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.
If I am to believe what I am reading, we are the exception to the rule.
As for me, I am married 22 years and counting. We have been through Hell and back, together. My beloved is my best friend.
The vow I took in front of God & everybody was for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. It has been worse; it got better again. We fell into deep financial straits; we dug ourselves out and got back up on our feet again. We’ve both lost our health at one point; we both got it back again.
We are currently on the road to surviving the loss of a child. I read somewhere 80% of marriages fail when a child is lost. I think we’re going to make it through this trial as well, the toughest I’ve ever experienced.
Your mileage may vary.
For what its worth, I’ve never met a man who could honestly say his divorce was a good thing.
I have to disagree with you here. At the time of my divorce, of course, I wish there were something the law could do in order to make my soon-to-be ex-wife "think" about remaining in our marriage, but now that I look back at it, I'm glad there wasn't, because it would have merely dragged out the whole sickening experience, and in the end, it wouldn't have mattered a bit. My ex-wife was hell-bent on doing what she wanted to do, and that was live with her boyfriend. Looking back, the best thing that could have happened happened---I got out of that marriage quickly and cleanly. That wouldn't have happened if there were no "unilateral/no-cause divorce."
Hey, how are you? My name is Hemingway's Ghost.
My ex-wife and I lived in a big house with so much room we allowed my sister-in-law's boyfriend to move in with us. He needed a place to stay, because he was saving up money to buy my sister-in-law an engagement ring. A month into this arrangement, my ex-wife told me she no longer wanted to be married to me, and I kicked her out of the house. My sister-in-law's boyfriend comforted me in my time of need. About a month later, my sister-in-law and this guy broke up. Suddenly, he moved out of my house. The next day, my sister-in-law told me that her boyfriend and my ex-wife had been banging each other for months, and were now living together.
Let's just say I very nearly did something that would've put me in the slammer for life.
It took three solid years to get over that. But when I did, I met a complete goddess, who was everything my ex-wife was not. We've been married now for seven years, and we have a beautiful son.
If I could meet the slime ball who did what he did to me all those years ago, I'd still beat him to a bloody pulp, but then I'd pick him up off the ground, shake his hand, and thank him for doing the best thing that ever happened to me---getting me out of a bad marriage, with my hands completely clean, so that I could move on to a good one.
So there you go. Divorce was the best thing that ever happened to me. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
There's some truth in that.
Best of luck to you.
BTW, I’d be more than happy to deal with that back door man for you, free of charge. Satisfaction guaranteed.
And you too, my friend.
You are, no doubt about it.
I suspect the Professor's writing's a generational thing.
"As for me, I am married 22 years and counting."
Was there, witnessed you putting the ring on her finger.
"We have been through Hell and back, together. My beloved is my best friend."
From a wonderful old song, you'll like it:
Remember who penned those lyrics?
They're talking about what you, what two have found, of course. :^)
"The vow I took in front of God & everybody was for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. It has been worse; it got better again. We fell into deep financial straits; we dug ourselves out and got back up on our feet again. We’ve both lost our health at one point; we both got it back again. We are currently on the road to surviving the loss of a child. I read somewhere 80% of marriages fail when a child is lost. I think we’re going to make it through this trial as well, the toughest I’ve ever experienced. Your mileage may vary."
That's just it, hate painting with a broad brush here but I think it's no secret today's youngsters aren't nearly as tough, resilient or tenacious enough these days; hence, the failed marriage rate.
The jamoke-Prof then offers kids his version of "sage advise" to explain it all away. In reality it's merely an extension to, a facet of the immediate gratifications their lives have been ruined with/by.
Thanks for nothing, *Professor*.
"For what its worth, I’ve never met a man who could honestly say his divorce was a good thing."
Perhaps, but then again you're "in" love.
For many, many other unfortunate souls the reality's quite different than that of you or I.
When the *lust* wears off.
...so does the "marriage". ;^)
This guy puts it much more eloquently than I could.
Jesus, yes...but the rest of the Biblical males, no....
Which means you have to pull apart the writings and think “Is this truth, or the bias of the hand of the author?”
I’m not saying I’m anti-Christian-— I am saying that there are those of use who don’t find as much comfort in the Bible as others take for granted.
In your opinion, not mine.
Without a doubt the divorce laws need to be fixed but any gains in single guys getting married might be canceled out by more currently married guys in miserable marriages no longer feeling "It's cheaper to keep her"
The screwed up divorce laws just add a catch-22 to an already existing problem, which is most American women with their behavior (thanks in part to feminism) have simply rendered themselves unmarriable.
Yes, that is pretty much what I implied--refer back to whom my comment was directed. Whenever a person claims to be completely blameless when their spouse becomes a serial adulterer, I smell a ton of BS. One-time infidelities can, regrettably, occur in very stable relationships. Serial philandering doesn't just happen. I won't buy that even if it comes gift-wrapped.
10-4
Advice to young men: MAN-UP
jw
I can’t really respond to that post without getting mean, so I’ll leave it alone. Have a nice day.
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.