Defending marriage?

In America, a number of people and organizations are attempting to defend the social institution of marriage. The National Organization for Marriage springs to mind – these earnest individuals would save the institution of marriage from the corrupting influence of gays. A substantial fraction of the American congress along with Bill Clinton in 1996, passed the Defense Of Marriage Act. This act legally defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Respect for marriage act is a proposed bill in US congress that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and allow the U.S. federal government to provide benefits to couples in a same-sex marriage; A hotly contested issue. Again, we mustn’t have those gays wrecking the sacred social institution of marriage. As is usual for any discussion of marriage for gays, some political and social conservatives seem to be greatly excited and distressed over the imminent destruction of the social institution which arguably forms the basis of our society.

Unfortunately, marriage is already toast, and it was destroyed by the lobbying, and legal activism of mainstream, organized feminism.

To every traditionalist genuinely distressed over the prospect of gay men marrying each other – where were you when no fault divorce was instantiated as a legal principal? Were you sleeping? Are you still sleeping?

No fault divorce is the legal convention that in the dissolution of a marriage, disbursal of assets of the partnership does not take account of the reasons for the dissolution of the marriage. This means that if one partner screws the pool boy or beats the children, they still claim half the assets suffering no legal fault. If there is a significant difference in the income of the partners in a marriage, the partner who brings the lesser pay-cheque to the table is financially motivated to dissolve the marriage, disposing of the spouse, but keeping the assets. Once this is understood, it should not be a surprise that 65 to 85% of divorces are initiated by women[1].

Feminist Vivian Gornick told an audience at the university of Illinois in April of 1981 “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession. The choice to serve and to be protected and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”

Robin Morgan wrote in 1970: “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”

The family courts are almost entirely dominated by a flavor of radical feminist jurisprudence, and generally treat divorced men as farm animals to be sheared of resources and income, and to finance the family court system. Family courts often participate in the appropriated earnings of men who are processed by the court system. Family courts fund themselves by taking a segment of court mandated support payments from divorced fathers.

I wont bother providing the dictionary definition of the word corrupt.

Marriage is not dead, exactly, but for men, it’s a bad, bad option with legal, and financial risk far far outweighing any potential benefit. It was feminist lobbying and jurisprudence that turned marriage into this unfortunate trap.

In light of this, social conservatives are worried about gays getting married?


[1] Brinig, Margaret; Douglas W. Allen (2000). “These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women”. American Law and Economics Review 2 (1): 126–129.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: