Posted on 08/01/2002 11:41:08 PM PDT by 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.
So, on the one hand, he gets what he wants out of the relationship without giving her what she wants, and if he gives her what she wants(marriage), she could take him for all he's worth.
Where is the incentive for a man to get married?
If a woman walks out on her husband without proving he committed adultery or is abusive then she walks out with nothing, no kids, no support, nothing but her clothes and personal effects. Likewise if the man walks out.
When we get back to marriage being forever the crisis will end. Now it's far to easy for one partner to walk out for no reason. (Usually stated as "I just don't love him anymore" Well boo hoo. You should have only two choices in marriage, either make it work or be miserable)
Of course Jeff is also correct, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free
God Save America (Please)
LOL! I threw away my little black book over a quarter of a century ago!
men and women want the same things
Gotta disagree with you there. Generally speaking, woman want to be cherished, while men want to be bedded.
2. Make allegations of domestic violence without ironclad proof inadmissable.
3. Tie child support to visitation. No visitation, no support.
4. Eliminate the presumption that the mother should be the custodial parent.
This points to one of the most moronic aspects of feminism. Feminists told women they would gain power by being sexually liberated but what the feminists really did was destroy one of the real powers women had. Supply and demand. Under the old system women could control men by limiting the availability of sex. Under the old system women controlled a biological need, like a water supply. That's real power. The sexual liberation movement was great for the demanders, but the suppliers lost control and power in the process.
BINGO!!!
But you should see the insults I get when I state this obvious fact. I've had Freepers accuse me of being myopic, of wanting to keep woman barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen (the keeping them pregnant part sounds kind of fun), and of being the product of Amish school.
That assumes the women don't want sex without marriage, a woman can have sex with a different man every night and that might be the reason they choose to go this route --just like the men do.
What is needed, therefore, is to make more women (since it is they who initiate nearly all divorces other than the flagrant CEO-runs-off-with-21-yr-old-secretary type...which are not the problem here)...willing to settle for a stable, stolid, somewhat unexciting, but loyal, hardworking type of average American guy. And to remain loyal to him, since he is loyal to her, despite whatever shortcomings each might have.
From what I have seen, most males understood on their wedding day that they were making certain tradeoffs, that this was not a person with ideal looks, not a glamour queen, not an heiress, not an Einstein. They knew they were settling for stability and someone who (they imagined) might be loyal and "of their own."
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.
Well, OF COURSE a woman can have sex with a different man every night. That's the point: she always could. Men are hardwired (no pun intended) to be ready, willing, and able to engage in sex at every opportunity. The sex drive in men is strong.
While woman are fully capable of enjoying sex (something I enthusiastically encourage), it is NOT the natural primary motivator for their entering into relationships (with rare exceptions). Unscrupulous men who understand women often take advantage of this aspect of female psychology to seduce them, telling lies about loving them, giving false hope of commitment, etc. It's as old as the hills.
In the past, most men had to control their drives because women demanded that sex be confined to marriage, which was to her, and the subsequent children's advantage.
Now, men don't need marriage to have sex, so the ladies are out of luck.
I come in contact with many young, single men on my job. I see what the pattern is. The man picks up the bimbo at the bar, night club, whatever, or she picks him up, they have sex all weekend long, then he's done with her and she practically stalks him for days or weeks, desperately trying to build a greater relationship than he ever intended.
So here's the news flash everyone:
MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT..
Sheese, how did so much obvious common knowledge ever get lost?
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.