About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Will California Ban Divorce?

Not a chance. The lawyer lobby would never allow it. However, the social satire stunt meant to mock marriage defenders is getting loads of MSM attention. I take a look at Los Angeles Times column on the matter and the comments on the column over at The Opine Editorials.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Update on Political Theatre in Calfornia.

The satirical stunt campaign to remove divorce from California law is all over the media again. See what I wrote about it this time over at The Opine Editorials.

I know I have been pointing over there a lot lately, but as long as the MSM keeps giving me material to work with on this topic, I'm going to respond.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lawyers Will Never Allow a Divorce Ban

In an interesting move of political satire, there's a guy collecting signatures to get a divorce ban on the California ballot. If the comments on this Los Angeles Times blog  are any indication, a lot of people mistakenly assume that this guy is part of the "traditional values" political crowd. He isn't but, he claims to adapt the arguments of the campaign in favor of the California Marriage Amendment towards his "movement" to ban divorce in California.

As a married California man who is the sole income earner in my family, a divorce ban would be to my benefit. I don't focus on that, though, in the two blog entries I posted today at The Opine Editorials. First, I wrote in general about the situation here, and then I get into some of the reasons why an ardent supporter of the California Marriage Amendment is not obligated to support a ban on divorce, especially as proposed by this guy, though we could probably do well with some legal reforms in family law.

I turn the question back around, though.
Come to think of it, is there a single prominent voice against divorce that the marriage neutering advocates have ever been anything but hostile towards?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Divorce is Bad For You - Who Knew?

Yet another study indicates that divorce is harmful to those divorcing - never mind what it does to children and the larger fabric of society.  For sure, though, if someone is abusive, divorce can be the best thing to do.  But not marrying an abusive person would be even better!  My advocacy of marriage does not include a belief that all individuals should marry.  My analysis of the article on the study is over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is it Possible to Truly Achieve "Marriage Equality"?

I explore that question over at The Opine Editorials.  Here is a taste.

Regarding abortion:
One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights?
...   ...   ...
I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same. I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions. It is obvious to me that what keeps same-sex "marriage" and natural marriage from being equal has less to do with state licensing requirement and more to do with the nature of the sexes and the differences between them.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Divorce Does Not Justify Neutering Marriage Licensing

People arguing for the removal of the California Marriage Amendment from our state constitution, voted in as Proposition 8, cite the high divorce rate as a reason why a brideless or groomless couple should be able to get state marriage licenses for their voluntary association, or perhaps why we, the people, don't have moral authority to set marriage licensing requirements.  After all, if it is God's will that marriage last for life and we as a society aren't following God’s will in that respect*, how can we invoke God's will when it comes to insisting that marriage uniting the sexes?  They argue that if we want to protect marriage, we should ban divorce, or they claim they're going to push for such a ban themselves.

If you want to circulate a petition to place an initiative on the ballot that bans divorce, go ahead.  Nobody is stopping you.  You can vote for it, too.  Be my guest.  If you donate money to back it, I won't boycott your business.

One need not be religious nor believe in God nor believe that divorce is a bad to believe that authority over licensing requirements belongs with the people instead of the courts, or that state marriage licensing should be reserved for voluntary associations consisting of a bride and a groom.  But in entertaining this appeal to the Bible or religious tradition, I still don't see that immorality in one thing precludes making a moral judgment at all.  (If you fell down some stairs this morning, you should still try to avoid crashing your car into a wall.)  If the political authority doesn't belong with the people, it belongs with nobody, as all authority of our branches of government is assigned to them by the consent of the people.  The answer is not to promote more immorality or fundamentally alter the nature of marriage.  It is also disingenuous to invoke Scripture or religious tradition against those who hold such things dear with one hand and dismiss it with the other.

Yes, divorce is a bad thing.  Even if it gets someone away from a sociopath - and people should get away from sociopaths - it is bad in the sense that there never should have been a marriage in the first place, and the divorce is part of the larger mistake.  Marriage, ideally, should be for life.  But that there is divorce has no bearing on whether or not state marriage licensing should be neutered.  It is an entirely different issue.  I can cut an orange in half.  I can destroy it.  It can be eaten away by fruit fly maggots.  There can be a wax likeness of an orange fraudulently passed off as a legitimate orange.  None of that makes an orange rubber ball an orange, even though it is round and orange in color.  We even revoke the state-issued driver's licenses of some drivers because they have been horrible drivers, but that doesn't obligate us to issue driver's licenses to bus riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, or anyone who can apply for a state identification card, even though driver's licenses are considered more desirable.

Really, it is silly to say that because there is divorce, we should neuter marriage.  It simply does not follow.  A state-licensed marriage is essentially a kind of partnership.  Partnerships are dissolved all of the time.

The high divorce rate can be cited as evidence for a devaluation of marriage in our culture.  But how would neutering marriage help that?  To me, it seems, it would be kicking marriage while it is down.  Some may argue that "heterosexual couples haven't been doing such a great job with marriage, so why not let same-sex couples have a shot at it?"  That may sound appealing to some at first, but it also does not make any sense, as bride-groom couples will still be able to get state licenses, and it is akin to saying "orange growers have been doing a lousy job, so let's throw rubber balls into the crate with the oranges."

Yes, the divorce rate is too high, and those who want to protect marriage should take steps to change that.  There are ways of addressing that (that will have to be another blog entry), but neutering marriage isn't one of them.  That there are a lot of divorces in no way means we should forfeit our votes to judges or activists.

Previously:

"Shall We Vote On Your Marriage Now?"

When Marriage Neutering Proponents Say "Love is Love"

*From a religious standpoint, (which, we are constantly reminded, the state can't consider), any church that takes the Bible seriously should not be performing marriage ceremonies or recognizing the marriage of anyone who divorced a previous spouse without Biblical grounds.  (Biblical grounds boil down to abandonment – actual geographical or sexual abandonment or other forms, such as abuse of others or self or adultery.  If someone divorces you without just cause, that is abandonment.)

I do agree that divorce is detrimental to marriage.  To this end, I could see it as reasonable if a state decided it was going to change its laws so as to stop issuing marriage licenses to couples in which at least one of the individuals had previously filed for and received a divorce, say, two or more times.  Note - that means being the divorce initiator, not the spouse presented with the papers.  I could especially see it as a reasonable restriction if the state also allowed some other form of civil licensing for such couples.  Ultimately, however, no number of divorces changes the basic nature of marriage, or the state's interest in licensing it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Two Lesbians Divorce...

how will the courts pick the man who will pay alimony?

Will a “spouse” who did not contribute a gamete and did not carry a child be able to avoid paying child support on the grounds that the child “already has a father” or “already has a mother?”

In cases of same-sex domestic violence, do the cops haul both men away, and how do they choose which woman to haul away?

Of course, I’m not being entirely serious with these questions.  I fully expect the courts to make the lesbian who is earning more income to pay alimony.  I fully expect that the "spouse" with no or less custody to be required to pay child support.

But as more homosexuals experience these issues as a result of state-issued marriage licenses, will their activist representatives use their savvy to effect changes in alimony and child support issues?  In bride-groom (you know, real) marriage, the groom more often gets soaked because most women choose to marry men who earn more than they do, and even some of the minority who don't cut back on earning income once married.

I do wonder, though, where this push for neutered marriage licensing was back when people ended up in court accused of “breach of promise” and “alienation of affection” and getting a divorce was more difficult?  I don’t think it is an accident that this neutering of marriage licensing happened in a “no fault” state.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Relationship is Better Than a Bad One

My response to a post at The Duchmeister grew a little long, so I'm posting it here.

In general, not being in a relationship is better than being in a bad one, and that is even more true for marriage.  Not all relationships are meant to be, or meant to last.  Not everyone is compatible.  In fact, deep compatibility is rare.

I say this as someone who is happily married, had my share of good and bad relationships before that, and ended up deliberately avoiding relationships (but still dating) until I found my wife.

I get so tired of hearing a man is "afraid" to commit, or people (mostly female relatives) pressuring a man for being unmarried.  Relationships, including marriage, are OPTIONAL.  And for many men these days, marriage just doesn't make sense.

Marriage made sense for me because: 1) I believe sex is for marriage, and I wanted sex without the guilt; 2) I'm a one-woman kind of guy; 3) I wanted children, and it is best for children to be raised within marriage; 4) I found a childless  marriage-and-family-minded woman with whom I am compatible; 5) I had reached a level where I could financially support a family and did not desire to travel a lot for business or become an high-level executive.

Unless a man falls into all of those categories, marriage no longer makes much sense.  It only guarantees: 1) that should the relationship end, he will be paying alimony, and 2) he may very well have to pay child support for any children she brought into the marriage, and any she conceived in adultery while married to him.  There are no other guarantees.  Divorce rates are high, women file for divorce much more often, and many women today are taught and socialized to put career and friends over their husband and children and to disregard their husband's basic needs.

A bad marriage is a horrible thing.  She can spend you into debt, she can ruin your credit, she can destroy your possessions, she can reveal your darkest regrets and insecurities to anyone who will listen, she can interfere with your career, she can refuse to do anything around the house or in the bedroom, she can abort your child, she can cheat on you and get pregnant by another man and then obligate you to support that child, she can assault you (and YOU get taken to jail by the cops)... and she can do all of this and still file for divorce and walk away with half of everything and live off of your alimony payments for the rest of her life (depending on the state).

Men need to be VERY careful should they decide to get married.  They should choose their wife wisely, and treat her kindly (thank you, Dr. Laura).

Please note: this article was about a survey of men.  In no way do I deny that women also take risks by marrying, or that there are some men who are NOT husband material.  And yes, there are good wife-material women out there.  I married one.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congrats to Charlie Sheen

Congrats to Charlie Sheen for setting himself up for divorce #3.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Marriage Is Dead – Part II of II

Part I of this piece is here.

So why do I think that marriage may be dead?

Marriage as an institution has traditionally been linked to gender roles and division of labor, mutual respect between the participants and the families from which they originate, commitment, honor, tradition, religion, community, sexuality, parenting, and cohabitation.

Yet, over the years, through our personal actions, through allowing our religious institutions to abdicate their responsibilities and fidelity to Scripture, through our media consumption, through our allowing academic and professional organizations and our workplaces to be hijacked by certain activists pushing the self-serving demands of a tiny minority, through who we’ve elected and who they’ve appoint to the bench… we have torn down too much of the context for marriage.

Marriage is no longer the context for raising children. 
There is no shame by our society any more for conceiving and bearing children out of wedlock.  Indeed, much of our media even encourages it.  We reward such behavior through our government.  God help you if you don’t join in on that baby shower at the office.  Sure, studies show that marriage is beneficial to children, but please… if we really cared so much about children we wouldn’t be killing them by the millions in abortion clinics.  We wouldn’t be dumping them unnecessarily in day care and other forms of surrogate parenting.

Marriage is no longer the context for sex.  This is linked to the above.  There is no shame any more for casual sex. The policies of our institutions even encourage it, and the media certainly does.  There was a time when even those who happily engaged in fornication were very circumspect about discussing it, but that went the way of suing people for breach of promise and alienation of affection.  Conversely, married women are told by too many sources that it is okay to withhold themselves from the husband on an ongoing basis for any reason or no reason at all.

Marriage is no longer the context for living together.  Shacking up is standard.  God help the landlord who tries to prevent shacking up on his or her own property.

Marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment to your bride or groom.  Divorce used to be a disgrace.  Now it is common and not shamed at all.  We even have no-fault divorce.

Marriage is no longer the context for joining the sexes and dividing labor.  While I’m glad that women obtained equal access to the workplace, our society has done itself a disservice encouraging the two-income marriage and downplaying the differences between the sexes, degrading gender roles and masculinity and femininity.  This has done much to get people to think of marriage as simply some sort of affirmation of a romantic or sexual relationship as opposed to something that forms a microcosm of society that is ideal for raising the next generation.

This has made it very easy to recently convince four judges that marriage is something other than something that unites the sexes – that marriage is whatever they want it to be.  This is also the result of a confusion over the nature of rights and the separation of powers in the American system.

Marriage originated as a religious sacrament and was reinforced by governments, even secular ones, because of its benefit to society.  Our laws did not create marriage – they simply recognized and licensed it.  Our media has mocked it, and we have allowed that.

We have somehow allowed a tiny minority to enshrine in law that a “sexual” act that does nothing tangible except spread disease and injure the participants is the equivalent to a sexual act that has perpetuated society for all of human existence and created almost every single one of us.  We have allowed the rare exceptions to define the rules.

We have reduced marriage into nothing more than a way to secure benefits for someone who is perfectly capable of obtaining a job with some of those benefits and signing a contract for the others.  We have turned marriage licenses into nothing more than a piece of paper that supposedly conveys some sort of societal approval for a relationship, even if is the kind that has no potential to perpetuate society and is of little interest to society.  We have turned weddings into nothing more than a narcissistic, materialistic party instead of a sacred moment that changes the lives of the participants and obligates the observers to offer moral support for that covenant.

It doesn’t help that our system punishes men for getting married via 1) alimony and 2) child support even for children conceived in the wife’s adultery with another man.

Hedonistic men say there is nothing a man can get by being married that he can’t get otherwise: it is of no benefit to men.

Sure, family advocates can point to men 1) living longer, 2) earning more, and 3) having more sex if they are married, but intelligent hedonists who understand human behavioral tendencies respond quite convincingly that 1) they’ll gladly trade a few years of convalescence for a lifetime of freedom and fewer obligations; 2) that is an average, they know how to beat those odds especially if they have the freedom for after-hours networking and to relocate, and earning less is just fine without a wife and kids to support; 3) that is an average, and they definitely know how to beat those odds.

Our system encourages women to divorce, and not to remarry (or risk losing alimony payments).

We’ve done much to kill marriage.

And now, because of a ruling by four judges on the California Supreme Court, “bride” and “groom” and “man” and “woman” are getting erased from marriage documents, and people from all over will be able to come to California and force the people of California to issue them a marriage license when there is a bride or groom missing.  Then, they will be able to go back to their home states and demand similar recognition there, too.  Perhaps this will go up to the SCOTUS, and what will they decide, especially with appointments from our next POTUS?

We will have official policy that says there is no difference between something that joins the sexes and something that excludes one of the sexes, despite all of the previous rulings and laws experiences otherwise.

Sure, there is a constitutional amendment on the California ballot for November.  But will that somehow be subverted by the SCOTUS?  It also isn’t far-fetched that the amendment could fail at the ballot box, given how younger Californians have been conditioned to reject natural and traditional understandings about sex, gender, and marriage in public schools and in our media and in our workplaces and even our churches.

And so I fear that marriage is dead, as far as our larger society goes.  So many have lost the Biblical metaphor of a protective and living Father because their mothers made a poor choice in sex partners or treated him badly.  Now, they will also lose the Biblical metaphor of Christ and his bride.

Along with marriage, dead also is the proper role of the judiciary.

Perhaps we should start referring to real marriage as Biblical Marriage, or “God-Ordained”, or “Natural” or “Tradtional”?  At least as long as we have a right to speak, anyway.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Marriage Is Dead – Part I of II

It pains me to write this, but I fear that something I myself have embraced is dead.

Before I explain why I think marriage could be dead, let me first examine some of the favorite chestnuts of the marriage-bashers and some others who champion unmarried life:

“For the first time in our history, there are more households of single people than married.” 
I’ve dealt with that extensively before.  That statistic counted households married people who were legally separated or were separated due to military service, work, or incarceration as being “single”.  Nor did truly “single” people make a majority of households.  Even if married households were to actually be a minority, they’d be the biggest minority, almost matching all single households, shack-up households, same-sex households, divorced households, and widowed households combined.  While people may be getting married later, or be married for shorter amounts of time, or living longer (due to increased life expectancy)  as divorced or widowed, all such people have either been married or will marry, so they either “believed in” marriage or did marry at some point.  Finally, each married household represents at least two adults (and possibly voters), while each single household represents one.  So clearly, marriage still has a popular advantage, despite this chestnut that is thrown out.  On the other hand, it may be only a matter of time before the implied point behind it is actually true.

“Half of all marriages end in divorce.”  Granting that this is true (and there is some dispute about that), what happens to that statistic if you only count first-time marriages?  It goes down considerably.  In other words, people are more likely to get divorced if they have been divorced before, so divorces from second, third, (etc.) marriages are skewing the statistics.  Marriage isn’t for everyone.  For example, radio show host Tom Leykis, who says that marriage is of no benefit to a man, has been married and divorced four times.  He makes no secret of that, saying it took him a long time to finally realize that he isn’t cut out for marriage, even with an extensive pre-nup.  So, if you take Tom Leykis and you take me, you get an average that says that chances are, a man will get divorced twice.  You greatly reduce your chances of getting divorced if you: 1) wait to marry until you are in your late twenties and have established yourself as a mature individual; 2) choose a person with whom you are fundamentally compatible (same religion, same goals as far as childrearing, etc.); 3) wait until you have been regularly spending time together for at least a year before marrying; 4) you do not shack up; 5) you do not have intercourse before marriage; 6) you undergo some form of premarital counseling/instruction.  I’d like to see what the divorce statistics are for couples who meet all of those criteria.

“Half or a significant percentage of married people are unhappy.”  Coupled with the previous assertion, this is powerful argument against marriage - at first glance.  After all, if the odds are that you’re going to either be unhappily married or go through a divorce, then the odds say it is better not to marry.  But like what I wrote above, there are things people can do to make it more likely that they will be happy in their marriage.  But I have not seen this claim that half of married people are unhappy matched up against any control.  How many completely single people are unhappy?  How many people who are in some form of unmarried relationship are unhappy?  If you tend to be an unhappy person, marriage will not change that, especially if you marry someone like you.  Furthermore, as with the first point – a married couple is, of course, two people, while a single person is one.  If you take one unhappy married couple and one happy single person, you might be able to make it look like you are twice as likely to be unhappy if you are married.

I have broken this into two pieces to keep it from being excruciatingly long.  Now that I’ve gone over these points, I will soon blog about why I think marriage may be dead.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »