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.
Baskerville has been at this for over a decade. You’d think it would be enough time to get over it. Must be making money which makes him no better than the court whores he abhors.
I quite disagree. Solomon said to split the baby evenly in two because he knew the real mother would never stand to see such violence done to her child.
A parent not driven by selfish power issues will want to see a child grow up in A family, with cohesion. Not a child slipt up the middle, tossed back and forth in a taffy pull while s/he fights for “rights” over the child.
Best bet: don’t divorce. If you do, don’t punish the child. Let him have A family.
Um, the Blessed Virgin Mary notwithstanding?
Think about it, could you worship a feminazi Goddess?
That depends on what you really mean as opposed to what you wrote. I don't think God is the male version of a feminazi goddess. I do think women are more prone to "soft" rebellion than men.
The "soft rebellion" of women isn't actually against God, it's against the writings of ancient, scientifically and spiritually illiterate human men, whose conception of God as a vast, bearded, petulant tyrant (who bore a peculiar similarity to the tribal chief) handing down a long list of rules (which bore a peculiar similarity to the prejudices of these writers) has never been anything more than a projection of the human ego.
But that projection resonates still, with Muslims and Promise Keepers and divorced FReepers and any other men who live in too much fear to embrace their own yang energy and masculinity, and would rather quote a rulebook in the hope that fear of divine retribution will keep women under control for them.
Lets face it, in today's America, it's just too large of a liability risk.
If you can find one, even at age 20, women have kids, diseases or EX issues and divorces.
And women don’t, right? Just the men. Ok.
LOL. Yeah, I guess those writers had prejudices against murder, rape, robbery, thieving and the like. Stupid, egostistical, scientifically, and spiritually illiterate fools that they were. I’m glad that you have their number.
In a state with no-fault divorce, that's just not true.
Yes, the solution is mainly going to be cultural: to undo radical feminism.
I can't say your advice is irrational from an individual level. Family law in most states gives men exactly that incentive.
But on a societal level, where will this lead to?
Something's gotta give.
“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.”
I’m sorry to hear that - it must be incredible painful. When we think of “mother” we like to think of nurturing love.
It sounds like you have managed to become a different kind of mother to your children.
I hope you find the strength someday to find peace and forgiveness.
When I think of some “difficult” people in my own family, I often wonder how much is grounded in mental illness - or some sort of defect in their personality that they wrestle with (addiction problems - inability to trust or show empathy).
Sometimes people are what they are. We can’t figure them out - we can’t change them.
But we can be the best person we can.
God bless you and your family.
“I hope I did not offend you or anyone else here.”
Oh I’m a big girl :)
“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.”
very true - and then who will these young men have to look up to? Tom Brady?
And if they proceed to randomly reproduce with this or that “hook-up” - they are still going to have garnished wages for child support.
I’ve got it on both sides in my house.
2 girls, 4 boys, and another one on the way (not sure which brand yet)
I’m working on the oldest boy now about all this...that life will be alot simpler if he manages to save some things for marriage.
If you do it again add me to the ping list.
I’ve ventured onto some breastfeeding threads...boy oh boy was that an eye opener.
Who knew feeding a baby could be so controversial?
Wow, so those are the only 2 options left for men, if you decide not to marry? Oh, no!!!! I guess I'll have to "go gay," since my mother's dead, and her house sold off long ago!
Mark
Ditto what Jeeves said.
For me,the dead give-away that the only folks with their hands on in the creation and writing of the Bible were men— is the lack of depth, breadth and understanding of all the female characters.
From Eve, to Jezebel, to Ruth, to Vashti, to Esther, to Mary, to Mary Magdeline.
Not saying they don’t have their admirable points, but it’s clear, they don’t have the scope of good vs bad that men like Moses, Noah, Jonah, Peter, Paul had. They read like real people. Biblical women often read 2 dimensional. Either totally good or totally bad. Or totally bad that becomes totally good. But all clearly of lesser value than their male counterparts. And to be blunt, not women the average woman can relate to......
So yeah, I can see why Goddess worship would have an attraction to some....wow! A deity that doesn’t dislike females from the get go and actually has traits in common with them.
OK,
Since women are more prone to soft rebellion (and most of your posts have been to point out the faults of females)....
What are male faults? (And don’t make it ‘Letting themselves be ran over by women)
I know what I think they are...but I’d like to hear a male view.
“A deity that doesn’t dislike females”
hmmm...I always had the opposite impression when reading about Christ.
That they typical “evil” woman (the prostitute - the woman at the well) was treated with dignity and respect by Jesus - much to the confusion of the men surrounding him.
I don’t care what the heck you say you have nothing but hot air. You are clearly without understanding of social order. Perhaps you should try another topic like basket weaving.
Thanks. I love my mom. Do I trust her? No. I think you’re exactly right about mental illness or personality defect. Mom shows all the symptoms of a raging alcoholic, but that’s what she grew up with. Insane rages about nothing, temper tantrums followed by coldness followed by smothering. If you dare suggest she get counseling or go to AA, it’s a bad time.
Mom has this whole Jekyll and Hyde personality thing going on, and you never know which one will appear. When she’s nice, she’s really really nice, when she’s not—look out.
I think, too, she says things she has no idea how to rescind when she gets out of her comfort zone. Her reaction colors our responses. My reaction is not to respond, becasue I refuse to get drawn into one of her pointless arguments. She takes that as uncaring on my part.
Case in point—Last week she came to our house after church with this long sob story about someone at church who was really upset and needed prayer. She kept talking and what it ended up being about was the woman’s son had joined the Marines. I’m just looking at her, waiting for the horrible part. The horrible part? They gave the young man a gun and were going to send him to Iraq to kill people.
How can you reason with that?
I’m very proud of my mom. She raised 5 kids (sort of!), wnet back to school when my baby sister was big enough, has a good secretarial job. She’s just...different, and difficult.
Ideally, she should have married some rich older guy, had one kid, and spent part of her time volunteering for worthy causes and and the rest in bed with the vapors, complaining about what a tough life she had! LOL
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.