'No-Fault' = No Kids

Townhall ^ | 11/25/2007 | Kevin McCullough

[Responsibility2nd]

As a general rule, plaintiffs who file for "no-fault" divorce should be found unfit to gain custody of their children. This should be done for the protection of the children involved. But most importantly it should be done to restrain the growth rate of the scourge known as "no-fault" divorce.

Radical homosexual activists have been bold in their attempt to redefine the basic make-up of the family by assaulting the God ordained institution of marriage with whatever creative sexual union could be devised. Yet the damage they've inflicted upon children to date is miniscule compared to the arrogance, selfishness, and defiance that the plaintiffs of "no-fault" divorce have unleashed upon child after child.

Particularly dangerous has been the growing effect of women seeking no-fault divorce only to then seek casual cohabitation with replacement men. According to this Associated Press story out last week "abusive-boyfriend" syndrome is increasingly putting children into not just emotional, spiritual, and mental jeopardy - but now sadly - increasing physical risk of life and limb.

Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005. Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center. Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University. The problem in large measure is that plaintiffs in "No-Fault" cases are living in such denial and total and complete selfishness that they don't truly care about the welfare of their children - not truly.

Oh they may say they do - especially when their guilty conscience comes to the custody portion of the divorce proceeding. Overcome by the guilt they know in their hearts as to how immoral their "no-fault" claim is that in order to compensate for a failed marriage - they publicly verbalize their propaganda to being all that much better of a parental unit. Yet in reality this argument is disingenuous given the fact that they are saying before the court that they are willing to destabilize the life of their children for literally "no reason."

I am not arguing that possible legitimate reasons for marital dissolution should be eliminated in custody concerns. Infidelity, abuse, and addictive behaviors should serve as distinct considerations when evaluating the decision-making ability, integrity, and trustworthiness of the potential parents who seek custody. But the idea that one can come before a judge and say "there is no legitimate reason" for us to crack up the stability of the universe that I committed to providing for the children I was given responsibility for seems a stretch in logic.

Prior to the emergence of "no-fault" divorces faith and legal communities both helped restrain people's willingness to divorce. In forcing the plaintiff to cite a cause as to why such a tragic measure should be taken the message to society was strong. Adultery jeopardizes the welfare of children, because it jeopardized the welfare of the marriage that created those children. Physical abuse was seen as a criminal aberration in marriage - one that was carried out by a minority of those who engaged in the institution and certainly one that puts the welfare of spouse and children in physical risk of injury and life. Addictive behaviors and abandonment are all also easily understandable risks to the health of the family unit.

Yet here is the fowl smelling stench of the truth behind "no fault" divorce. Sinful humans grew tired of having to live up to the vows they took before God, and the responsibilities they committed to before man.

Wanting to fornicate without consequence wasn't enough - now we wanted a guilt free way to make it happen. So as a result people are "finding themselves", "trying to figure things out", or stating that "they are not ready for the responsibilities" that marriage brings with it and just need an amicable way of exiting the situation.

Yet they were "responsible" enough to form a legal union, create children, and begin the act of attempting to parent them?

Many decades ago the average age at which people got married was younger, even in the teens in many cases - and the maturation process of the persons involved in these unions was something that grew as the commitments of life multiplied.

Today it is our pathetic desire to extend adolescence to later and later into adulthood coupled with the sin of envy that is more often than not the root cause of the whole demonic lie of why "no fault" divorce is so "necessary."

This scourge has brought with it some additional unforeseen secondary problems as well. Violence against the non-blood-related children by the new man is just one example. (In nature the new lion will often eat the cubs of the previous male when mating with a previously mated lioness.) Men who cruise women with children is a phenomenon now that we can track statistically. And then there is the Woody Allen syndrome of the individual who is drawn toward sexual acting out with the blooming daughters of the formerly married woman.

Put bluntly there is NO benefit to the children of a society that makes marriage as easy to escape from as choosing which store to shop at.

And the price of doing so is killing our children.

We should return to the day of accountability and responsibility as a culture - particularly when it comes to the welfare of children.

And plaintiffs who file for "no-fault" divorces should be ready to lose their children in the process of doing so.

Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available. Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.

[texgal]

If you don't like no-fault divorce, change the law.

We've been trying for years to do just that. It's not as easy as you make it sound. As long as the law allows people to treat their families like trash to be disposed of whenever they decide, for absolutely not real reason at all, it will continue.

[najida]

The The Queen Mother Clucker of All Cluckers

[William Terrell]

I'd posit that the no-fault divorce is well known and leads to marriage without consideration. If there were no such thing, believe me, women would be a whole lot more discerning.

[najida]

Erm,
as a single woman who as dated ‘separated’ men, (they told me they were divorced!) To them, they’re as good as outta the marriage. And they were trying to break the last of the vows they hadn’t broken yet, before 10pm.

[Responsibility2nd]

Adding tagline....

[RockinRight]

I’ll be the first to say that divorce is too “easy” in the sense that people do give up.

However, the air on this thread that divorce should basically be unallowed or only allowed if one of the parties either carries briuses 24/7, or, the other spouse has a harem of other women/men and can document it on camera, takes it too far.

Yes, change the law. Don’t make it to where divorce law mimicks Sharia law.

[RockinRight]

Well...I better at least get a cut of those royalties.

;)

[slightlyovertaxed]

It is up to the parents to MAKE it loving and healthy instead of thinking of their own satisfaction. Once you have brought forth a child, the child’s well-being is central. Too many couples today are too selfish to concede this.

I believe you have a misunderstanding about adulthood. While I do not believe that living a responsibility-free, hedonistic, selfish life is a correct way of existence, adults are not merely creatures who should be miserable all the time. A child is happier when his parents are happier. As a child, I remember being pleased that my parents had friends, went out to dinners, went to shows without me, and essentially lived lives that were non-child-centric all the damn time. I couldn't imagine growing up in a household in which my sister and I were the focus 100% of the time. What would have have taught us? Knowing my parents were independent adults with their own lives made both of us independent, perhaps to a fault...I'm not good about asking for their help when they are willing to give it. :(

I am also biased because I am the child of a second marriage (my father's). He had his first two children before he was 28 and, for whatever reason, he and his wife divorced. They both remarried. My older sisters are married with children themselves. Their marriages are no worse than anyone else's , from what I can see. My father seems happy now, even though my childhood was a little tight because of the alimony payments (thank god for the military providing another income...). So perhaps divorce isn't the world-destroyer you'd like to pretend it is. In this case, it generated four happy adults and four acceptable children, instead of two miserable adults and two potentially miserable children.

[Claud]

There is no guarantee that a person will ever "come to his or her senses" and come home.

No, there isn't, you're right. But even that tiny percentage is still more than zero.

I would think it would be worse for children to hold on to false hope for years rather than to accept reality.

It's not a "false" hope, it is a hope for something that may be very improbable but which there still remains the possibility.

And hope is a virtue. "Reality" is not. If you want to see a sad, sad child, find one a little too acquainted with reality and a little too unacquainted with hope.

[William Terrell]

Preposterous. I don’t think I have ever read such a bunch of bunk.

Of course You're a woman. You win and prosper in a divorce.

[najida]

All sides want to do something ‘for our good.’

Save our bodies (don’t smoke)
Save our future (global warming)
Save our souls, our morals.
Save our marriages, our kids, our minds, our whatever

No one seems to want to let us to do what we were promised ‘to pursue happiness’. Not THEIR version of happiness, but OUR version of happiness.

And sometimes, it’s gonna piss’em off.

[vpintheak]

Yep, why buy the cow when the milk is free. I try to tell a younger female coworker that. Since she is lieberally indoctrinated she can’t really grasp the concept.

[najida]

Don’t like girls either do ya?

Well, you’re in the right place! ;)

[murphE]

No, they should not be forced by others; they should force themselves to stay together, to figure out a way to save their marriage for the sake of the children they both love. Too many people do not understand the entire concept of marital love. Love is not something that “happens” to you; you need to work on your marriage, nurture it every day. It’s not your love that sustains your marriage, but it is your marriage that sustains your love.

Bravo. "Luv" is a feeling, to love someone is an act of will.

[najida]

Or why buy a pig for a vienna sausage, when keilbasa makers are on sale on the web (It goes both ways darlin’).

[Hemingway's Ghost]

From time to time, some folks have told me I’m quite good at tongue-clucking. Yess... I’ve been called a clucker on more than a few occasions.

I'm sure you're being flippant, but on a self-styled conservative, the trait---playing social engineer---is unflattering.

[Claud]

Would you agree that they were probably outta the marriage even before their separation?

I think in some cases these men have led themselves into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[HairOfTheDog]

That’s too bad... because you’re the only one that’s going to lose. You’ve been taken over by fear.

Happy people are just living this one life they’ve been given, as best they can. It beats sitting around moping your whole life that the system sucks so much.

There has never been a better time for you to be alive. This is it.

[RockinRight]

Hope is a pipe dream. Reality is reality.

I can “hope” that I wake up a millionaire tomorrow. Or, I can face reality, and realize that I must work to reach such a goal.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I'm one of those dinosaurs who believe marriage is forever.

If your spouse feels otherwise, then it matters not a scrap what you think, no matter how high-falutin' your intentions.