I think waiting for six months is a good idea. I’m just not sure the government should require it.
Also, as long as marriage is recognized by the state, the state has a duty and an obligation to regulate it. There are legal and tax implications for marriage. It is the business of the state.
“I simply do not understand why two people who decide to enter into a contract with one another should be coddled by my tax dollars.”
Because this is the most economical way for the Government to produce new taxpayers to coddle you when you are old, and decrepit, and become a burden on society.
BTW I would think that domestic partners would be entitled to a similar dispensation since by their mutual dependance on one another and pooling of resources, they decrease the chances that they will become a burden.
I think that sums up the situation. Turning to Government with tears in our eyes and good will in our hearts with only produce more legislative smegma.
Divorce rates are high because society no longer tolerates dissatisfaction and no longer has the patience to work through everyday problems that arise in a marriage. We want what we want and we don’t want to wait. Government is powerless and incapable of control our inner desires so why create a new law to make people wait six months. At month seven all bets are off anyway.
Damn that thieving gummint! Always taking my money and wasting it. Vultures, that’s all they are, vultures! where’s my damn social security check?
Wildest Bill, your concern is a valid one. The breakdown of the family unit is hurting society at large and so I do believe society at large can have a say. If you expect society to help you out when things go bad, then you have to accept society having a say in your life.
Having said that, I think we often look for a law to resolve something when the law is not the solution. I do not think your proposal would have any positive effect. I do not think any law that would make divorce more difficult or marriage more difficult would have any beneficial effect.
What we need to change is ourselves, not the law. We have grown up in a world where nobody wants to take any shit form anybody and so, at the first sign of trouble we divorce. We were told the only reason people in older generations stayed married is because the women put up with something they did not like or want.
I see it differently. I see that both sides gave up something and put up with the other side’s shit because society put a value on that. They endured the bad times and marriages lasted into old age. It wasn’t perfect but a lot of the time it worked and the end result was better.
Yes, women put up with shit they did not like but men also put up with things they did not like because society put pressure on them.
The breakdown of the family has affected society at large very negatively. And society has reacted with things like laws to incarcerate fathers who do not pay child support. I think this is taking a mistaken route. We do not need to punish people more, it is not working. We need to have a society where taking care of your kids is the only honorable thing to do. No law can make that happen.
So, I do not think laws will help. I do think the extreme feminism (antimale, antifamily etc) is running out of steam and people realize a stable family unit is a good thing after all. For a while there was the idea that men were not needed, that it was good for women to raise children alone, that they just needed money from the father or from the state. That view, thank goodness, is changing.
When the Monica Lewinsky affair was discovered many women attacked Hillary for not getting a divorce immediately. They would not put up with something like that!! She was a shame to feminists everywhere.
I do not know what her motives were to stay with him. If, as some have suggested, it was just political convenience then, of course, I find it immoral.
But I have no direct evidence of that. As much as I dislike both Clintons, all the evidence shows they are good parents to their daughter. If Hillary stayed with Bill because of a sense of responsibility then I think that is admirable. And the man is indebted to her for the rest of his life.
In short, my humble opinion is that we need to change ourselves, our society, our values but not our laws. For the same reason I think laws that send fathers who owe child support to jail are a big mistake. But that’s a topic for another day.
sailor - Very nice post. I’m with you on this for the most part.
Here’s a couple of things I’d like to see the goverment do. If you don’t see that these things would affect the divorce rate in the long run, say so and I’ll post something more in depth when I get a chance.
I’d like to see the government put more effort into improving the educational system, especially the elementary schools. I’m not sure if more money is the answer but surely the system can be improved.
I’d like to see parents held accountable for the crimes of their children in criminal court. When a 1st grader commits murder, I think the guardian should be charged with a crime, probably manslaughter. If the child can be tried as an adult, then the parent is off the hook somewhat. If a parent knows that their child is a danger to others and they are powerless to do anything about it, then they should be required to ask for help.
Both of these things, I believe, go toward better raising our children. I believe that these would be appropriate ways for our government to encourage societal change.
**
No. I am saying that it is better for a child to grow up with one caring and loving divorced parent than two screwed up married ones.
**
Nope. I would agree that two loving and caring parents are better than one, but why are you so concerned with quantity?
I want quality…
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, one week, three days, 18 hours, 52 minutes and 54 seconds.
6551 cigarettes not smoked, saving $818.93.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 1 day, 17 hours, 55 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
Satan,
I think 2 “average” parents would be better than one “quality” parent. I think we need both in our life a mother and a father.
The problem with this issue, like many others, is that politicians take it and twist it to the point where its own mother would not recognize it.
If you say we need to give more value to the concept of family, some radical liberal comes out saying you want to enslave women etc. Then some fundamentalist comes out yelling some equally stupid stuff and they get into a shouting match where reasonable people cannot be heard.
It is the same with every important issue whether it’s abortion, guns or whatever.
BTW, slight hijack for a moment. Last night I saw the Rev. Jesse jackson on Politically Incorrect and I was astounded to hear him say a couple of reasonable things. I always just assumed the guy was an a*****e but I guess he does adjust his speech to the level of his audience.
The topic of discussion was that black woman married to some politician. He left her for a white woman and now the ex wife is campaigning for the other candidate and against her ex-husband on the grounds that “he doesn’t care about black people because he left me for a white woman”.
The “reverend” was quite measured in his views… he said something to the effect that we do need to reinforce family values etc.
And perhaps many more less-radical liberals refuse to accept their government sanctioning your personal concept of family.
For example, I strongly support families. I simply don’t want anyone telling me that the only good family is modeled after Leave it to Beaver.
See, that’s the problem. There are many folks out there who don’t really want to support “the family.” They want to support a family like this:
*Husband, one (1): breadwinner, lawn mower, and disciplinarian, tough but fair (in a Ward Cleaver kinda way)
Wife, one (1): stay-at-home, loving nurturer, emotional
Children as needed.*
That’s only one kind of family. To say that it’s the only good kind, or automatically the best kind, is pure-D wrong.
I don’t want the government requiring any particular family structure. I just want the government to give all everyone the best chance at success possible and then hold people accountable. I think that improving the public education system is the best way to give everyone the best chance.
Does anyone believe that it is a parent’s right to raise an ignorant child? If we can agree that education must be provided then I think we’re on our way toward agreeing that that education is a higher priority than where it currently stands.
Even if education does not affect the divorce rate (which the guy in the cube accross from me is arguing), it still gives people more life alternatives to help them deal with the aftermath of divorce.
Holding parents accountable for their children is a huge issue and I’m afraid to discuss it much for fear of turning this into a giant hijack. I believe that it would result in, among other things, future generations being more personally accountable for their actions. This, I believe, would reduce the divorce rate. Not so much that they would stay in bad marriages, but that they would be more likely to more carefully choose a spouse.
**
I don’t even know what an “average” parent is.
Wow. Must suck for widows and widowers trying to raise kids then…
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, one week, four days, 2 hours, 35 minutes and 28 seconds.
6564 cigarettes not smoked, saving $820.54.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 1 day, 19 hours, 0 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. *(Amen, brother!)[/i
An “average” parents are that are what is says “average.” You know they love their kids and they try to do as much as they can. But they aren’t super parents either.
As far as the widow and widower it might not “suck” but I think it is harder for them because they are lacking support from a spouse.
Children need a lot in their lives. Economic security, emotional nurturing, loving discipline, professional education, socialization, medical care, etc. etc.
Given the variety of needs and the importance of their fulfillment, were we talking about most any other endeavor than child rearing, we would entrust these tasks to highly trained and well paid professionals. Even two parents, in and of themselves, do not usually have the capability to see to all the needs of their children.
Worrying about the details of the relationship between two of the many caregivers to a child’s needs is as trivial as worrying about the brand of a single spark plug to the overall performance of the engine of a 1963 Dodge Dart. Yes, I suppose it matters, but it’s hardly a primary concern.
One problem is that there’s so much tied up in marriage: economic partnership, sexual fidelity, lifetime extent, heterosexuality, etc. Most of these concerns have nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of children. Divorce, absent children, is a non-issue. Divorce, in the presence of children, is really less important than the quality of the relationship between the primary care-givers. Two (or more) people need not be in a permanent, heterosexual relationship with absolute economic integration to have a working relationship for the purpose of child-rearing. Contrawise, two married people might not (and often do not) have a sufficiently healthy relationship to provide adequate primary care for their children.
I see a theme, time and again, in the arguments of the so-called conservative/christian right/family values proponents. Any argument which tends to regulate people’s sex lives is stressed; any argument which is sexually liberal (even if it directly fulfills the supposed need) is ignored. One cannot help but suspect (as has been expressed in the Pro-Life - Is it about compassion or punishment thread) that the real purpose of these groups is indeed the regulation of people’s sex lives and the purported issues they argue are merely smoke-screens for this agenda.
I’m almost affraid to ask… would you mind defining for us the difference between an “average” parent and a “super” parent. Is it something akin to conductors and super-conductors?
Can’t wait to hear this…
I think a change in marriage laws is a good idea, but rather than enacting new ones that take away basic choices, lets see if we can get the existing ones struck down or relaxed. Why shouldn’t a marriage between any two or more adults of any sex be valid? Why not permit a variety of contracts, including one or five-year renewable stints as well as life-time commitments be acceptable? The contracts are all about property and responsibility anyway. Each type of marriage should come with a pre-nuptual agreement regarding property and children.
Seriously, if you have four or five people in a marriage, and one decides to leave, the children are a lot less likely to suffer emotionally or financially. If two people decide they want to make a go of it alone, that fine as well. The point is, all these marriage laws come down to a combination of fiscal responsibility and christian morality. Get the religion out of it (that should be entirely up to the participants anyhow) and there is not a reason in the world good, stable marriages could not exist.
And think of it - you get a bullying abuser in the house, the other 5 or 6 participants can band together and divorce him/her a lot more safely than it can be done now.
I know this is not directed at me but I think I can jump in here and support those who are being clear but not meticulous in their arguments.
I don’t think we really can define the difference between a super parent and a average parent. Satan and Wildest Bill, I think, are just saying that it’s obvious that two neglectful parents is not as good as one attentive, loving parent. There is lots of factors here and we’d like to see children have the best parenting available. There is no way to be able to make an accurate judgement call on each case. No one said that. But, if a divorce would eliminate a lot of problems for the parents and allow a single parent to focus on the task of childrearing, then that could be beneficial to the child even if the child would be losing a parent. Many times both parents continue to be involved in the childrearing. No one, as yet, has tried to provide a way to measure the worth of a second parent and compare that to the worth of better parenting by a single parent. Some have suggested that there are cases when a particular single parent could be better than a particular pair of parents. This seems to be a likelihood to me.
Now I think it’s impossible to make that measurement except to say that a second parent is very valuable. Therefore, it would be a good thing to try to encourage better marriages. But, admit that there does come a time when a bad marriage could be harmful to the children and accept that there comes a time when it’s better for the child if the marriage ends. I don’t think a line can be drawn on this.
Just to play along, here is a lame shot at defining the difference between a super and an average parent. It’s like the difference between an all-star athlete and a just average athlete, without the popularity angle. The all star athlete could rarely gain their title without a good team behind him/her. Similarly, a super parent doesn’t do it alone. Sometimes there are athletes whose performance looks great on paper but who don’t succeed in difficult situations. Similarly, a super parent may not do everything that some panel of psychologists say a good parent does, but still manages to raise a child to be a moral, well-adjusted, and productive member of society. This is not a real definition. It’s just a comparison to give you a feel of what I’m thinking.
I think the rise of the two income family is more of a detriment to our children than the increase in divorce, but they are related issues. I am in favor of equal rights for women, but I’m afraid that no one planned ahead of time how the womens movement would progress. Many times people underestimate how much work women put into childrearing in the past (and the value of that work). Inadequate provisions have been made to replace these efforts. Many women are reluctant to take full responsibility for dealing with this lack for fear of regressing back to ‘barefoot and pregnant’ status. Also, people don’t want the government meddling in this part of their lives. So, who’s going to take over? Well, as a white male, I would be perfectly happy to be a house spouse, I don’t feel that men are in danger of falling into the trap of complete role reversal. I can be a house spouse without all men getting forced into that role. If enough men take on that role, that could make it possible for women to take the role without worry that it will be expected of all women. Personally, I wouldn’t want children at all unless I could be a house spouse.
Wildest Bill, a few posters have mentioned the fact that your premise may be false. You said that quickie marriages were the (or at least one big) cause of divorce. Says who?
I know lots and lots of married people, but I don’t know of anyone who married after knowing their partner for less than a year. Also, it seems to me that when someone does run off and get married after a very short courtship, it is the talk of the town. If it was a commonplace occurance, I doubt that people would be flapping their jaws about it and saying “tsk, tsk”. Of course, this evidence is only anecdotal, but I’m not the one who postulated the theory that quickie marriages were causing a skyrocketing divorce rate.
It doesn’t do society any good (nor does it solve any problems) when people try to pass laws based on knee-jerk emotional reactions. Before you start suggesting that the lawmakers infringe on individual rights, shouldn’t you make sure you actions will actually address the problem?
My parents: Knew each other five months before getting married (mostly 'cause my Mom was pregnant with me).
Married: 28 years and going strong.
My uncle Jim and aunt Jean: Knew each other three years before going ahead and getting married.
Married: 14 years until the acrimonius divorce.
Bill, you’re tilting at windmills, here. At the very least on the issue of “government regulations of ‘getting to know each other’ before getting married”*. Quite possibly on the matter of “the institution of marriage needs to be strengthened” as well.
You say your parents went through a nasty divorce, and it messed you up. Let me ask you this- were your parents kind and loving to each other then suddenly Dad ran off? Or did your parents begin fighting with each other a lot, slowly getting worse and worse about dealing with each other, until finally one just couldn’t stand it any more? If the latter, how’d you like to take that last 1/3/6 months and stretch it forward to last the next twenty years because they can’t get a divorce?
Marriage is the only institution where at 20 to 30 we’re expected to make a decision that we must abide by for 40 or more years. Jeez, if I buy a house on a 30 year mortgage, and I decide ten years in that it just doesn’t fit my family’s needs correctly, do you feel that I must keep living there because moving would cause the children psychological problems? Does changing careers at 35 mean I’m a bad person because I didn’t predict correctly at 24 what I’d want out of life 11 years later?
*Final question- if the government wants people to ‘know’ each other for six months before getting married, what happens when the divorce rate doesn’t go down? Do we extend that period to two years? Do we require them to live as if married to fully test compatibility? Do we require them to have sex so that the government regulators can ensure that they have a healthy sexual compatibility?
Actually, let me take that to its full conclusion.
First, we require a couple to have known each other for six months before they can get married.
When that doesn’t work, we require a couple to actually live together for two years before they can get married.
When that doesn’t work, we require a couple to live together and have a sex life for three years before they can get married.
When that doesn’t work, we realize that we’re not focusing upon the children (which are a major source of stress to marriages), so we require a couple to have children together and raise at least one child for two years before getting married.
When that doesn’t work, we realize that we’re not focusing upon people’s mid-life crises (when they decide to try and find out what would have happened had they made different choices in life when they were young), so we require a couple to be over 50, have children together, and have raised at least one child for two years before getting married.
Eventually, we just get to the point where we wait until one of the members of a life-long couple dies, and then retroactively declare them married and congratulate ourselves on a 0% divorce rate.