Posted on 08/12/2003 8:31:25 PM PDT by buzzyboop
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
According to a 1999 National Vital Statistics Report from the CDC, 7.4 per 1,000 Americans married in 1998. From 1990 to 1995, the marriage rate dropped from 9.8 to 7.6. Different sources render other statistics but the trend remains sharply downward.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Please.. present something workable next time. As if women want to.. why would they want to change the current system when they maintain the advantage?
Exactly how does this father of this unwed mother have "better" access to these kids than if he was married to the mother and then divorced?
Not much. If they live together long enough, they will be seen as common-law spouses. Even if they don't, the woman can get 'palimony' if she can show she traded sex for the man's promise of marriage and/or financial support down the road.
I am fortunate to be married almost 15 years and still very deeply in love with my wife. We have been through the wringer together in years gone by and toughed it out. Now things are better than ever, and I couldn't imagine any circumstances that would cause us to be divorced.
Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to the sentiments of the men on 'marriage strike'. The court system has been so tilted against fathers it is sickening. The politicians fall all over themselves to cater to the 'soccer mom' vote. I have seen friends get absolutely reamed in divorce, but even my dear wife sees it as just rewards for what I consider relatively minor offenses. They all watch too much Lifetime channel and our culture is beginning to suffer for it.
There is a sisterhood thing going on here, and until men join together the same way our rights will continue to be trampled.
-ccm
If they live together long enough, they will be seen as common-law spouses.
This varies from state to state. In PA, common-law is not recognized, only a legal mariage (before a JP or a minister) is recognized. The flip-side is that PA is a community property state. Basically, in a divorce, the woman automatically gets half.
We have been through the wringer together in years gone by and toughed it out.
This has been exactly my experience. Marriage is not like business (that can be shut down or merged or sold) or anything else. You have to hang in there and eventually things will get better.
One of my brothers was divorced just a few years after buying a nice house - if his wife had toughed it out with him, the underlying property would be worth at least $50K more today and their money worries would be significantly less, since he would have refinanced from 8.5 to 5.5% interest and thus have hundreds more per month available.
They all watch too much Lifetime channel and our culture is beginning to suffer for it.
Hoo boy, the stuff I could say about that! Let's just say I can't stand even Oprah and leave it at that.
Yes, I feel pity for the Gen Xers and Y's who have been raised by parents with serial mates/live-ins and who have sitcoms and pornography as their framework for male-female relationships.
I know that you have written extensively on this; I've read your articles on zolatimes.
The younger generation cannot even fathom its loss. It has shaken this civilization to its foundations.
Simple--If he is divorced, her lawyer has a restraining order against him, as a matter of course, and court mandated visiting times where is not allowed to show up when he wants. If he just doesn't marry her, he can see the kid pretty much whenever he wants.
No. Not in my state. It varies by state.
I don't. I think she'll be PO'd at him.
I don't. I think she'll be PO'd at him.
You don't understand. Read the article again--60% of the time nowadays, SHE is the one who left HIM.
She doesn't get a chance to leave him. He was never close enough to give her than opportunity. Just a sperm donor.
Wrong. If paternity is established, which must be done for her to collect child support, the father also has visitation rights. The only thing that changes from being divorced is that he doesn't have to pay alimony or divide his property with her.
What about having them in the control of an unwed single mom makes it more possible for this "loving" guy to see his kids than having them in a divorced arrangement?
Single moms move, btw.
Like 'Murphy Brown'? Like Madonna? Like Elizibeth Hurley? Like any of a hundred women celebrities? Do you know what kind of an influence that has on the dopey women of today?
You still don't get it. That's all most of them want is a sperm donor, not a husband. They like babies, not men, not husbands...
I don't get the divorces, I don't get the unwed mothering, I don't get the unwed fathering.
The only thing I do get is that we've got a bunch of screwed up kids in the process.
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.