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.
This is tragic -- even beyond the obvious tragedy to the nation. It's tragic on a personal level, because marriage is good for men, presuming that men are married to women who are equally dedicated to them.
In that case, the "other spouse" is the one who breached the contract.
In either case, it is not right to reward the one who breaches the contract.
Marriage is the only form of contract where one party can breach it, and be rewarded with all the assets, while the party that was violated is obligated to cover all the liabilities.
It's a radical left wing agenda.
Glad you said "generally", because that's quite the generalization.
I married someone who'd been a good friend for quite some time. In fact, I originally tried to "fix her up" with another friend of mine, but they just didn't hit it off, and it turned out that we did.
Hi, Parthur. Don Joe here. I'm from "Earth". What do you call your planet?
Not unless the states also refuse to recognize foreign divorces. My mother divorced my father when we lived in NYC, which in the pre-no-fault days had very strict grounds for divorce.
So, she flew to Mexico.
You miss the point.
You're focusing on the tactics, but missing the strategy. The left was more than willing to lose a battle in order to win the war. Turning what was truly best for women into a virtual sacrificial pawn was a small price to pay for the ultimate goals.
Look around you, and you'll see that the radical feminist core no longer advises women on how to enjoy relationships with men at all. The radical feminist left is under the control of radical lesbians, and increasingly larger numbers of "liberated" women are steered in that direction.
It was a fairly vanilla example of hegelianism. By first advocating a way of life that was guaranteed to create hurt, resentment, and frustration, they were then poised to fix the blame on the "oppressor class", and then present their "solution".
The end game is the destruction of trust between men and women, as each gender is shoehorned into the desired role: for men, "the oppressor", and for women, "the oppressed".
It's not about "making women happy". It's not about "equal right for women". It's about class warfare. And the reason it's about class warfare will be evident to anyone who's examined communist doctrine.
I'm talking about the inner nature of men and women, and so this generalization, with exceptions, holds true. What is best, healthiest, most noble, etc., that's another matter entirely.
How in the world did this thread get revitalized?
I guess you'd have to be over 40 or so to recognize him.
His name is Jeff Chandler. He was an actor who was famous in the 40s and 50s. Most of his movies weren't really well known. Some were. He did about 50 films. Mostly war pictures. Some Westerns. He played Cochise in 2 or 3.
I would put his celebrity factor at about the same level as...say...Michael Nouri. (Jennifer Beals' love interest in "Flashdance")
I posted the pic in reply to Jeff Chandler because...well, you get the picture. Just being silly.
That about sums it up, I'd say.
Good article, Roger.
While that is partially true, there have always been "bad" girls. They don't call it the oldest profession for nothing, you know.
Good point. And the only situation where one leaves with more than they paid in, and the other leaves with less than they paid in.
Roger, you should write an article about the idiocy of joint division of material assets.
Right on. All that.
In an aesthetic appreciation sense, sure. In a cheat-on-your-wife sense, no.
I swear, men who need to call all men hounds, or dogs, or as you did, not naturally inclined to monogamy, are a giant part of what is wrong with America.
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.