Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

[nine steps]

MND: News and Commentary Since 2001 » Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children
November 14, 2007 at 11:36 am · Filed under Mating, Marriage & Divorce, Vox Populi

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.

Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws.

It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.

There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children. (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.

You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial.

Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike": refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. "Have anti-father family court policies led to a men's marriage strike?" ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families. In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.

Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?

Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.

It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” advocate Andrew Sullivan points out. “All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality.”

We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration’s government therapy programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.

[Jack]

Too often people marry for the wrong reasons and without a solid base of friendship. A couple should be each other's best friend, and they shouldn't marry for tax breaks, to fulfill their family's expectations, because all their friends are married or any other shallow reason. Marriages fall apart for a lot of reasons, and divorces are generally the fault of both parties. I agree the courts shouldn't have a bias when it determines the distribution of property and the children after a divorce. But the best way to avoid that whole hassle is to not get into a situation that you aren't willing to do anything to make work. I wouldn't go so far as to advise against marriage all together. But I do think people ought to wait until they're older to make such an important decision. Young people are too impetuous, to unsure of their own motivations and desires. They lack the life experiences that would make them able to enter into such situations with self-awareness and knowledge about their needs and wants. Do very many people really know at 20 what they want to do with the rest of their lives? I haven't seen much evidence they do.

It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law.

I'd disagree. In fact, most of the gays I know who want to get married have the same unrealistic, 1950s concept of marriage that too many straights do. They've bought into the myth and closed their eyes to the reality of marriage. No relationship, gay or straight, married or just committed, will survive if it isn't grounded on solid principles.

[Objectivist]

The most damaging philosophical idea that has destroyed marriage and has made many people impotent to true, admirable love is the idea that love is altruistic.

Altruism is the idea that it is imperative and proper to sacrifice (giving up a higher value for a lesser value) yourself to others. Love we are taught is selfless.

If love is selfless then we get no pleasure from our lover's existence. We obtain no personal enjoyment from the way our lover moves, acts, talks, thinks.The relationships we are in do not benefit us in anyway. Our relationships are a charity case and I'm only with you out of selfless pity. How romantic!

If love's cause is a selfless one, then people do not believe that they need to have any sort of value or virtue. They believe that they should be loved regardless of their vices.

The consequences of the idea are horrid. People believe that they deserve the unearned. People enter in marriages with people whom it is impossible and difficult to love (because it is right to ignore the vices). Marriages are not well arranged. Relationships are in utter turmoil.

[Milton Bradley]

I can certainly sympathize with Nine Steps, having just watched my Fathers friend lose the bulk of his existance to some monster, Hell bent on destroying him.


One must choose very carefully these days, where one dares to extend ones self.

[tivodan1116]

You again? What is your obsession with this topic?

Quote by: nine steps In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.

False. While half of marriages end in divorce, far less than half of all people who marry get divorced. The reason for this is that many people are multiple-time losers - getting married two, three, or more times and getting divorced.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.

If your state has no-fault. Some states don't.

And why would anyone want to stay in a marriage where their spouse wants out? If your spouse "unilaterally" wants a divorce and goes that far towards getting one, why fight it?

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously.

Not true. In many cases there is consideration given to faithfulness of the partners.

Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons.

Not true. At most the wife is only entitled to half of the community property, that is, all property acquired after the marriage.

First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong.

While more women than men earn custody of children, this assertion is ridiculous. "Almost certainly"? Maybe 30 years ago, but certainly not today. In every state today the default presumption is joint custody.

Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.

Incorrect. Only if there is a protective order, which is not by any means automatic. I personally have seen them refused on several occasions.

There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.

Again, the presumption is joint custody. If either party wants more, it is their burden to prove it.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children.

How? Currently, my wife has access to 100% of our shared access. If we divorced, by operation of law she would do no better than 50% and even with a settlement agreement in excess of that I would keep something.

(All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.)

Ahh yes, the lawyers....
Don't these bashers realize there are lawyers on BOTH sides? The lawyer working to help you is doing just as much as the lawyer on the other side.

While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income.

Annnnnnd if your children live with you full time, how much do you spend on raising them? Half of my income sounds like a bargain...

(The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.)

First of all, it's set by the legislature.
Second of all, how do lawyers have a vested interest in setting payments high? Apparently the author hasn't a clue how family court lawyers get paid.

She may spend it however she wishes.

If she cares about your children, she'll spend it to raise them.

You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.

Whoever is responsible for the financial costs of the children gets the deduction. If the child support a parent pays amounts to more than half of their costs, he gets the deduction and credits.
Again, the author rants without knowing what the hell he is talking about.

Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.

What an idiotic and unfounded connection... The fall in birth rate is directly connected with divorce law? Wow, that's a good one.


This thread should be moved to the comedy section.

[another day]

Who wants to bet this guy kills hookers in his spare time?

[brien]

The only reason I see for a marrriage contract is to give children a common last name. However, this is even disappearing in the culture.

Some women choose to give their child their last name as opposed to the time honored tradition of using the father's last name. Gays adopt and choose either theirs or their partner's last name. My neice bore a child out of wedlock and gave he son her last name.

Seeing some awful divorces in my time, and how the courts screw men big time, I would opt to NOT marry if I had it to do all over again, and I have been happily married 29 years.

[grandpa]

Quote by: another day Who wants to bet this guy kills hookers in his spare time?

That's funny.

[Suburbanite]

Women is society do shit like this though. I know someone whose wife left him, took her half, then got custody of his three children, child support for them, she never lets him visit, and his kids all hate him because she poisoned them against him. I used to hang out with the kids when I was growing up, and they and their dad got along really well. Its just sad. He was giving away over 80% of his income to his wife, who wouldn't let him see his own children (who he never harmed once).
This can happen, and I think being wary of women isn't a bad idea. Some women are taught at an early age how to take advantage of men using their sexuality.
Certainly though women should be more wary of men, who can easily turn more abusive than it seemed initially.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Isherwood I'd disagree. In fact, most of the gays I know who want to get married have the same unrealistic, 1950s concept of marriage that too many straights do. They've bought into the myth and closed their eyes to the reality of marriage. No relationship, gay or straight, married or just committed, will survive if it isn't grounded on solid principles.

That is exactly the problem, we've made marriage far too easy to get into and far, far, far too easy to get out of. You can go get married whenever you want, even to someone you just met, and nobody can stop you. You can file for divorce the next day with no real consequences, especially if you filled out a pre-nuptual agreement before you got married.

The failure rate of marriage in the U.S. isn't because of homosexuals, it's because of stupid, self-centered heterosexual morons who don't bother to think what's going to happen when they get married and therefore, have no reason to think they can't just get out of it whenever they want.

[Keith Hamburger]

I doubt anyone will actually visit and read much of this stuff, but this site, Equal Justice Foundation, has lots of information on how men get screwed in divorce and how women "game" the system to take advantage.

Really scarey stuff there.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Suburbanite Certainly though women should be more wary of men, who can easily turn more abusive than it seemed initially.

Actually, there's a lot of evidence that women at least as likely to be physically abusive than men, but most men won't admit to being abused by a woman.

Chapter 7 — Domestic Violence Against Men In The United States

Keith

[RVonse]

The OP does give excellent advice but unfortunately not getting married or having children is much easier said than done.

There's no way I can see for men to win in the United States.