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.
Barring a religious experience or the development of a mental illness I have to disagree. The signs are generally there before the marriage, people just find that what they once thought was cute and quirky tends to become impossible to live with. Sometimes the very thing you married them for becomes the wedge between you.
In your case though that kind of paranoia can be a sign of mental illness so you could be right that she did change.
In my wedding pics, my mom looks like she’s attending a funeral. She had a fit when she found out her gdaughter was expecting. Mom will never realize how much she hurts, not only herself, but everyone around her. If you asked her, she’d give you an entirely different scenario than what I’ve painted for you.
I’ve just found out in the last few years what kind of hell she put my younger siblings thru after I moved out. Makes me feel lower than a snake’s belly, but had I stayed, one of us would have ended up in prison or the loony bin. I can laugh now, but the wounds will never heal. Funny thing is, all the youngers get along better with her now.
I never fought back then, and they did. I was the model child—good grades, no trouble, etc. Guess I’m rebelling late in life. I’m not ugly to her, but I can’t be as loving as she wants.
Shaming language alert!
Let's see, get *ss raped in divorce court or stay single and get called a queer momma's boy.
That's a tough one.
“obvious”
??
Okay, Einstein....
“Because these people:
Divorced Mom, dad and the kids provide a weak economic base. They earn less. They raise poorly educated kids. There is more crime, more welfare. More gangs, more dropouts. More unwed teenagers. Lower standards of living, more prisons.
are their voter base...”
Now we’re on to something. Let’s see if I got this right:
1) The cultural revolution occurs in the late sixties. Women and men are told if it feels good, then do it.
2) Lots of kids are born out of wedlock creating the need for ‘the welfare’ to supply for single parents. Government is now directly involved in child-rearing.
3) No fault-divorce springs up in the seventies. Women at first get the short end of the stick but still get some alimony and assets to begin a new life.
4) Lots of new laws emerge in the 80’s to help women get equel and fair rights to child support and assets.
5) More laws are created in the 90’s to allow a women’s claims of abuse to be a financial meal-ticket rather then simply a way to support her kids after a divorce.
6) Present 2007 - Men stop marrying women.
Am I missing something? What needs to be rolled back, the laws or the promiscuity of the society being encouraged down into the 2nd grade now to have ‘safe, free sex’. If my only choice is laws then roll them back a couple of decades. But if it is my choice, I will listen to the bible and have moral fibre when it comes to my sexual responsibility.
Me neither, my folks divorced at 15 and I had to learn the hard way :) I also am a believer. Nothing like the power of prayer to bring closeness and peace to a family. The wife was working every Sunday. How quick she became secular and mentioned how she wants to go back to church. How right she is! I must do better in our prayer life and going to church functions as our fun rather then the bar and drinking buddies.
I wish there were so many more of you out there :) My wife is all in all great. But she was raised by a single mother whom did her best.
She is independant to the extreme and distrusts much of what I say. When she listens to my advice she finds out how valuable it is because my advice is neutral, not based on whether I get something out of it if you know what I mean. She is coming around but it’s very painful in the process. Their hasn’t been a month since we were together in 11 years that we haven’t spoken of splitting, because the constant battle for her to finally trust me has been never-ending. The best gains are when I adopt the Christian approach and the reflect the attitudes and character of the Creator. It also makes the issue clear as a bell and if I can’t stay living under the same roof, at least I can still love her unconditionally forever.
I’m not trying to make it sound like my Dad is a saint,but he’s all in all much easier to get along with than my mom. Daddy comes from a huge family—seventh of ten kids. He just had no idea how to deal with someone that sound much like your wife. Mom is always argumentative, about everything, and she never responds the same way twice to the same thing. You never know what to do because one reaction will get you in trouble, and the next time, when you do exactly the opposite, you still get in trouble. There’s no figuring on that kind of insanity.
The really sad thng is, my mom considers herself to be a good, Christian woman. Probably the main reason none of her kids have much to do with organized religion.
you lost me....but that’s fine....family is kids is something I’m new at...lol
One who places her marriage and family and husband above her own ego and need for vaildation.
When like me she places our union above ourselves. Sounds Biblical I guess because it is but that wasn't really my intent.
One can have a traditional woman without children too I guess.
Social conservatism probably helps
I have no experience with mail order brides but my first wife was not from America but neither was I at the time.
She was traditional btw, but crazy.
Exactly.
Well, that certainly shows us that having both a Mom and a Dad are equally important. That’s just another thing that the NOW Hags have done to hurt the past two generations. They’ve made men obsolete in one way or another.
I hope I did not offend you or anyone else here. Nowadays, though, young people do not even have to be in love in order to have sex. It’s just part of the dating scene.
And with his bad advice to young men, Baskerville, isn’t doing anything to change our permissive culture. After all, he’s telling young men not to get married and not to have children. He’s not telling them not to have sex.
Divorce has become a political problem only because it was already a cultural problem.
I don’t care how embittered Baskerville is about marriage. His advice to young men is bad. He’s telling them not to get married and not to have children but he is not telling them not to have sex. I’m sure many young men would be very happy to hear his message that they should not get married or have children. I’m sure they would be more than happy to just “hook up” with young women (as long as they use birth control!) and remain carefree bachelors, who never have to settle down. Yes, that will surely strengthen the institution of marriage.
However, my point rests with the fact that social mores are being redefined to encompass a broader range of individuals and one of the catalysts to this redefinition is the homosexual.
Well....'women have come along way baby' it's the man who should place the woman on a pedestal. The woman you describe sounds like the mail order brides.... kind of pitiful and desperate.
Women very quickly learn to hate that - and rightfully so, because they have to spend their whole lives living up to an ideal created by a worshipper. Usually, the tremendous stress of that will drive her to cheat on her worshipper with someone more accessible.
I think we have different of ideas of why she is worshipped. Are you talking physical qualities? I’m saying that becuase she is a ‘woman’ whether she’s old fat, young, pretty, ugly, stupid, smart or ignorant....should be put on a pedestal. So, there is no standard for her to attain or maintain.
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.