Posted on 11/26/2007 10:26:35 AM PST by 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.
>>>You said an absolute mouthful here. I can’t tell you how many families I know that would have been better off parting in the interest of the children.<<<<<
I gotta say I respectfully disagree with you on most points but you are right about that.
I know some too, and I feel sorry for them for being so miserable.
Najida makes some good points. Saw she conceded the laws favor women mentioning the pendalum of law siding with men decades ago and with women now. I wager we both have something in common and have been raked through the coals by such laws. For a guy, it makes you bitter against American women who use the system unfairly to make you pay either fincancially or out of revenge. I have had sexual harrasment lawsuits at work, despite telling every female hired I do not date staff and keep my eyes to myself, let alone other body parts :) I had an ex who kept bringing me to court (four times) for custody when the state caught up to her on not paying a measly $25 bucks a week when the women makes $40k a year. Each time she claimed I was either physically abusing my son, or threatened her life, on and on and on. We got to get over the bitterness of it and get on to enjoyment of life. It’s not fair but we are men and we have free will and choices to make.
No-fault divorce laws are used by men as well as by women and whenever they are used the spouse who did not seek the divorce is the one who gets hurt. I have two sisters who were divorced by men who used our state’s no-fault laws to escape the responsibilities of marriage. Stop being such a misogynist.
I regret it already. We have two kids. We each have a step-child. She already called the bio father to come and pick up her son and she was going to jump on a bus to North Carolina.
So, I am ready to assume responsibility for the life of my step-son and he will likely live in the home for several months until it is over, while she goes to party with friends.
However, I am not ready to assume responsibility for bad choices. I believe that is why we all despise socialism here at this forum and the far left. They force accountability onto the responsible (we’re becoming a shrinking minority) for bad behavior.
It’s not so much about money I guess for me. It is about not living in fear. I don’t want to be alive anymore if I have to continue to live in fear. You did not answer my previous point about you being older and having a stable relationship. While I understand and respect the society and conditions of your day, you appear to try to bring arguments based upon other successful generations whom acted accountable for there decisions and showed respect for each other.
Let me repeat myself. The same condition of the current day for people between the age of 20-50 that are trying to find a lifelong spouse are radically different from your time. I WISH it was now the way it was in your day.
We may get that back in America but probably not without a serious enigma to wake up this spoiled, selfish society about accountability and responsibility. Until then, I will remain envious of your generation.
They go to church every Sunday and Wednesday and have been married for 25 years.
Thats the reason I normally stay away from these threads. Because as soon as I mention that me and Ms.ShBox are not married and live together with our kids, I get accused of contributing to all ills of society...that my kids are going to be drug addicts....that I am causing crime and the kids would be better off with their real father (the one who beat their mother and belonged to the KKK)....one FReeper actually said that his insurance rates are high because of me and he would lock his doors at night if he lived next to me. That FReeper said this from 700 miles away without ever meeting me or my family.
And yet somehow that FReeper is sure that my neighbor’s kid is on the right track simply because the parents are married. I just don’t get it...
James, IMHO, the most impossible and unpleasable person in this scenario is you. If you want to live alone for fear of failing in a relationship, do... just stop blaming the rest of the world, and women, and the legal system, for your decision. It’s easy to focus on everything that’s wrong with the world, I guess, I’ve never been that kind of person. I don’t feel cheated for being given the time I’ve got.
Good luck to you.
Respectful disagreements will never get a harsh word from me.
I just wish we didn’t have to agree on such a hard one.
"so-called" conservatives do it as much, if not more, than the libs.
FYI - my husband and I would LOVE to have you and your family as neigbors.
Ping!
What do you think of this?
I have an aunt whose husband abandoned her and their daughter almost 60 years ago because his Mommy didn’t like his wife.
Auntie struggled to provide for my cousin and refused her husband’s attempts to divorce her. (We are Catholic, and divorce was totally out of the question for her.)
Anyway, this guy croaks a couple of years ago and to the utter amazement of his sister, because my aunt had refused to allow a divorce all those years ago, SHE was his only heir. She came into a HUGE bundle of money, far more than she ever imagined she’d have. Now, auntie is a little old lady and had no need for the money herself, but it sure did come in handy toward sending her granddaughter (and my oldest goddaughter) to medical school.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. That panty-waisted mama’s boy is probably spinning in his grave about it.
Regards,
PS: As the child of divorce, I must say that I am not in favor of no-fault divorce when children are involved. Divorce HURTS kids, and hurts them bad. You live with it, but it never stops hurting...it is the death of a family.
I think that once women were given the power to control their fertility, the genie was out of the bottle and it will never be forced back in. This is a natural consequence of birth control and JPII was absolutely correct.
Here’s what I swore before God and before my family on a summer day 4 years ago:
“I, N. N., take thee, N. N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”
Till Death do us part. I vowed that before God. Now how I can nice and easy slide out of that solemn vow based on some Johnny-come-lately misinterpretation of “covenant theology”?
This ain’t no religion thread, so I’ll stop there. But if you want to post something over there, I’d be happy to respond.
Saved for later.
BTW, you started the name calling with the DU comment.
"But until you get the law changed, what right has the state to punish people who exercise their rights under that law?"
Same right it has to fine people for not keeping their ad valorem tax tag up to date, using their concealed weapon license in a reckless manner.
Your examples are poorly chosen and inapplicable, because this is not about somebody somehow misusing or abusing their legal rights (or deliberately skirting the law), but using them exactly as intended under the law. You may not like the law, but that dislike itself does not invalidate it.
It's called the police power of the state and it's purpose is to regulate the exercise of rights so that they don't threaten the health, welfare and safety of the people of the state.
Liberal nonsense.
Show how divorce directly and concretely "threaten(s) the health, welfare and safety of the people of the state". Not some abstraction about our spirits all being harmed because two people couldn't make their marriage work - that's the trick libs use when they want to bloat the state.
The same twisted logic could be (and has) been used to justify everything from banning smoking to transfats to Prohibition to "gun control." It is appalling that a conservative would employ it.
If you don't like the law, you get it changed. Or you try to change hearts and minds through public appeal. That's the conservative approach. But give the state new power to punish people for exercising their legal rights? That's the province of the other side.
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.