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.
My parents love each other, but it’s a very destructive love.
Fortunately, I’ve had lots of other, better examples. Aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws. My paternal gparents were married 60+ years, and grandpa never passed up an opportunity to pinch her butt when she walked by, or wink or make a comment. Grandma always pretended to be upset, but she always grinned when she fussed.
I think we have very different concepts of arranged marriages. :)
My paternal gma was forced into marriage when she was about 13. She had one child by the man, and no one would ever say exactly waht was wrong, but the general consensus was that he beat her.
They split, or her brothers killed him? shrugs. She and gpa had a long, healthy life together.
It's heartrendingly pathetic to here so many men over the years proclaim "It won't happen to me/us!...we love each other...we're traditional...those other husbands musta done something wrong...my girlfriend/wife isn't like that".
We need 'Family Law Reform' to 1.end unilateral/no-cause divorce. 2. Enforce statutory 'Shared Parenting Guidelines' for equal physical custody of kids where both parents are fit. 3. End unilateral move-aways where kids are involved. 4. Prosecute cases of adultery and 'alienation of affection'. 5. Require 'cost-sharing standard' for child support with 'mutual accountability'(e.g., receipts)
That's a Pro-Family political agenda that will win resoundingly in every state of this nation. (e.g., a 'Shared Physical Custody' Ballot Referendum won with about 80% in Massachusetts a few years ago.)
Anyone who favors restoring the American family should read Warren Farrell's 'Father and Child Reunion' and his earlier 'The Myth of Male Power'. And Baskerville's writings are generally excellent. Check out www.acfc.com, the 'American Congress of Fathers and Children'.
I do not believe there is a political solution. I think things have to get worse before they get better. I think they will change when the government acts out of fear for it’s own survival.
Just so you know.
Shared Parenting is a theory that does not work.
We need ‘Family Law Reform’
***
Good luck with that. First of all, when a legislative body enacts any kind of “reform,” it usually makes matters worse, as you probably know from Campaign Finance Reform, Tax Reform, Bankruptcy Reform and other such “reforms” at the national level. Secondly, family law is principally a state law, not federal. Every state has its own codes and statutes. States are for the most part reluctant to pawn off dominion over many issues to the feds, snd I think this would be no exception. You would essentially have to go to all 50 states and get them to pass some kind of uniform code. I doubt you will ever be able to do that. Look at Jessica’s Law. I live in Pennsylvania. PA was among the last of the states to make any sort of effort to stiffen the laws against child molesters and child killers, and when it finally did, its law wasn’t even close to the real Jessica’s law. Pennsylvania is perpetually in the dark ages and no amount of dragging is going to put this state in the 21st century. Perhaps by the year 2525.
I mentioned that I have worked for lawyers for years, including for some who practiced a certain amount of family law. I’ve seen it all — greedy women trying to destroy their ex-husbands...deadbeat dads who go to great lengths to not have to support their children...and bitter, maladjusted children. We have become this “me” generation — hoorary for me and the he!! with everyone else. Will we ever be able collectively to get back to loving each other, to taking responsibility for each other and being able to work hard and make sacrifices so that our spouses and children will be protected, healthy, well provided for and safe? I think, more so than a bunch of laws disguised as “reform,” we need to go back to doing what is right.
To you sir, i say “Amen”.
But show me one Christian church ANYWHERE in America that believes what Jesus taught.
I bet you can’t.
Will a pre-nuptual agreement help negate the partiality of the law towards women?
Marriage used to be a religious institution, now it’s both mostly governmental...and therefore a sham.
If it weren’t for the tax benefit I wouldn’t even consider getting married. Write your own vows and get married in your own church, by your own rules - and who cares if it’s legally recognized by the government - keep them out of it!
Exactly. Marriage is nearly meaningless now because of no-fault divorce. People don't take it near as seriously. Marriage, RIP.
Oh my, what a terrible idea.
I’ve been happily married for 30 years. Wouldn’t change it.
Unfortunately, the author is still pretty much on the mark here. Sad, but true.
There are men that are poor husbands and should be divorced. But that is not his point. The point here is that one can be a responsible and good husband and likely still get the same treatment in court that the bum gets. Woman gets pissed, your ass is grass. SOL.
Yes, at least one question. When you say 'monarchist' whom would you propose for that position, and for what country?
Not so. The 'statutory guideline' requires judges to treat fathers and mothers equally on this point, -- a marked improvement on the current judicial rubbish.
And there's the legal assurance that the mother won't be able to just make off with the kids, allowing the father what 'visitation' she likes (de facto). This recognition of the equal legal standing of fathers serves as a disincentive against filings of 'frivolous divorce' where 'shared parenting guidelines'have been adopted in 15 to 20 states so far.
'Shared legal custody' counts for very little if you don't have 'shared physical custody'.
'Shared Parenting Guidelines' for equal physical custody of kids where both parents are fit.' reduces divorce.
Bingo!
Easy to worship a God that is just like you and on your side.
Funny you should mention that; it got me to thinking...you know i have never once heard of a man converting to an Abrahamic faith predicated on the way the rules were written in there favor. Do you have anything to give some weight to your deconstruction?
Then when women don't play by those rules, the condemnations begin.
What rules are you referring to?
It always amazes me the number of people who don't understand how malleable the human psyche is...
Please elaborate. I'm one of those who doesn't understand.
...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.
What is it we are supposed to be thinking?
And a God that's critical of you is easy to reject...even if it's deserved.
Look,
the very first thing I learned was that God don’t like girls.
Nothing new there (that’s what Jeeves meant).
Think about it, could you worship a feminazi Goddess?
Goes both ways.
Just so you know.
In California it is AGAINST THE LAW to ask for an accounting of how even a single penny of child support is spent.
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.