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

ENTERSTAGERIGHT ^ | 11/12/2007 | Stephen Baskerville

[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.

[Pietro]

"If you have a good marriage and good children, you should thank God every day."

Believe me, I do.

[American Quilter]

Excellent post.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

IMO if both the husband and wife were investing in their marriage the way they should than their marriage would be affair proof.

You would think so, but real life isn't so cut and dried.

[null and void]

Not all women are so cold and calculating.

True.

BUT the ones that are go through great pains to hide it.

AND the ones who aren't have friends who are, and are constantly telling them how much better off they'd be without the hubby.

AND the law insures that it really is in their best financial interests to be divorced.

[Old Sarge]

Oh its definately a 2 way street

More like Highway to Hell...

[Responsibility2nd]

Church.

[a real Sheila]

What does a father have to do in order to get the custody of the kids? Why is custody usually awarded to the mother?
I’m married and childless, so I’m really asking because I don’t understand the system either.

[Halls]

You and many men here think you have ti so bad and play such the victim. Get over it! Believe it or not Women can get just as screwed in family court as men. What do I know right? I’m just a woman, lol!

I’ve spent over $100,000 in legal fees fighting my older sons father in court over him. It put me and my husband in severe debt of which I’m not sure we will ever get out of. It costs my poor son a lot of emotional issues and continues to hurt him to this day.

And who do I point to to blame for this? the opposite sex?? No, i take responsibility for my actions and take all the blame for it. If I hadn’t made the choice to have a child with a real jerk non of this would have happened. So I blame my bad decisions.

You men who are so bitter need to quit blaming the other party and find your faults and take responsibility for them. It takes two to tango. My sons father has his faults, but I am not him. I am me and so therefore I only focus on mine and don’t play the victim game.

[Keith Brown]

It’s very true, and what’s more is that it’s worse than this guy is letting on.

I have seen it all, the traditional church wife, the high school sweet heart, the really cool gal,...all of them go bonkers and destroy not only a guy, but the kids too!

[wmfights]

Now, the system extorts money from me and she is free to alienate my children at her whim.

My step-brother went through this. His ex packed up and moved halfway across the country. He followed. He stayed in his children's lives. Now the boys are 20 & 18 and moved in with Dad. The ex is alone and bitter.

My step-brother went through hell, but the kids know it now. Hang in there!

[papertyger]

It takes two to end a marriage.

Does your pollyana fantasy life always get in the way of recognizing the obvious like this?

This is an absolute factual error, and you're going to come up with some arcane tidbit to justify it instead of admtting it's just plain wrong.

[Responsibility2nd]

You didn’t do anything wrong, huh?

Yet you married her.

[WV Mountain Mama]

if she can’t cook, think long and hard before you marry her.

You had me until there. I worked, but always believed that the best way for me to give to a family would be to stay at home once I had children. I worked in a daycare right out of college, and that cemented my beliefs. I couldn't cook (very well) until I became a stay at home mom. Now, I am quite accomplished in the kitchen.

Moral of the story. If the beliefs (ie--staying at home, raising children, cooking from scratch, having a clean home) are important, she can learn it. To be a good cook, one has to only have the desire to do it and the ability to read. :)

Also, if you don't want children, there is no need to ever get married.

[null and void]

Exactly. They need to quit acting like a bunch of victims. It takes two to end a marriage.

Nope. It takes one to end a marriage. It takes two to keep a marriage together.

[qam1]

He sounds like one of those 40+ year olds that marries a 20 year old from Russia....wonder how that will work out....

Those guys are silly but lets not forget the American Husband-Foriegn born wife marriages have a lower divorce rate then American-American marriages

But it does raise a question. There are plenty of women from Asia, E. Europe, Latin America, etc dreaming of meeting and marrying an American man, meanwhile no man from any other country want (outside of an easy hookup) anything to do with an American women.

Why do you think that is?

[HamiltonJay]

You will notice I did not say “if she can’t cook don’t marry her” I said “if she can’t cook, think long and hard before you marry her”... There was a reason I conditionalized this and it was not an absolute, and your situation is proof of that.

[null and void]

I've been there, and looking back on it, I was lucky to get off as lightly as I did. Nowadays, I advise my young nephews (and nieces) not to think of marriage until they are in their late twenties/early thirties.

We got married at 38. Didn't help.

[American Quilter]

There’s some excellent advice being given in this thread. I’ll add one item, which I learned from Dr. Laura—date the person for two years before you marry. No one can hide his/her real self for that long.

[Mariner]

there's a lot of room between the two alternatives you state.

there's more than one happy bachelor in this world.

[a real Sheila]

I know quite a few good men who have married their “dream girl” (i.e., met her in a bar, much younger, beautiful, mind blowing sex, etc.), only to have it end in divorce and financial ruin. Always comes as NO surprise to the friends who watch the train wreck from day one.

Men, do yourself a favor, please look past her bra size and measure her character!