Advice to young men: Do not marry, do not have children

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.

A huge industry has developed that is making incredible amounts of money from the misery divorce inflicts on its victims. Judges, lawyers, counselors, child support enforcement employees, to name just a few, are making their livings (and often very good livings) by “working the system”. Even state governments are receiving dollars from the federal government for collecting more and more child support from the NCP’s. It is easy to see that if the number of divorces ever drops there will be many that will have to turn elsewhere for their livelihood.

These industries do what ever is needed to perpetuate and insure continued growth (they don’t care about anything but the money). In the case of the “Divorce Industry” this has been accomplished by providing one class of person with a distinct advantage in the litigation.
Women and mothers are led to believe that they can rely on the fact that they will almost always receive custody of their minor children and support from the husband and father. (There are exceptions, the courts can’t be too obvious.)
This is why women file about 80% of divorces. Most men don’t file for divorce because they don’t want to risk losing their children. If women stood the same chance of losing their children as a man, does anyone really think that there would be anywhere near the same number of divorces? I don’t think so!

Even lawyers who claim to represent the man are aware of how the system works. This is why so many lawyers will tell the man one thing, all the time knowing that the results will be different. Don’t get me wrong, there are good lawyers out there (I’m still looking for one), but too many will claim to represent the man while, in actuality, working to perpetuate the system. In other words, many lawyers may represent the man but don’t really want him to win. But they still expect to be paid for helping him lose. Too many fathers winning custody would cause mothers to think twice about filing for divorce, and the number of divorces to drop.

Is there an answer? Sure there is. Make men and women responsible for the covenants they make at the time they marry. Since filing for divorce is itself a violation of the marriage covenant (till death do us part), the courts should adopt the attitude that the defendant, man or woman, will be held harmless until the plaintiff provides enough valid evidence to prove that the defendant has injured the marriage beyond repair, or is not fit to be a parent. Holding the defendant harmless means that the defendant will be awarded custody of the minor children and the assets of the marriage unless there is evidence that the court should rule otherwise. If one person gets bored with the other and wants out - let him/her go. But don’t allow one parent to interfere with the child’s relationship with the other parent for his/her own selfish reasons.

Many are going to disagree with this idea, but I am not trying to make divorce fairer. That will NEVER happen. Children need and deserve to live with two loving parents who respect their marriage vows, not with one parent while seeing the other parent on some kind of court ordered schedule. If the courts were really concerned about the “best interests of the child”, they would try to discourage divorce. If divorce can not be avoided, the courts should find out why and use that as a MAJOR part of the decision about child custody.

If one parent has a “change of heart” or no longer loves the other or no longer wants the other around, that should be the parent to leave. They would be interfering with their own relationship with the children, not that of the

Some people get married for all the wrong reasons. Some get married on the rebound, while others get married as an act of spite or rebellion against other folks. Some get married for the other person’s cash, and still others like getting married so that they can dominate, manipulate and control another human being like some sort of puppet.

The point is that a person should truly love and cherish the one he or she will marry, and the person should be the best friend as well the lover. Questions should be asked; “do I accept this person the way they are,” and “does this person behave like someone ready for marriage?”

Two people getting married should be open, honest and fair with each other, and they should date for at least a couple of years to get to know each other.

There should be no signs of tyranny or oppression, nor should there be any demeaning treatment.

Pre-marriage counseling is also a must, as it gives a third, unbiased person an honest assessment of whether or not a marriage will work out.

Marriage is a divinely established institution requiring respect for legitimate authority of that institution for enjoyment of its fruits.

The Law or guide to life as God provides it, gives considerable guidance on marriage. Those who fail to abide by it, aren’t breaking the law as much as His Law/His guidance breaks them and their failure remain with Him in Life.

Marriage is provided for believer and unbeliever alike, but the first solution to prevent a wrecked life is not to void that institution, nor to maintain the institution from outside in, but by first remaining in fellowship with God, daily growing in Him, so He may change our hearts from within.

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.