Posted on 11/13/2007 7:08:30 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.
And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily "the divorce court leads to a jail cell," mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.
Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays." The central problem is the divorce laws.
It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.
First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under "no-fault" divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.
But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.
There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.
The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children. (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand "child support" that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.
You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a "deadbeat dad" and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have "abandoned" your children and incarcerated without trial.
Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike": refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. "Have anti-father family court policies led to a men's marriage strike?" ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families. In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.
Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?
Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.
It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law. "The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage," advocate Andrew Sullivan points out. "All homosexuals are saying...is that, under the current definition, there's no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality."
We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration's government therapy programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.
Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, has just been published by Cumberland House Publishing.
Divorced men who have been royally ripped off by so called "family courts".
Yeah, but to go bitter against marriage and either wind up living in mommy’s basement when they are 40 or decide to go gay is not the answer.
marry a traditional woman if you want a family
don’t be a mouse-man
I greatly hate to say this: Much in this article is very accurate, and worth serious consideration.
My advice to young men: spit on Miss Baskerville every time you walk by his prissy little self.
There are worse outcomes than not being married. The debris-field of ruined lives is evident all around us. If you have a good marriage and good children, you should thank God every day.
Communist party goal #40, as read into the US Congressional record in 1963:
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
These “Fathers Rights” types really need to take a long hard look at how they screwed up. They need to look in the mirror to see why the marriage failed.
I’m not saying that all marriages fail because the husband was a no good bum.
But still... if he married a “bride-zilla” type of girl; a girl he met in a bar; a girl.... well you know what I mean.... then she leaves him, takes the kids and takes him to the cleaners in divorce court..... then I still feel zero sympathy for him.
Men need to take responsibility 1st.
marriage = bad. doesn’t sound like good odds at all. 50% of marriages end in divorce.
the rest end in death.
I wouldn’t give up my family for anything. If my wife divorced me tommorrow I would get joint custody since that is the norm as I understand it in Florida, and she could take as much money as the law would give her, and I wouldn’t for a moment even consider wanting my child not to exist.
In other words, living a half life, alone, without family, is not the solution to the risk of divorce. My solution . . . look for a believing Christian wife. Stats say it doesn’t much matter, but that is why I say “believing,” not a woman just going through the motions.
I wouldn’t give up my family for anything. If my wife divorced me tommorrow I would get joint custody since that is the norm as I understand it in Florida, and she could take as much money as the law would give her, and I wouldn’t for a moment even consider wanting my child not to exist.
In other words, living a half life, alone, without family, is not the solution to the risk of divorce. My solution . . . look for a believing Christian wife. Stats say it doesn’t much matter, but that is why I say “believing,” not a woman just going through the motions.
This piece is spot-on. Described my world to perfection (with a few deviations - I don’t live in Mom’s basement). In addition, my ex had all the fault (joined the rodeo if you know what I mean). Now, the system extorts money from me and she is free to alienate my children at her whim.
It is a very broken system.
Wow, talk about cynical.
I’m in the group that believes many modern American women are difficult for men to have relationships with, but this guy has gone off the deep end.
Not all women are so cold and calculating.
I understand where you are coming from and I was you many years ago. If you have to go through it, and I pray that you never do, you’re eyes will be forced open by a system that you obviously (and I say that respectfully) have little understanding of.
“It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce.” Complete nonsense and completely untrue. It may be well known but what is known is false. The REAL numbers are less than ONE THIRD. The fact is the majority of marriages stay together. This alone should be an argument for marriage not against it.
This story by spewing false information is a threat to marriage and society.
The homosexual agenda is very interested to spewing much the same nonsense about marriage in an effort to redefine it to the extent that it will include them.
There are plenty of good girls our there who don’t believe this kind of trash. Boys, go get them and have 10 children and may you live long enough to see your children's children.
Legally speaking marriage is being challenged by homosexuality every single day.
Men do get the raw end of the deal quite often but abandoing marriage and family is no answer as it would merely destroy our civilization and also hand the feminists the victory they crave.
As stated earlier, if you marry a traditional woman your chances of this happening to you are decreased significantly. Also, courts are beginning to turn around so enough of the rubbish of showing your anger through abandoning marriage — besides, if you sleep around and get a gal pregnant you then leave yourself even more vulnerable to the courts without any benefits of family whatsoever. Yes the system needs changing badely, but unless guys want to get their jollies with their computers or buy choose on of the Village People as their fashion guru and hang out at the local gay bar then you just have to make the best of it.
I agree.
“marry a traditional woman if you want a family”
Of course, that goes without saying, the problem is, that kind of woman is getting harder to find, and the wrong kind have figured out how to reel men in.
Keep in mind that I do not agree with the writer’s advice to avoid marriage and family. BUT, in doing it all over again I would BE VERY CHOOSY about the woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.