current family law regime is heavily biased against men.

[inquest]

Such a provision would be the first time hard science would be mentioned in the constitution.

Well, other than the part about age limits, like how you have to be 25 years old to be a representative. Are we talking sidereal years, solar years - do we take into account the gradual increase in distance from the sun, do we...

Great, now look what you made me do. I'm never gonna get any sleep tonight.