Advice to Young Men: Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children
by Stephen Baskerville | View comments |
Print This Post
Spreading this message may be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution.
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 hundred 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.
sbaskerville@cox.net
http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943/sr=8-2/qid=1169683598/ref
Read more articles by Stephen Baskerville
I am now going through what Baskerville has described, for the second time. At first of course, I blamed women. As I matured and began to study I realized that it had nothing to do with women, it was corrupt law that was destroying everything. I hesitated even until recently in advocating no marraige/no children for men because it sounds so draconian. A happy marraige with children is absolutely the most wonderful and important experience of a man's life. However, being stripped of all parental rights and most of your income and property is the most horrible thing in the world! I am currently getting supervised 90 minutes a WEEK with my children while I am fighting the system in order to be an actual parent. There are no dirty secrets, she has found someone new and wants me gone…..the court is supporting that. I will be telling my son not to get married until he is 50+
Comment by LibertyLyman | November 14, 2007
Men and Marriage
Is this good advice?
Men and Marriage…
DON'T DO IT. And DON'T HAVE CHILDREN either.
The popular topic I'm seeing on blogs the past couple weeks.
I linked to this site last week:
Let's not blind ourselves to the realities. …
Trackback by Just Raven | November 15, 2007
This is a great piece. You should read Christie Davies brilliant "Strange
Death of Moral Britain, which deals with the reasons why such things
as "no fault divorce" and the custody system were introduced in the first
place. Davies argues that while the divorce system has destroyed marriage
and the custody system has destroyed many children, it was opposed by
the majority of Britains. Why then were they implemented? He argues that British
"Educated elites" argued successfully that "more pain was caused" by
determining the guilty party (in the case of divorce). The same logic applied
to "determining the better parent." Ergo, no fault divorce caused "less pain"
and "defaulting" the kid to the mother was believed equally "Painless", relatively speaking.
The same system, no doubt, has been put to use here.
Comment by Nathan Alexander | November 15, 2007
[…] In these days where women can divorce their husbands for no legitimate reason, denying daddies the right to rear their own children and using child support judgments to ruin them financially, some men are fighting back. Having suffered from this, I want to link to a site that proposes that laws might be reformed if men refuse to marry and have children. Published in: Politics | on November 19th, 2007 | […]
Pingback by Grandpa Lake’s Weblog » Blog Archive » Marriage strike? | November 19, 2007
There's another very significant vulnerability that deserves mention: Restraining orders are commonly issued either through manipulative claims of fear or simply as a matter of course, meaning a man who owns guns may not have legal access to them throughout the duration of the order.
Comment by dcodrea | November 19, 2007
My good friends, it does not matter if you get married or not. The problem in the courts is….
no proof is required. Whatever she says, it must be automatically true, even if there is nothing
else in the world that supports her claims. I agreed to an uncontested divorce in 1995, which
was granted without a court appearance, where I agreed to full custody of all my kids except
the youngest, which she insisted upon. Seven years later (!) she moved in with her latest
boyfriend/coworker, signing the lease as his wife, using his last name. One year later, she took
me to court in Texas and claimed we had remarried the day after the divorce, eight years before!
Without any proof, or license, or witness whatsoever, the judge decided a marriage existed and
six months later, I had to go through a contested divorce involving property and custody of the
kids all over again. The property she agreed to return, was never returned. The money she stole,
by promising to come home if I would pay her boyfriend, was never repaid. I lost both of my cars
and all of my kids. Yes, I had joint custody and yes, I had visitation. But no, they have not been
allowed by their mom to visit me in three and a half years! Joint custody means nothing. I was
going to the school and having lunch with the kids once a month since the visitation was
suspended, contrary to court orders, but last May she moved the kids out of state (over 600 miles).
Talk to anyone you like…..constable, police, sheriff, FBI, state police…..none of them are going to
lift a finger to enforce visitation or any other part of the court orders.
If you want to save the institution of marriage you must reform the divorce law to prevent ex-wives
from profiting from divorce or re-divorce. Require the same rules of evidence, prevent CPS from
being allowed to intervene in divorce cases, and deny women who abandon their family from
later obtaining custody of them. Custodial parents who refuse to allow the kids to speak on the
phone, write, or email their natural father are automatically unfit. Custodial parents who steal or
destroy gifts to the kids, money, or even their father's pictures, are also unfit.
My EX-WIFE claimed a marriage that never existed, to get custody of the kids she hardly visited
for a year, stole property and money without court order, and has worked hard for three and a
half years to keep me from having anything to do with my kids. My remaining MINOR children are
Jenifer 9, Henry 10, and Meagan 14. (I arranged through the school to buy the school pictures,
which I received last week. This is the first I have seen their faces since last May.) Had I rather
not have married in 1983 and had six children, as the article suggests? NO, I cannot agree. But I
would almost agree to executing dads when their wife (or ex-wife) finds someone else to play with
and gets everything, and the kids, and child support. It would actually be more merciful and kind
to execute or exile dads rather than sentence them to a lifetime of sorrow, and shame and poverty.
The lawyers say, it must be a fair and just divorce, because neither side is satisfied. She may not
actually get 100%, so she is dissatisfied. He may get almost nothing, so he is dissatisfied. I fail to
see how this is by any means fair or just.
Comment by DonReynolds | November 19, 2007
One more important point, for the benefit of Libertarians out there, who think this could never
happen to them because "reason would prevail" in their case. My EX-WIFE filed her divorce
petition in October 2002, the judge ruled in May 2003 that a marriage existed and in
November 2003 the same judge granted the final divorce. But at the insistence of CPS, he
separated the child custody from the divorce. CPS has continued to block the trial on the
custody of the minor children ever since. I have YET to have a day in court! I cannot get into
court! So I have gone the past four years under TEMPORARY custody orders, three and a
half of which, she has refused to allow the kids visitation with their natural father. (I have paid
tens of thousands of dollars to several different attorneys and they have done nothing. She
won't even agree to be deposed.) Is there something wrong with this picture?
Comment by DonReynolds | November 19, 2007
Don't even get married in Minnesota. Woman that the wife and I are very familiar with, married had a kid then divorced. She received 1/2 the house, child support and alimony. Two years later, got married, had a kid, divorced, got 1/2 the house, 1/2 the business which the guy paid her cash to get back, child support and alimony. Another 2 years goes by, you guessed it rinse repeat. We even told the last guy not to marry her, that she would take him for everything he had. She is worth over a Million just by marrying and divorcing regular guys.
I am very lucky, been married once to the same woman for 35 years. I myself tell young men do not get married and do not have children.
Comment by Ronmb | November 19, 2007