Say Anything Blog

I predict you’re gonna lose Rob.  Not that this isn’t a good idea, but because “it only harms children”, or at least that’s what your opponents will say—and the public will buy it too, because your opponents are women, and you’re just a potential deadbeat dad.

That, and most of us just aren;t interested in helping to cleanup the messes other people make.

Wanna do something for kids AND shared parenting?  Work to end divorce generally, and no-fautl divorce specifically.  Shared parenting comes naturally to those who stay married.

Anyway, i don’t want to debate you old friend.  Just wanted to make the prediction, and explain why.  Good luck though, being the lesser of two evils, I do hope you win.  But won’t bet on it.

[Feet make good soup!]

Wanna do something for kids AND shared parenting? Work to end divorce generally, and no-fautl divorce specifically. Shared parenting comes naturally to those who stay married.

Marty, I don’t buy the argument.  It is not government’s role to set up rules regarding when and if people can begin or end contractual matters and clearly, marriage is a simple contract between consenting parties to share their resources for the good of raising the children, financial means, whatever. 

Every contract should contain provisions regarding how and when it can be terminated.  Unfortunately with marriage, no one ever thinks about the ending when they are infatuated with the beginning.  Women dream their whole lives about that wedding dress.  Or the beautiful church.  Or the perfect wedding.

Why not mandate that people cannot have children until they pass a special test or that people cannot get married until they are 25?

Marriage’s are like any other contract in that as soon as they stop serving the parties involved, the parties should be free to end the contract.  I know that it affects children and this in turn affects society, but it is not society’s job to fix the problems by adding barriers to severing a voluntary contract, simply to mediate disputes and provide for fair outcomes when the parties wish to end the contract.  Divorce laws that do not reflect this and add artificial incentive to stay together or for parties to fight over custody do not solve society’s problems but make matters worse and create bitterness between parents.

Justin, so you agree with me that when a man and a woman “contract” to remain together “until death do they part”, that that contract should be enforcable?

No of course you don’t because you said:

it is not society’s job to fix the problems by adding barriers to severing a voluntary contract, simply to mediate disputes and provide for fair outcomes when the parties wish to end the contract.

So you’re saying that it is NOT societys job to hold people to the terms of their contracts, but it IS our job to clean up the mess that is made when they walk away from their commitments.  Nice.

You know, you can create a contract with far less stringent parameters, and much easier ways out.  But then, that wouldn’t be a “marriage”, and it wouldn’t serve the interests of kids born to a man and wife.

[Feet make good soup!]

So you’re saying that it is NOT societys job to hold people to the terms of their contracts, but it IS our job to clean up the mess that is made when they walk away from their commitments. Nice.

a contract can be riscended if,

a) one party breaks said contract

b) both party agree to riscend it

c) etc

Justin, so you agree with me that when a man and a woman “contract” to remain together “until death do they part”, that that contract should be enforcable?

The contract is between the two parties.  If I pledge my undying oath to a friend and seal it with blood or spit to be best friends for ever when I am 7, does that mean if I ever have an argument with them I have violated my BFF agreement and the government should enforce the BFF agreement and make us work things out?

So that means the only way to end your contract, Marty, is to either kill the other party or yourself--or wait for natural causes?  Is that what you are saying?

Justin, yep, that’s exactly what I’m saying.  If you aren’t prepared to meet the terms of your agreement, perhaps you shouldn’t be making it in the first place…

Letting people break thier most solemn vows so easily, and not taking them at their word—and holding them to it, is just how we ended up with a 50% divorce rate, and people like you with such small ideas of what Marriage actually is.

Some people speak of “marriage equality” these days.  Well if this is your idea of what marriage is, then no, I’m not at all interested in my marriage being considered “equal” to yours.  Mine is far more serious than that.

[Feet make good soup!]

Marriage has far more implications than simply loving one another or caring for children.  Financially, you are responsible for the actions of your spouse.  You incur the debts of your spouse.  Community property allows your spouse to acquire debt in his or her own name and leaves you liable for those debts.

I like the naive world that you live in where you think that husbands or wives should be required to show cause to divorce.  Certainly there are some causes that should be allowed for divorce.  Like say you catch your husband banging his 10 year old step daughter or your husband goes to prison for murder, rape, robbery, or is caught with a gay prostitute, etc.

So now, you leave us with the question or proving that your grounds for divorce are sufficient.  That leaves spouses in a mode where they have to document their spouse’s behavior and then show proof of how the other party wronged them.  How does that process help the kids?  Because at the end of the day, if you want a divorce you are gonna get one.  Show whatever cause, come up with whatever evidence, or kill the sob.  And many cases involve abuse allegations that are impossible to prove or disprove and then one spouse gets tarred with being a spouse abuser simply because the state left the other with no means to end their relationship except to allege abuse.

Have your ideological or philosophical discussions about what an ideal world would be like where every marriage ended happily ever after, but government’s role is simply to mediate and adjudicate the disputes when they arise.  And regulate the contract.

BTW, the contract that you sign is the marriage license that agrees to abide by the state laws, not the oath or vows that you take “til death do you part”.  It is that the marriage complies with state laws.  The vows mean nothing.  It is the certificate that means you are married.  Polygamists and gays take vows all the time, but that is not called a marriage.  Marriage is the legal term for a contract that you sign with each other that is officially recognized by the state and subject to applicable state law in the terms of entering and exiting the contract.

Why is it considered “my ideal world” to expect Adults to stick to their word?

Sure, if my wife breaks the “forsaking all others” vow, shouldn’t I be expected to PROVE it, to be granted a divorce from her?

BTW, the contract that you sign is the marriage license that agrees to abide by the state laws, not the oath or vows that you take “til death do you part”.

Since adultery is not a violation of the law, then why is it still grounds for a fault-based divorce?  Aren’t you trying to have it both ways here?  On one hand you say we can’t enforce the “verbal” contract, yet on the other, we do it all the time.

Absent proof of a broken contract—verbal (it’s not like there were no witnesses) or otherwise, I see no reason to release anyone from it.

[Feet make good soup!]

Marty, not being able to get a divorce is a disaster waiting to happen.  I would NEVER stay married to a man who abuses me or my children.  If I am not treated with the respect that I deserve, then I have the right to end the relationship and divorce the loser.

No jenile, getting married with your figers crossed behind your back is a disaster waiting to happen.

And certainly any man who abuses your children has just given you valid cause for divorce—fault based.  Of course, you should be expected to prove that he actually did so, rather than simply make the accusation.

As for what respect you deserve, that’s between the two of you.  Certain kinds of disrespect may give you cause of action (with proof of course), others may not.

This is how people end up marrying losers—knowing that they will have an easy out if they’ve made a mistake.  But if you knew you would be held to a higher standard, of course you would be much more juducious about making such a serious commitment, wouldn’t you?

Treat adults like children and what do you wind up with?  A bunch of grown-ups who act like children, that’s what.  You should bear a little responsibility yourself, if you find yourself married to a loser, don’t you think?

[Feet make good soup!]

Actually I’ve read that the statistically safest living arrangement for a woman is to be living with her husband.

Living with the boyfriend is much less safe.  Living alone or with girlfriends is still less safe than living with her husband.

Sad the the feminism industry has to demonize men.

Marty:  I am getting married next month.  I have been with this man for over four years.  I feel that I know him quite well after this much time.  However, there are NO guarantees in life.  I cannot control him or the future.  If for some reason, he does something in the future to disrespect our marriage, such as cheating on me, hitting me, etc.  then I WILL divorce him.  Life is way too short to stay in a relationship that is unhealthy.

The Whistler,

I do not agree with you that feminism has demonized men.  It has just given women the realization that they do not NEED men.  We marry men because we WANT to, not because we need to.  I am a strong, educated, independent woman, and as a feminist, I certainly do not demonize men.

The Whistler,

I do not agree with you that feminism has demonized men.  It has just given women the realization that they do not NEED men.  We marry men because we WANT to, not because we need to.  I am a strong, educated, independent woman, and as a feminist, I certainly do not demonize men.

Jenile, your attitude has all but guaranteed your future divorce.  You’re a statistic waiting to happen. 

But I sincerely I hope you will prove us wrong, 15 years from now.  Congratulations to you and your fiancee.

[Feet make good soup!]

jeneile: From its inception in the early sixties, American feminism(Friedan, Steinem, et al) has done nothing but demonize men in their quest for political superiority.  They have succeeded to a great extent, to the detriment of our society, especially targeting fatherhood and masculinity in general.  PC is an invention of feminism, which generally takes the approach to men of “You did us wrong, now you need to give us whatever we want.” The Feminist Movement could have taken another direction; they could have asserted their power independently, and set about demontrating their willingness to stand beside men in an effort to improve society.  Instead, they blamed men(and still do) for the ills of the world, using that as the rationalization for their quest for power, instead of viewing it as a cooperative venture for the good of all society.  In other words, they used the Marxist “class struggle” meme, setting men and women against each other for a share of the fixed pie.  This is why feminists didn’t support any of the women molested by Clinton, nor do they support upwardly-mobile conservative women, like Condi Rice.  Good luck.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Robert108, your comment The Feminist Movement could have taken another direction; they could have asserted their power independently, and set about demontrating their willingness to stand beside men in an effort to improve society.  is the way in which I think of myself as a feminist.  I don’t support what I call “fem nazi” thoughts such as “anti man, man is evil”.  I simply have paved my way thus far in life without the financial support of a man, and I’m quite proud of that.  I intend to enter into my marriage as an egalitarian relationship.  I’m the breadwinner.  I can’t help that. I just happen to make more money than my future husband and he is fine with that.  We share household responsibilities.  I’m not expected to cook and clean because I am a woman.  I don’t think that I could survive with someone who expected me to live like that.  My fiance supports my career, my educational goals, and my life outside of our relationship.  I feel that is “todays” version of feminism.  The original feminist movement was way before my time.