To rescue marriage, address divorce

DenverPost.com ^ | July 31, 2002 | Al Knight

[RogerFGay]

To rescue marriage, address divorce

The federal government has recently claimed an interest in encouraging marriage on the grounds that children who are raised in a two-parent home seem to do better emotionally, intellectually and socially than those who are not.

There are a number of reasons, however, why marriage won't become more attractive until the rules and regulations pertaining to divorce are revised. The administration will have little success with one until it properly considers the other.

The White House has chosen to emphasize the advantages of marriage in a kind of splendid isolation. In its proposal to reauthorize and strengthen the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, the Bush administration points out that children reared in a two-parent family are more likely to complete high school and are less likely to be poor, commit crimes or have mental health problems.

That may be completely true, but if the benefits for both parents and children are so obvious, why aren't men and women across America rushing to the altar?

The reason, which is is rarely cited either by the government or anyone else, is that being married and having children has become risky business. Although the rate at which people marry is at or near historic lows, the divorce rate is unchanged, hovering around 50 percent. Half of all first marriages end in divorce. The rate for second and third marriages is higher.

These facts are impossible to hide and it is thus very likely that many young men now considering marriage and raising a family will opt not to do so because they instinctively recognize that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Family courts across the country have contributed mightily to reinforcing the fears that surround marriage and child rearing. Aided by state laws that require decisions to be based on the so-called best interests of the child" standard, judges routinely award custody of children to the divorcing mother. In many states, the breakup of marriages with children means that mothers are about nine times as likely as fathers to be awarded primary custody. For most men, divorce simply means a long-term child-support obligation and limited opportunities for seeing their children.

It's no wonder, then, that men may be avoiding marriage.

A recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Glenn Sacks and Dianne Thompson speculated that there is, in fact, an ongoing marriage strike. Men, they said, are behaving like Peter Pan. They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down and refuse to grow up." The authors of this piece quote a 31-year-old man who said, Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice? I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment, wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."

What has been proposed in a number of states, including Colorado, is a law that would establish a presumption where, when a marriage with children breaks up, that the parents should share the resulting responsibilities equally. Other reforms have included lawsuits. One such lawsuit in Colorado directly challenges the best interests of the child" standard on equal-protection grounds because the standard so often favors the mother.

Meanwhile, a number of states have taken smaller steps to address a perceived inequity in the enforcement of the divorce laws. In Montana, for example, it is no longer possible for a judge in a custody action to simply declare custody on the basis of the "best interests of the child." He or she must make specific findings of fact.

These steps, by themselves, won't be enough to alter the culture or make marriage more attractive. What would help is for federal and state officials to take notice of the fact that one of the reasons men are running from marriage is because they are also running from the legal beating they will take if they marry, have children and later divorce.

Al Knight (alknight@mindspring.com) ) is a member of the Denver Post editorial board. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday.

[Jeff Chandler]

it seems that just as many marriages break up over the wife's affair as the husband's affairs

You will find that marriages do break up because of the wife's affair, but it they're far more likely to remain intact after the husband's affair. That's because the affair MEANS something to the woman, whereas to the man it was just physical. Hard wiring.

[RogerFGay]

No-fault divorce eliminates hate-filled, bitter, protracted litigation where divorce lawyers air the dirty laundry of the spouses (and in the process make themselves rich).

The problem with so-called "no-fault" divorce is that it divorced people from the marriage vows entirely, legally ending the institution of marriage. The issue of individual responsibility and obligation aside, in fact, things quickly moved into the political arena. Family issues became another special interest group entitlement issue. Government power in the area of divorce became unlimited and unchecked, and we see every day the resulting fall of western civilization in progress.

[RogerFGay]

Why should the one who files lose everything, if the other spouse abdicated his responsiblity to the marriage? If you get fed up enough, you shouldn't have to put up with someone who lives in the house, but refuses to live up to his or her marital responsibilities.

It is not my position that the person who files should automatically lose everything, but I am sympathetic to the direction of the argument. What value is there to the marraige vows when the government uses its power to contravene when one party abandons them? Marriage is no longer an institution recognized by government and does not legally exist. What do we have to do to force our government to recognize and respect marraige? While we're at it, what do we have to do to force our government to recognize and respect individual rights, the cornerstone of western civilization?

[RogerFGay]

Women gave up the control of supply with the sexual revolution and they were told they would gain power by doing so.

The Pill came along and women were happy to be "liberated" by it. The technology made it possible for them to have sex with minimum risk of pregnancy. That was the sexual revolution. It wasn't started by political organization, but by the invention of The Pill. It wasn't a power issue except in the sense that women could have sex -- i.e. in a way giving them power over their own bodies.

It was inevitable that someone would suggest withholding sex as a power tool, and leftist feminists did so in relation to protesting the Vietnam War. Men with long hair get sex, they recommended. Men with short hair don't. That later became the basis of humor on shows like Saturday Night Live, but the whole thing really didn't matter. De facto social organization has always separated people, and short-haired MBA bound students weren't trying to date short haired lesbian feminists and hippy women anyway.

[RogerFGay]

OTOH, so many women seemed to be starry-eyed on their wedding day, thought this frog was a prince, or that they could change him into one with determined applications of behavioural science and reward/punishment etc. They then are crushed beyond description, and feel outraged, cheated, and vindictive when the man turns out to be merely human and to have flaws.

That is the real problem-- women who want to be stars, queens of the world, but simply are not. They will simply not accept the humdrum in a marriage, so they end up with both humdrum and solitude, after wrecking the lives of two or three men and two or three children in the process.

There is something to what you say. There are many sources of unreality in the world today -- including mass media technology that modify expectations. People today have a less realistic understanding of the real world.

[RogerFGay]

Have you been to a single's bar lately? The girls don't look or act like they're looking for husbands but just one-night-stands.

I live in a very liberated country and that seems to be it. Women can have as much sex as they want with whoever they want. They can have a different partner almost every night etc. etc. Why would they be interested in marriage aside from material gain?

[FITZ]

What do we have to do to force our government to recognize and respect marraige?

Maybe marriage is better off without the government involved in it at all. The government tends to screw up everything when it does become involved.

[RogerFGay]

You will find that marriages do break up because of the wife's affair, but it they're far more likely to remain intact after the husband's affair. That's because the affair MEANS something to the woman, whereas to the man it was just physical. Hard wiring.

Yes, women are more fickle than men, less socially stable. Many marriages break up because the women meets a guy at work who seems interesting. That's that on that. Nothing hubby can do. He's last week's news.

[RogerFGay]

Maybe marriage is better off without the government involved in it at all. The government tends to screw up everything when it does become involved.

Right. What we need is a fundamental return to western civilization where individual rights and freedom are respected. We need to force government out of the unlimited power mode and reinstate its limitations.

[Samwise]

I told Hubby that if he ever leaves me, he's getting custody of the kid and the dog. LOL. We just celebrated 25 years.

[FITZ]

Why would they be interested in marriage aside from material gain?

Material gain or loss is the only reason women used to put up with hubby's affair ---and still is. Now that women can work and don't have to live knowing there's another woman in the picture, they are less inclined to stay in those farce marriages. I suppose there are many complex and simple reasons marriages are out of vogue today, women don't feel the need to have a husband at all now ---they feel they can have it all without one.

[RogerFGay]

I told Hubby that if he ever leaves me, he's getting custody of the kid and the dog. LOL. We just celebrated 25 years.

Congratulations. I guess you're stuck with one another. ;)

[FITZ]

That's why I disagree with Bush's plan of getting government involved in the marriage problem because when government got involved the problem was created. Paying single mothers to marry will only create problems, step-fathers can be very harmful to children unless the mother chooses carefully and that's not what these women are known to do.

Marriage is very natural to people, all civilizations respect those natural bonds but the government has a way of gunking everything up.

[mlocher]

What we're left with is because of divorce laws, marriage creates too high a risk for men

easy divorce laws, easy sex -- what is the difference? easy sex does encourage men to not get married. easy divorce laws encourage men to leave a marriage.

a marriage is a union of two. there will difficult times and joyous times. people need to learn how to work out their differences and grow together. unfortunately, our societal norms of do whatever feels good at the moment and loss of self control allows men (and women) to neglect their vows and responsibilities when something better comes along.

i wonder if there is any correlation between "less than half of americans going to church most sundays" and "less than half of marriages end in divorce". i suspect that if god is invited into the marriage relationship, the marriage will be healthier, happier and more likely to last, "till death..."

[RogerFGay]

they feel they can have it all without one.

After a full generation has experienced "having it all" many women are speaking out -- explaining it's a lot like having nothing.

[FITZ]

What made it harder in the past to get a divorce? I'm not sure it was as much the government but family, community, and church pressures on a couple to work things out. Family probably more than anything.

[FITZ]

My grandfather told me that biology is not any different today and that people used to "have to" get married, pregnancy was a common reason to decide to get married. He said the difference back then was a boy was obligated, his own family would reject him if he didn't do the right thing and be a man to his children. He said what's different today is that families even encourage their sons and daughters not to marry.

[RogerFGay]

easy divorce laws, easy sex -- what is the difference? easy sex does encourage men to not get married. easy divorce laws encourage men to leave a marriage.

You seem to think men are easily manipulated by circumstances. It's a focus anyway. But by a large margin, women leave marriages today much more frequently than men. Men having affairs is way down the list of reasons. Women leave marriage because it becomes less interesting, less exciting over time. A couple of looks at him in the morning before he's shaved and had a cup of coffee, and an evening with him in his t-shirt in the living room -- and it's over. Oh and don't even mention the fact that she doesn't feel as sexy as she did before the children were born.

[RogerFGay]

What made it harder in the past to get a divorce? I'm not sure it was as much the government but family, community, and church pressures on a couple to work things out. Family probably more than anything.

I'm sure there is something to what you say. Things were different all around. But it's also much, much easier legally ever since the Reagan no-fault divorce revolution. Now, it only takes filing the papers. The step after that, nearly automatic these days, is the woman maximizing her profit. No-fault has turned into an automatic presumption that it's the man's fault. Women know that and that's likely why women file for divorce so often. That's a fact by the way, they do. The high rate of divorce resulted from women filing for divorce in droves.