Posted on 06/18/2024 3:47:07 AM PDT by fwdude
Before the 1960s, it was really hard to get divorced in America.
Typically, the only way to do it was to convince a judge that your spouse had committed some form of wrongdoing, like adultery, abandonment, or “cruelty” (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: “Even if you could prove you had been hit, that didn’t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,” said Marcia Zug, a family law professor at the University of South Carolina.
Then came a revolution: In 1969, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan of California (who was himself divorced) signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates of domestic violence and spousal murder began to drop as people — especially women — gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.
Today, … a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
It just wrecks the boys emotionally and morally. It wrecks any idea of respecting women, especially since their father rejected their mother, whose DNA they share and whom they want to love in an uncomplicated way.
And some of those extra women will try to snuggle up to the boys to try to get the father to commit to themselves. It really messes with boys' feelings, making them have to deal with their mother and a temp...and then another...and another. Of course, their father is not teaching or modeling for them that marriage requires respect and commitment.
It makes it harder for the male children to find a faithful mate, or even feel worthy of a good woman, or to enter a relationship the right way and take it slow until there is a real deep tie—because their example is horndog/slut behavior.
I'm not advocating it. I'm saying that the sheer statistics over a century do not tell the entire story -- the conditions of society are radically different in a way that cannot be measured or compared. As another poster pointed out, more people are cohabiting now than in 1934, when it was only the worst kind of people who did that sort of thing. And then there's birth control and abortion. Truly, there is no real comparison, then and now.
Pharisees came up to [Jesus] and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Ten Commandments
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
I’m not saying abortion isn’t heinous.
But I didnt’t make the rules.
Yes, I understand and agree. Those are the rules and that is what was said. But God didn’t say he didn’t know what divorce was. And many of the divorces I worked on were horrible situations. Marriage done with two people who are both givers is a good thing. Marriage where one person is a giver and one is a taker is a horrible thing. Marriage where one wants to dominate is a bad thing. Marriage where the children are being molested or beaten is a bad thing. If you are talking about theory, you are 100 percent correct. The reality is far more complicated. Then you get a lot of cases where one or the other party is ready to ditch the other but doesn’t want to share the marital estate so plans a murder.
In your blanket statement, you are assuming every boy will be affected the same, which is incorrect.
Further its clearly not the same as a girl being sexually abused by the cheating ex’s male affair partner. There is no girl that won’t be incredibly traumatized and messed up the rest of her life, going through that.
The problem is that if marriage is something fundamentally more important than a contract, it nonetheless lacks the practical benefits that come with contract law.
Consider "no-fault divorce", which allows someone to petition for divorce without proof of wrongdoing by the other spouse, essentially nullifying the prior marriage contract...even if the spouse wanted to stay married.
That sort of provision, applied to any other area of life, would essentially make contracts worthless, because you wouldn't be able to trust other people to hold up their end of the agreement, much less trust that the state would be a neutral arbiter in the case of any contract disputes.
So why, then, should such an absurdity be tolerated for an institution that's so much more important in principle?
That's not true. For example, third party beneficiaries can affect and be affected by a contract without ever being one of those who executed the original agreement.
I should have clarified that contracts only BIND the parties who agree to it. No one else is obligated.
And how exactly is this not also the case with marriage?
Who else is obligated under the terms of the marriage contract other than the husband and wife?
Are you kidding?
Courts. Employers who offer health plans. Entire government agencies.
Shall I continue?
In your blanket statement, you asserted that the parental strange sexual partner in the house just isn’t much of an issue for boys. You also assume that Daddy’s girlfriend is not going to diddle the boys, in the face of all the massive reporting of female teachers involving themselves with children. So I’m just adding balance here.
We also have courts dedicated to handling contract disputes. Depending on how a contract is breached (such as via fraud), it can even go to a criminal proceeding.
Employers who offer health plans
Employer health plans are not intrinsic to marriage; in fact, as far as I'm aware, these didn't exist until the 20th century. (Plus, employer health plans are not unique to married couples.)
Entire government agencies.
We have a government agency dedicated to managing national parks; how is this a point worth making?
All you've demonstrated is that we have a boatload of entities (whether introduced because of legislation or by bureaucratic fiat via federal agencies) who've put their fingers into the marital relationship without giving said relationship even the basic protections offered by contract law.
How is that not infuriating to one who claims to place the institution of marriage on a higher pedestal than contract law?
Or are their actions and authorities a creation of processes (legislative or otherwise) that have nothing to do with the marriage contract itself?
Whatever term you're looking for to describe that situation, "contractual obligation" is not it.
It is not as much of an issue for boys. Far more girls get abused and are at higher risk of abuse. Its not merely a personal blanket statement, its reality.
Now you’re pivoting to percentages after having initially just dismissed the fate of boys; when in fact, one abused child of either sex is one too many.
Correct
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.