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.
You are absolutely right. The families were much larger, but unless you were superwoman and unbelievably blessed, you either lost a lot of kids or died yourself and some other woman raised them.
My paternal gmother had 10 kids. All but one survived to adulthood and she lived well into her nineties. She was a teacher and my gdad was a coalminer/farmer. I wouldn’t wish that kind of life on anyone.
Ochin horosho, tovarisch ;)
That, and high childhood mortality, and the simple fact that kids are handy to help around the farm, and are the only retirement plan available in agrarian societies.
LOL.
And I posted it. So I feel I should read the replies.
Sigh.....
Look
these threads are very predictable.
Change the title,
change the article,
Same posts, same people.
The end result is the same.
I’m a product of such a mentality. My mother nearly starved to death as a child (”They watched the mule slowly die”) and my Dad....well, anything for the farm— He literally told us we were born to help him work the farm. Which set up a mentality for bad things to happen.
Those ‘good ole’ days’ were hell. Personally, I ADORE the time I’m livin’ in now.
Correct. But I did find this interesting.
It seems that those who have gone through a bitter divorce are in total agreement with Dr. Baskerville.
Those who have been married forever, or who have not gone through a nasty custody battle think he is nuts.
Hmmm,
I’m neither in a sense....I’ve been married, I made mistakes and the only reason I’ll get married again is so I can wear a red wedding dress in Las Vegas.
Otherwise, I’m happy being the crazy cat lady, the fat old dancer and the cranky nutritionist.
Do I think marriage is bad? No.
Do I think all women are as bad as the things said on this thread? No.
Do I think it’s odd that the marjoriy of women haters appear on a conservative, family value web site? Yes.
And even odder is the slams that a the the women who get Home Ec degrees got on another thread.
Seems girls can’t win fer chit.
The interesting thing about prearranged marriages is that they are more successful than those that marry based upon romantic ideas. Our society would never accept such an idea, because we are an individualistic society. Personal freedom or choice trumps everything. More specifically, love trumps everything. I can justify any action or behavior as long as it is done in the name of love. There is a very interesting study done on prearranged marriages, and why they are more successful than the Western approach. As I said, this will never be taken seriously by our Western culture, but it does show some aspects of relationships that are completely ignored by our culture.
Make that “are the slams”
Grammur ‘R Us.
Me too! For all its faults, I wouldn't trade now for any other time in history.
Successful for the man, perhaps. He gets a woman in his bed, kids, home and hearth. The woman gets a protector and dreams of what might have been while her husband runs around and does as he pleases. Money is never a good reason to marry. Although to be fair, a lot of regular marriages end up the same way.
I think it’s just the idea—being forced to marry someone, often someone you’ve never met, yechh.
Yeah. There is nothing better on earth than a good marriage, and there are few things on earth worse than a bad marriage.
1) The couple goes into the marriage without unrealistically high expectations.
2) The families don’t select based on lust.
3) In the societies that practice arranged marriage it is very likely that the first sexual partner is the new spouse.
By the time they have worked their way through the Kama Sutra (for example) they are pretty thoroughly imprinted on each other.
Contrast that to the dozens or even scores of partners the typical bride and groom may have here, the sense of bonding is so blurred and degraded that it can’t act as a glue to hold them together.
I know a couple of women who’ve had arranged marriages. Part of it is the mindset. Which is you don’t expect to love your husband. Like him maybe, respect him, hopefully.....and you do pray your parents made a good choice and he’s not a drunk, abuser etc. Get along with him well enough. But love him?
And no, since leaving him would mean leaving everything and everyone....divorce isn’t even a thought. It’s like a coffin you live in until you die.
The love, affection, affirmation etc (not sexual) a women gets will be from her mother, sisters, children. It’s a given. They will be the ones who truly know her, see her real worth, know her dreams, hear her stories. Sadly, they accept that fate.
No thanks!!!!!
I’ve been in love with my husband since I was 16 and he was 17. There’s never been anyone else for either of us. Our kids still rool their eyes and say—get a room, but I think open affection between spouses is a wonderful thing. Much better than the open warfare I grew up with.
Tell me about it.....
I’ve been around enough loveless marriages for one lifetime, thankyouverymuch.
I think it’s just the idea—being forced to marry someone, often someone you’ve never met, yechh.
Yes, that is how I feel about it too, but the system does seem to work pretty well. I know many people in arranged marriages, and they they seem to be doing at least as well as the 'love marriages' we practice, often much better.
When it has come up in conversation I have been told that the way it is usually done is that the families make arrangements, etc. but ultimately it comes down to how well the potential bride and groom hit it off when they are formally introduced. They will typically meet several times (chaperoned naturally) to get to know each other a bit before taking the plunge.
If they don't get along the families call it off and look elsewhere.
Not really - many men choose Abrahamic faiths because they like the way the rules were written in their favor. Then when women don't play by those rules, the condemnations begin. For too many FReepers, "conservative" means "Shut up and do as you're told!"
It always amazes me the number of people who don't understand how malleable the human psyche is - and are willing to make easy, elliptical condemnations of groups as large as "women" or "Arabs" or "Mexicans" rather than doing the hard work of thinking.
That being said these are Indians, I suspect the ME has a far, far different flavor...
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.