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.
sort of reminds me of the old military saying; all the responsibility, without any authority...
I for one, recommend that young men, avoid marriage, until the female person, has equal value, that is career, income, and savings....so, if a new house is in the plan then the female person, contributes an equal amount to the purchase and subsequent expenses...until the female person, has the money, then rent am apartment...
“So true! They said we’d never make it.”
I had many a “talking to” by well-meaning people trying to talk me out of it - some of them are divorced now.
I try not to, but come springtime it ain’t gonna be pleasant.
“I for one, recommend that young men, avoid marriage, until the female person, has equal value, that is career, income, and savings....so, if a new house is in the plan then the female person, contributes an equal amount to the purchase and subsequent expenses...until the female person, has the money, then rent am apartment...”
wow...that formula would have automatically ruled out our marriage.
Yes Baskerville is wrong, but divorce is too a political problem. Just like the homos want to make same sex marriages a political problem, our laws make the destruction of the nuclear family an easy option.No-fault divorce laws are a bad idea but they came out of a culture that views marriage as an exercise in self-gratification, which can be ended as soon as one of the spouses tires of it. As soon as people stopped thinking of marriage as an unbreakable, lifelong commitment, they started pressuring lawmakers to “liberalize” divorce laws, to make divorce easier to get.
Telling young men not to have marry or to have children is stupid because it will only further weaken marriage, not strengthen it. Baskerville’s very negative portrayal of women in this article is untrue and only serves to worsen relations between the sexes, not improve them.
I agree, but read the many, many comments from those bitter bachelors who see nothing but the gospel truth in what Baskerville writes.He should have advised young men to marry women who see marriage as a lifelong commitment and who are willing to remain chaste before marriage. People who cannot delay their self gratification before marriage will not be able to delay it afterward.It's as if anyone (especially men) who has gone through a divorce and custody battle will unamiously agree with him
Issac Asimov was once asked about going into a career in writing, he replied that going into a career in writing was like getting married, anyone who could be talked out of it SHOULD BE!
““divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.”” “Complete Nonsense”
If divorce is breaking up somewhere between 30 to 50% of all marriages, what percentage of marriages are being broken up by gays?
Part of the reason I don’t get along well with my mom is the row we had over my getting married—course I was just 17 at the time.
As I said in an earlier post, she frequently left. Left me with the house, the cooking, 3-4 younger siblings and school. I decided if I was going to have to take care of all that, it would damn well be mine and not someone else’s.
It hasn’t always been easy, but I wouldn’t trade it. We have 3 wonderful kids, 1 grand.
Mom and Dad are still married. He still loves her. Go figure.
“anyone who could be talked out of it SHOULD BE!”
good one.
There is something twisted with their psyche and to prove their own point they will either choose badly or will drive their spouse away.
In the end, YOU PICKED 'EM. Blame society, your parents, their parents, friends, the church, the courts, the stars or the sheep in the meadow but the truth is the only one responsible for you not choosing the right person is you.
our marriage.....
Trust you mean: your/my marriage....lol
I’m sorry about your mom. I was blessed with good parents.
Hubby was too, although he can still have issues concerning his parents’ divorce.
My mother was awful about my wedding - I’m sure she wanted to wear black to the ceremony.
Now she appreciates my hubby and loves her grandchildren, although each time I tell her about the latest pregnancy there is always a bit of exasperation on her part.
I remember a couple when I was highschool that got married when we were juniors. No one gave them a chance either.
At our reunion, there they were, still going strong.
Here is a little light reading between weekends...
“The Church teaches what Jesus taught: no divorce. Ever. For any reason. A man and wife are obligated to stay married even if they end up hating each other’s guts. If a man and wife cannot live together in peace, they may physically separate, but must remain married and faithful to their spouse for the rest of their lives. It is a duty to God.”
That is not what Jesus taught. When asked about marriage by the scribes and pharisees, Jesus simply stated that if you have time, then do it. In other words, you have free will to partake in creation in such a way but are not commanded into marriage. That’s about all He said about it.
The church’s no-divorce ever stance was taken from the Israelites. Men were trading up as the society got lawless (much like today I imagine) and were using the legal system of their day to get rid of their old wives and marry a young wife. Well, back then that was like a death sentence for a women. If you were a divorced women it was the law that you were to be treated as an adultress so you either got to be a prostitute or starve. That was fair justice of God to step in an call a spade a spade. Consider that women of that day were subservient as part of the culture. God’s character may never change but times do. I am an advocate for marriage, responsibility and accountability. I am also an advocate that if whether man or female you are being constently abused you leave the relationship.
The Apostles of Christ admonished us to love our wives as Christ loved the church. That is a tall order but if you apply it, most times it works out well. Christ also showed us that disrespect to Him (because He assume responsibility for caring for us) is a grounds for eternal seperation or divorce if you will. So to me, if I am loving my wife like Christ loved the church and she is abusive, disregarding my care and protection then she can and should have seperation, temporarily at first and permanently if change does not occur.
If you think it is any different with our relationship with the Almighty, then read your bible. Love may be unconditional but blessing in return for disrespect isn’t.
Let's look at the current thread. We have guys complaining about how the family law system is weighted in favor of the women. We also have women complaining about the guys "bitterness" and how they can't win. People trying to remain neutral say it's "he said, she said" and neither side is right, but is that true?
Frankly, I don't consider it worth the effort to try to refute the guys claims, because they are self-evident.
So what can be learned about the women's claim? For that you need to do some research to find out women have a VERY definite pattern of "alternative aggression" that is almost always communication based. This is well catalogued in Rachel Simmons "Odd Girl Out."
The charge of "bitterness" is an attempt to undermine the self-confidence of the accused, and it's a well recognized tactic by any girl that has been on a school playground.
The possibility of the "bitterness" being justified is never addressed though it is surely relevant. Furthermore, there is a subtle twisting of the terms to allow the accuser to counter-attack. That is, if the "bitterness" accusation is not immediately refuted it can be turned into a cudgle to beat the accused. That cudgle is unspoken "name-calling." Everything the accused says is treated as if it were calling a name instead of a legitimate grievence.
Think of a thief that accuses you of insulting his character because you called him a thief when you caught him stealing, and you have some idea of the dynamic.
Once a man catches onto this "alternative aggression" he sees women much like they see each other...that is, opportunistic.
Yeah. I chose unwisely.
Still, even if had I selected Miss Perfect, people do change.
yes! that’s it!
But many others as well.
It seems I remember that statistically speaking women tend to marry older men - so your formula would work against that trend.
My hubby is 6 yrs. older than me. There came a point where we decided it was silly to pay someone else to raise our kids.
So obviously, I cannot officially earn as much as my hubby - but he doesn’t have to worry about where his kids are either.
He also has a money manager - I don’t think the guy has balanced the checkbook once...not once. He has no interest in it.
actually it isn’t hybperbole..that is what I learned from many a freeper thread.
I haven’t read the book you speak of. It sounds interesting, but I doubt it is possible to box every female into this picture you paint, just like every male should not be placed in a box.
I love and trust my wife..but that is almost irrelevant, as there is nothing she or the legal system could do to me that would be worth forsaking the existence of our daughter. She alone is worth it.
An interesting question also is what % of failed marriages are from people who have failed before. The serial spouses kinda skew these numbers.
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.