This excerpt struck home hard. Except for three years my mother lived within a few minutes drive of her parents. Those three years? My father had a high paying job that took her 90 minutes from her friends and family. Being close to her father was so important she destroyed her marriage and family. She destroyed her children's relationship with their father because of it. Her father - important. Our father - throw away. I have suffered 50 years of unspeakable loneliness and depression because of her narcissistic needs.
what does it mean " that took her 90 minutes from her friends and family." ? english is my 3rd language sorry. Also if I understand, your mother put her father over you and her husband ? Terrible. Try to read books on healing from bad parents, it actually helped me, though my situation is different. Stay strong I am asking because my mother is very invasive, and I realize I really need to put healthy boundaries. For the sake of my marriage
I have a question. Why do you say it was it your mother who destroyed the marriage? Your father knowingly did something that made your mother miserable. Why is it not equally his fault? Why was it on her to give in?
@@Fearlessly91 The father did not necessarily do anything wrong. She just "fell out of love" and she wanted out. In that case, he did nothing wrong. Your way, means the man must be constantly, constantly working 24-7 to make his wife happy at all times OR ELSE! That is wrong. If you feel that way then you must unlearn what you learned about marriage. Its very immature thinking.
We don't want you getting married either. You probably wouldn't make the right choice in picking a mate, nor would you have the wisdom to teach your wife and your children about Love. A lot of men choose to destroy their bloodline over fear. In our society we don't want these types of men procreating, because their children will be useless because of their ignorant father. We think you made the right choice. I understand this sounds bad. The state is doing a wonderful job scaring the weak man off, and I think it's all part of God's plan. It take a wise man to guild his family to the finish line by setting the narrative and priorities. Please. Only get married if you are ready to be a father and a husband. If your judgement has been compromised by immoral values and principles it would be best to not destroy other people's lives.
@@WilliamEllison Who are you? Reads minds, determines IQ, predicts the future, makes a list of baseless assumptions and draws fictional conclusions out of them and all that based of what? two written sentences. And with your arrogance and lack of modesty, how can I take your morals and values seriously? At least I know how the pro-marriage people act...
God marriage has been replaced with government marriage. Government marriage is designed to enslave the man to the woman by divorce court alimony and kidnappers ransom known as child support under penalty of prison if he refuses. The idea is that women will then vote for more tyrannical government as payment for their man slaves.
The problem is people focus on the worst cases of a divorce instead of the most common. Physical and emotional abuse make up a small part of actual reasons people file for divorce. The most common is that the divorce initiator emotionally grows apart from the other spouse.
Then there's the weaponisation of the kids to hurt the other party. I've been married for 50 years this year, it's been pretty rocky at times but life itself is like that and just like life a marriage is made of compromise by both parties. If you think you are the one making all the compromises it's time to sit down and look at all the things your spouse does for you and the family, your spouse is probably feeling the same way.
@@tubalcain6874 why wouldn't they evangelicals and conservatives understand Reagan's quote about his biggest regret?? They can see its made divorce too easy and that destroys children and broken home lead to a broken family. Whats not to understand?
In Australia the PM who introduced it in 1975, was fired by the Queen and her representative. And yet no conservative government has ever changed it back.
I have a friend whos parents fell out of love about the time they were in high school, but made the adult descision to stay together and keep it to themselves for the sake of the kids. When the last one graduated high school and had a few years of university they sat everyone down and explained what was up. As adults the kids were much better equipped to process what was going on. Grown up and married now, he is the only one of my friends who hasn't been through divorce, has a stable home, and kids who are doing well.
What does "falling out of love" really mean? I couldn't find any references to its true definition beyond pop culture. Perhaps this is why secular marriages often fail. Many believe that love is merely a feeling that can come and go. Allow me to clarify in case you are married, as I wouldn't want you to leave your spouse over a change in emotions. Love is not simply a feeling you have every day; it is a choice. You can choose to love someone even if you don't feel it at the moment. Love involves action and choice, and it requires effort. It's not always easy, and it requires self-sacrifice. If you can grasp this concept, you will understand the commitment you made to your spouse and to God. Many people enter into marriage with the mistaken belief that it is solely based on emotions, and once those emotions fade, they end up separating. Secular individuals should also apply this principle to their children. I implore you not to abandon your children if you happen to "fall out of love" with them. Please do not give them away or abandon them in any way.
@@WilliamEllison These people were very godly. Rural Virginians and very salt of the earth. Not "holy rollers" by any means, but very connected. They were well into their 40s - early 50s when this came about. They just didn't have the same interests or passions anymore. They had grown old, and somewhat apart, acknowledged this, but at the same time made adult descisions around the family unit.
@@Mis-AdventureCH It is a commonly held belief that families who follow God grow closer together, and their bonds become stronger over time. However, there may be instances where families do not display the level of closeness and strength that is expected of God-fearing households. In such cases, it may be that the family was not as devoted to their faith as they proclaimed. In Matthew 7:16, we are told that we will recognize individuals by their actions or "fruits." The scripture does not support the notion that the more Godly one becomes, the higher the likelihood of divorce. In fact, the opposite is true, as the Bible emphasizes the importance of the sanctity of marriage. The Bible teaches us that over time, we can become better lovers by following its teachings. If an individual claims to be a Christian but chooses to pursue a divorce, it stands to reason that they may not have fully embraced the principles of their faith. This can be seen as a failure to honor the commitment made before God, which is considered a solemn and sacred vow. It is essential to remember that the teachings of the Bible emphasize the importance of love, commitment, and sacrifice in relationships. These principles apply to all aspects of life, including marriage. By embracing these teachings and living them out in daily life, individuals can cultivate meaningful, long-lasting relationships that honor God and bring joy and fulfillment. It is important to avoid making sweeping generalizations and judgments about individuals based on their faith. Divorce is very rare in a God fearing family, and so called "godly families" that choose to divorce later on in their life proves only one thing: They not only grew apart from each other but also farther away from God's teachings. It is essential to approach these matters with compassion, understanding, and a willingness to learn and grow together as a community.
The problem is figuring out who is at fault. It is often unclear, and the courts have a demonstrated bias that heavily favors females - especially around custody hours, assumptions of abusive behaviors, and earning abilities. No fault divorse might be too easy, but we got it because determining fault is often impossible.
A person's earning capacity is seriously impaired by the care of children. It is hardly fair for the person who absorbs the inconvenience of child raising, to be disadvantaged financially because of it. The mother who gains custody, gets to continue investing in her spouse's earning capacity, at the expense of her own. When a father gains custody, he unloads the inconvenience of the child's needs onto a stepmother.
Actually it was easily done. Divorce was in open court and reported in the newspapers. You could only divorce if there was a specific reason such as adultery, cruelty, insanity, incarceration etc. And proof was needed. Doctors reports of physical abuse, photographic or witness statements of a spouse, reports from a mental hospital, etc. No he said, she said, actual physical evidence of how the marriage was broken, and who was responsible.
@@victorialockheart5213 I was not aware of any Protestant church that punished divorce. The dominant Protestant church in my country was began so Henry 8 could divorce his wife and marry Ann Bolyn.
The prior legal/clerical arrangement wasn’t without a host of problems. “Proof” of the guilty party was often difficult or impossible to obtain. Then there’s the problem of determining what psychological and emotional effect upon the children if “proof’ is made public, or even private. Sorry, but for those of us who been there, there’s no simple and easy answers.
there is a simple awnser. The state has no business or ability to deiscern what is going on in a marrige. Making a pre-nup, having a solid plan for what happens if you hvae children and keeping your marrige well and healthy are all things that are very indivudal to your circumstances. And your responsibility. If anything maybe the state could provide more support for making pre-nup planes that involve the care for hypothetical children, but even that would probably not be easy as individual cirumstances vary to much
I disagree --- There is no such thing as a no-fault divorce --- there is always one party that gets faulted so the court can decide on the kids. You are living in a pipe dream if you think there is no fault in a family court when children are involved... The court has to make a decision on the children that means fault is declared Reply
@Ardent Enquirer you don't need grounds for divorce anymore. You used to have to prove there were grounds. It's called no fault divorce and every western country that has adopted these laws has seen a drastic increase in divorce rates ever since.
@@thewealthofnations4827 You miss understand what I am saying ... Yes it is called no-fault divorce ... but COURTS must have a reason for why the kids go here or there ... that is where the fault creeps in they must make one parent worst than the other to justify the court's decision on the children only You need to go listen to parents ...where joint custody is not acceptable according to one parent Your eyes will be opened
@@thewealthofnations4827 Why do you think Mick Jagger married Jerry Hall in Indonesia The marriage that was not a marriage ... the legal system in the WEST has created a scam that harms children I actually taught and preached man and women to never marry in the west Why do you think the birth rate is falling in the west it is one of the factors
I came from a broken marriage, mum decided to say with her Dad rather than her husband and me. I knew stuff was going on and it was relieved as the arguments were over. Fortunately I had siblings from my dad’s previous marriage, his wife died. I was lucky enough to meet hubby when we were 18, we took time to get to know each other and our families. I’ve been blessed with a 52 year marriage and two wonderful daughters. I didn’t realise until I had my own children that there is no way I would have walked out on them. We’ve had arguments, disagreements and money worries over the years, but we talked it through. Unfortunately it’s easy to walk away instead of working at a marriage. I feel for those who struggle on when their spouse loses interest. Especially a mother on her own who doesn’t get decent monitory income to look after their kids and keep a roof over their heads.
it's harder for single fathers ... there are a LOT less support agencies, groups etc for men ... and society in general expects men to cope and not ask for support
"Especially a mother on her own who doesn’t get decent monitory income" 100% NOPE. Women drive 80% of no fault divorces, these are women's choices, they deserve zero sympathy when it doesn't work out they way they hoped.
There is no such thing as a “ no fault” anything! Where there is conflict that BOTH parties fail to resolve then there is an “at fault” situation. It is not about laying or apportioning, it is about to resolve the conflict and move forward, together or separately.
two changes need to happen BEFORE marriage is safe. 1. FAULT divorce needs to at least be an option. 2. IMO no fault is actually a violation of the constitutions contract clause (i.e. the state is not supposed to create laws that ignores the obligation of contracts) but IF there is gonna be such a thing as no fault, it really needs to be NO FAULT. A no fault divorce is OVER in 6 months, alimony DOES NOT apply to no fault.
Finally something sensible. Fault has its flaws. No fault has its flaws. Anyone who wishes to file should be able to file accordingly and the outcome between fault vs no fault should be different as well.
Australia's Family Law Act of 1975, abolished the contract that protected the interests of the person who sacrifices her own earning capacity in order to bear and care for children. It is extremely dangerous for a woman to have children, when there is no legally binding marriage contract.
Even more dangerous for men who can loose access to their kids on a whim. The PM was sacked by the Queens representative but the legislation was never overturned. It's by far the worst thing to happen for father's, middle aged women, but especially children.
So if you take away no fault divorce that means lawyers will be trying cases rather than just doing paperwork. Wanna know what it costs for a lawyer to try a jury trial? Ask Rudy Giuliani…
I'm not getting married because no fault divorce exists. Im swearing off women, relationships, etc. I will not bring a child into the world, where their mom or dad can break up the marriage at the flip of a coin.
It might be called no fault divorce but what it really means is that your wife gets all of your money even though she was in breach of every letter of the marriage contract. In the UK when I got divorced, to get it though more quickly my wife lied about what had happened. Nobody cared about this. It become clear very quickly that this was considered standard practice. Nobody made any attempt to see if her claims were remotely reasonable. In the rare event that the wife has more money than the man, the law has that covered. There is an old law to stop people marrying to get the wife's wealth and then divorcing her. Modern lawyers are quire proud of themselves in using this to ensure that the woman still gets to keep all her money.
God marriage has been replaced with government marriage. Government marriage is designed to enslave the man to the woman by divorce court alimony and kidnappers ransom known as child support under penalty of prison if he refuses. The idea is that women will then vote for more tyrannical government as payment for their man slaves.
Guess what happened next? The Netherlands 2019 - a new law was passed reducing the maximum spousal support period from 15 years to 7 years. Once passed by the parliament the law was due to come into effect within a month or two. Any divorces filed before December 2019 would use the old system. Any filed after would use the new system. So what happened next? Of course the number of divorces filed before the deadline peaked, way above the same figure the previous year. The gender split of those filing? Over 90% female! What a surprise!
Marriage was never designed to be just between two people who can take it or leave it as they please. It was designed to be a stable commitment between two people, God, and society to form a bedrock of love, securitry, and care for the family and everyone in it. No fault divorce just ignores this with great destruction in its wake (even if you don't believe in the God part, the society part is still every bit as relevant). Historically, polygamous societies and societies without strong, stable marriages were more violent and less stable.
Only the party that has been wronged should be able to file. You don't get to break your promises and then say oh this isn't working because I broke my promises.
YOU are responsible for keeping your marrige well, for choosing a partner who wants this marrige. The states ONLY position is porviding a legal framwoek to enable the unique reltaionsip (of being married). What the state or anyone else sure af not have is any autority, knowlege, ability to decide whether people should be married or not. That one is decided by do they want to be married or not
And YOU are responsible for divoircing when you still feel some kind feelings for your spouse. With a pre-nup. With a defined plan before you marry on how to go about it if you have kids. So you can amicably co-parent.
So with No Fault Divorce, does that mean if the wife just randomly decides she wants to divorce me, simply because she's 'bored', that would ensure she doesn't get half of my money?
Don’t bother eliminating no fault divorce. That’s a losing battle. Make your state a 50-50 state. Time with kids is always split evenly as well as child support. Separation rates will plummet as the incentive is removed.
Apparently, it’s called a “Binding Financial Agreement”. Maybe, all those seeking to get married should first seek legal advice about such a document, how to write it in such a way to minimise the chances that it can get overridden in future by the court etc.
@@annsheridan12 Prenup is more of a "protection" than an "investment" IMHO. I see the benefit of it, but I'm not sure how it can "incentivise" marriage - as far as I'm aware, there are people out there who find it off-putting talking about wealth division before they get married. In any case, as you said, no fault incentivises divorces - even if a couple agree on prenup, they can always leave their marriage commitment as long as no fault allows them to do so.
Totally agree with not having a no-fault divorce, especially with kids. I also agree with children's rights, parents should be required to put the kid's needs before the adult's wants.
I can sense by your comment that you're saying it's best to divorce when its really just best for the parents to get their act together and stop being selfish@@Skyking6976
Married almost 30 years tried to make it work but my husband has a personality disorder and would never let me leave this means I can and its not good for kids to be In a toxic situation. Staying for the kids at the time you might think is better for them but they deserve to live with happy parents and if that means apart then sl be it.
@bloke who knows. It's the luck of the draw. Some people say a successful marriage is one that lasts 10 years...or long enough to raise children until they've finished high school.
Abuse at home causes more damage to kids than a peaceful and safe existence with a parent who provides for them. Glad you corrected yourself there. Family courts are on an equal footing with both parents even if one of the parents was an abusive criminal. Equal rights in the best interest of child. Johns right there.
"Can you believe conservatives want to make it ILLEGAL for a wife to leave her husband?" "Why should it be illegal for a man to separate from a woman without giving her half his assets and financing her lifestyle for the rest of his life?" "Well that's different, because.."
As a lifelong single, I’ve come to view marriage as too much of a risk. You give someone the power to destroy your life, with no consequences and you are powerless to prevent it. Add to that, the current doctrine that feelings are more important than facts, and marriage looks like a bad bet.
We teach young people that they are nuts to buy a car or a home without having insurance for them. But we never seem to talk about having insurance against a failed marriage or de facto relationship. By not having legally binding prenuptial agreements, the older you get, the more financially and emotionally damaging a failed relationship can be, due to the power of a court to apportion assets, maintenance, child custody and the cost of associated legal representation, in a legal process that can drag on for years. A person is wise to consider very carefully before getting in to a long term relationship. Maybe it would be wise to get legal advice before doing so, … as well as relationship counselling!
@@MaxFromSydney1 ... I tend to agree. Can we think of any other legal contract that can be ended so easily without consent of tbe other party and without penalty to the contract-breaker?
@@MaxFromSydney1prenup sounds good at first but ends up leading down a ridiculous path of trying to be 'fair'. If you support a spouse thru years of chemo or mental disorders should the prenup be adjusted if divorce happens after that? What if one spouse cheated? What about adjustments for Alzhemiers? Long periods of no intimacy? Emotional issues? Long term unemployment? Drinking? Drug use? When you share life intimately with someone and even have kids together, there is no way to make it 'fair'. The two have become one. Trying to make life fair will make it worse, like socialism. The only good design for marriage is complete commitment. Unfortunately, life is full of suffering. Otherwise, as Katie Faust says, you just pass your painful cross on to someone else.
Solution: Ban the "marriage" contract and replace it with a true reproduction contract. Before humans became "civilised" some 7000 years ago, we were NOT monogamous for life. Such a contract who ensure parental presence for the offspring, and enough money for quality food, shelter, sport, healthcare, etc, spell it out. Too many people marry for the heck of it, of for the reproductive perks marriage USED to be for. The marriage contract was never supposed to be about "love", it started off as a reproductive unit. Make it so again. And if things are rough, you know that the end comes soon anyway. People who want to reproduce together should enter reproductive contracts which automatically come to an end when last offspring reaches legal majority. Instead of a "pre-nup" is a reproductive nup.
Bearing and caring for children disadvantages women for the rest of their working lives. Children's needs are unpredictable and often inconvenient. But men have little understanding of the barriers that childcare imposes on mothers. Judges and lawyers, even female ones, have no understanding of what childcare does to women's careers. Because they have never done it.
Outstanding. President Ronald Reagan said that signing no-fault divorce into being was his BIGGEST REGRET from public office. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee once said that No-fault divorce was the WORST THING that ever happened to America. Thank you, Katy, for speaking out so forcefully on this issue.
Imagine being unable to disown your children? Imagine being unable to get out of your school loans? or your mortgage? Imagine being unable to get out of prison? Everyone should be able to do whatever they want. That would solve everything. /s
@@dnaphysics That argument is nonsensical. A better analogy would be, "Imagine being forced to physically live in an apartment after you sign a lease, even when you don't want to." And we're not talking about being charged a fee, or losing the security deposit... We're talking someone physically making you sleep in your apartment several times a week.
My 30 year marriage was destroyed by religious abusers. My husband left me a year after I was cast out of church due to the 'leaders' jealousy of my ministry gift and my husband was sick of their nonsense and told me to get a job. I was served my Divorce papers a year after that 9am on a Sunday morning on my Birthday, which I never signed. It was the last time I saw my youngest daughter 8 years ago. My other 2 children have blocked me and I'm the innocent partner. We had been state leaders of a parenting ministry and had beautiful children everyone loved, they would have been shocked. My husband went straight into another relationship. Jesus said that men divorce their wives because of the callousness of their hearts.
@@JeffCaplan313 My spiritual leader, Jesus called me into ministry. You must be part of the Jewish cult forming out of Israel, misogynistic fool. In fact the first person He Apostled was a women when his male disciples were clueless to who he was. There is neither Jew nor Aramaean, neither Servant nor Free person, neither male nor female, for all of you are one in Yeshua The Messiah. Gal. 3:23 Aramaic
The only problem is that we came from a reality where no-fault didn’t exist and still there were problems…forcing people to stay together who can’t work with each other usually leads to an abusive situation…I think the intent of the law is right but I think the real world implications will simply be less marriages and more lies used to get out of existing marriages… remember that’s why so many of king Henry’s wives lost their heads.. since he couldn’t divorce them killing them became the next available option
Because the Lord has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. “For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the Lord of hosts. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.” --Excerpt from Malachi chapter 2 NKJV
The government is already way too involved with family matters, what should have happened, which I did instigate through the Department of Justice is some sort of accountability for these churches who have no accountability for destroying people's lives. The Department sent three letters to three leaders of the 'church', two didn't respond and one refused mediation. The 'church' had already paid out damages for causing PTSD in a mature aged youth pastor. Perhaps if they lost their tax free benefits, that would have motivated them to get some help.
Without govt, marriages would have no legal benefits or rights. That means no marriage laws on property rights, burial rights, visitation rights, etc. Think before you speak
@@chriswatson1698 So what you want government to have more involvement in people's marriages? How does that make sense? Couples decide that on their own. Don't want that? Be smart about who you marry and actually work on your marriage. Don't cheat, don't lie and love your partner.
@@saltycat662 Why do you say that I want the government to get involved in people's marriages? My post makes no such suggestion. Governments only get involved in the end of marriages. The function of the Family Law Courts is to facilitate divorce on behalf of the partner who wants to cheat his spouse. I want the law to stop rewarding spouses who violate the terms of their marriage agreement. "Be smart when choosing your partner" What silly advice. No one can predict how another person will be in 10 year's time, let alone 20. And you certainly can't force them to treat you as you treat them. Look up "narcisism". American psychologists estimate that 20% of the population are narcisistic. There is a whole lot more to marriage than just a relationship. There is the investment of effort and years of your life, and the foregoing of other marital opportunities.
Marriage is safe. But the needs of a child are unpredictable and often inconvenient. Every time a woman asks an employer for time off work, to provide for her child's needs, she jeopardizes her own earning capacity. What men earn, they earn, because they don't jeopardize their careers for the sake of their own children. They are free to devote their time, thought and energy to acquiring experience and knowledge that is of value in the workplace. They benefit from the other spouse's child care role, for the rest of their working lives.
@@chriswatson1698 This is especially true for middle aged women whose kids have grown up. The husband can then use joint assets to attract a younger model. Fortunately I'm not speaking from experience but I've seen it happen to others.
Turns out that it doesn't matter who initiates, since by the time a divorce is served, it's clear both parties want out of the marriage. Men are more likely to want to stay in and be miserable, bc men are socialized to expect marriage to be a "life sentence" of misery with the old "ball & chain", whereas women are socialized to think of marriage in a romanticized way and therefore, she experiences a greater deal of disappointment. He is passively resigned to his circumstances and expects they'll just both suffer through it, while she is actively requesting more of his involvement in the relationship and her anguish builds off of his apathy. Often times these 2 contradicting expectations will clash and create a rift, but the largest aspect is that men are also socialized to be entitled beneficiaries of women's free labor. And it's only bc of the need to exploit these benefits, that most men will put up with the misery instead of leaving, whereas women grow increasingly frustrated at the unequal division of domestic & child labor - especially if she's also an exhausted career woman. So although he wants out, he'll stay tethered to her until she forces him off. There's also evidence that men will push women into breakups bc they don't want to appear as the "bad guy" amongst friends & family, or to future prospective partners. It's a political move, and so I typically ignore insinuations that women are the sole seekers of divorce, when there's much more nuance when actually combing through the process.
Intelligent men avoid women to avoid the drama and the trouble. American culture has rendered women undesirable and repulsive. But some men are slow learners.
Men have zero self awareness. Don't you see that women are now behaving like men have from the beginning of time? They're no longer worried about serving you, they serve themselves now. Men got a taste of their own medicine and they hate it. This is what happens when men don't lead in Godliness and get swept up in hedonism. When the men are lost, the women and children go astray.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย] - ช่วงบ่าย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M0S_ReCIkxg/mqdefault.jpg)
This excerpt struck home hard. Except for three years my mother lived within a few minutes drive of her parents. Those three years? My father had a high paying job that took her 90 minutes from her friends and family. Being close to her father was so important she destroyed her marriage and family. She destroyed her children's relationship with their father because of it. Her father - important. Our father - throw away. I have suffered 50 years of unspeakable loneliness and depression because of her narcissistic needs.
what does it mean " that took her 90 minutes from her friends and family." ? english is my 3rd language sorry.
Also if I understand, your mother put her father over you and her husband ? Terrible. Try to read books on healing from bad parents, it actually helped me, though my situation is different. Stay strong
I am asking because my mother is very invasive, and I realize I really need to put healthy boundaries. For the sake of my marriage
I have a question. Why do you say it was it your mother who destroyed the marriage? Your father knowingly did something that made your mother miserable. Why is it not equally his fault? Why was it on her to give in?
@@Fearlessly91 The father did not necessarily do anything wrong. She just "fell out of love" and she wanted out. In that case, he did nothing wrong. Your way, means the man must be constantly, constantly working 24-7 to make his wife happy at all times OR ELSE! That is wrong. If you feel that way then you must unlearn what you learned about marriage. Its very immature thinking.
And that's why I never got married and I'll never will.
I won't give the court the opportunity to ruin my life.
We don't want you getting married either. You probably wouldn't make the right choice in picking a mate, nor would you have the wisdom to teach your wife and your children about Love. A lot of men choose to destroy their bloodline over fear. In our society we don't want these types of men procreating, because their children will be useless because of their ignorant father. We think you made the right choice. I understand this sounds bad. The state is doing a wonderful job scaring the weak man off, and I think it's all part of God's plan. It take a wise man to guild his family to the finish line by setting the narrative and priorities.
Please. Only get married if you are ready to be a father and a husband. If your judgement has been compromised by immoral values and principles it would be best to not destroy other people's lives.
@@WilliamEllison Who are you?
Reads minds, determines IQ, predicts the future, makes a list of baseless assumptions and draws fictional conclusions out of them and all that based of what? two written sentences.
And with your arrogance and lack of modesty, how can I take your morals and values seriously?
At least I know how the pro-marriage people act...
@@WilliamEllison Yep, you're cucked.
God marriage has been replaced with government marriage. Government marriage is designed to enslave the man to the woman by divorce court alimony and kidnappers ransom known as child support under penalty of prison if he refuses. The idea is that women will then vote for more tyrannical government as payment for their man slaves.
That's good. One less immature husband and father.
Clearly another strategy of the war on the family.....started long ago and now we reap what we sow - at least I do. Thank you for this conversation.
Yep. Well said.
what war on family?backwards, middle ages, conspiracy theory, progress, blah blah....Just eas mcdolands, watch tv and dont ask questions.
So…if this was done “long ago” why are people just now saying spouses should be forced to stay together???
My parents divorced and it was an abuse situation. It was still hard for me even though I felt relief when my father left the home.
The problem is people focus on the worst cases of a divorce instead of the most common. Physical and emotional abuse make up a small part of actual reasons people file for divorce. The most common is that the divorce initiator emotionally grows apart from the other spouse.
Then there's the weaponisation of the kids to hurt the other party.
I've been married for 50 years this year, it's been pretty rocky at times but life itself is like that and just like life a marriage is made of compromise by both parties. If you think you are the one making all the compromises it's time to sit down and look at all the things your spouse does for you and the family, your spouse is probably feeling the same way.
REAGAN said passing no fault divorce was his greatest regret when he was governor of California
And the evangelicals and neo cons don’t get this.
@@tubalcain6874 why wouldn't they evangelicals and conservatives understand Reagan's quote about his biggest regret?? They can see its made divorce too easy and that destroys children and broken home lead to a broken family. Whats not to understand?
In Australia the PM who introduced it in 1975, was fired by the Queen and her representative. And yet no conservative government has ever changed it back.
I have a friend whos parents fell out of love about the time they were in high school, but made the adult descision to stay together and keep it to themselves for the sake of the kids. When the last one graduated high school and had a few years of university they sat everyone down and explained what was up. As adults the kids were much better equipped to process what was going on.
Grown up and married now, he is the only one of my friends who hasn't been through divorce, has a stable home, and kids who are doing well.
What does "falling out of love" really mean? I couldn't find any references to its true definition beyond pop culture. Perhaps this is why secular marriages often fail. Many believe that love is merely a feeling that can come and go.
Allow me to clarify in case you are married, as I wouldn't want you to leave your spouse over a change in emotions. Love is not simply a feeling you have every day; it is a choice. You can choose to love someone even if you don't feel it at the moment. Love involves action and choice, and it requires effort. It's not always easy, and it requires self-sacrifice.
If you can grasp this concept, you will understand the commitment you made to your spouse and to God. Many people enter into marriage with the mistaken belief that it is solely based on emotions, and once those emotions fade, they end up separating. Secular individuals should also apply this principle to their children. I implore you not to abandon your children if you happen to "fall out of love" with them. Please do not give them away or abandon them in any way.
@@WilliamEllison These people were very godly. Rural Virginians and very salt of the earth. Not "holy rollers" by any means, but very connected. They were well into their 40s - early 50s when this came about.
They just didn't have the same interests or passions anymore. They had grown old, and somewhat apart, acknowledged this, but at the same time made adult descisions around the family unit.
@@Mis-AdventureCH It is a commonly held belief that families who follow God grow closer together, and their bonds become stronger over time. However, there may be instances where families do not display the level of closeness and strength that is expected of God-fearing households. In such cases, it may be that the family was not as devoted to their faith as they proclaimed.
In Matthew 7:16, we are told that we will recognize individuals by their actions or "fruits." The scripture does not support the notion that the more Godly one becomes, the higher the likelihood of divorce. In fact, the opposite is true, as the Bible emphasizes the importance of the sanctity of marriage.
The Bible teaches us that over time, we can become better lovers by following its teachings. If an individual claims to be a Christian but chooses to pursue a divorce, it stands to reason that they may not have fully embraced the principles of their faith. This can be seen as a failure to honor the commitment made before God, which is considered a solemn and sacred vow.
It is essential to remember that the teachings of the Bible emphasize the importance of love, commitment, and sacrifice in relationships. These principles apply to all aspects of life, including marriage. By embracing these teachings and living them out in daily life, individuals can cultivate meaningful, long-lasting relationships that honor God and bring joy and fulfillment.
It is important to avoid making sweeping generalizations and judgments about individuals based on their faith.
Divorce is very rare in a God fearing family, and so called "godly families" that choose to divorce later on in their life proves only one thing: They not only grew apart from each other but also farther away from God's teachings. It is essential to approach these matters with compassion, understanding, and a willingness to learn and grow together as a community.
@@WilliamEllison And then there's humans.... These peopel were as decent as any "Christian" I've ever met.
How is "falling out of love" a breach of the marriage contract? This is an example of how ridiculous no fault divorce is.
John you're blessed to be in a wonderful marriage all these years and alot of what these ladies have said has gone way over your head.
John check out Peter Hitchens comments on no fault divorce. He agrees with Kathy Faust.
The problem is figuring out who is at fault. It is often unclear, and the courts have a demonstrated bias that heavily favors females - especially around custody hours, assumptions of abusive behaviors, and earning abilities. No fault divorse might be too easy, but we got it because determining fault is often impossible.
A person's earning capacity is seriously impaired by the care of children. It is hardly fair for the person who absorbs the inconvenience of child raising, to be disadvantaged financially because of it.
The mother who gains custody, gets to continue investing in her spouse's earning capacity, at the expense of her own.
When a father gains custody, he unloads the inconvenience of the child's needs onto a stepmother.
Actually it was easily done. Divorce was in open court and reported in the newspapers. You could only divorce if there was a specific reason such as adultery, cruelty, insanity, incarceration etc. And proof was needed. Doctors reports of physical abuse, photographic or witness statements of a spouse, reports from a mental hospital, etc. No he said, she said, actual physical evidence of how the marriage was broken, and who was responsible.
@@victorialockheart5213 I was not aware of any Protestant church that punished divorce. The dominant Protestant church in my country was began so Henry 8 could divorce his wife and marry Ann Bolyn.
Katie Faust is the best speaker on this
The prior legal/clerical arrangement wasn’t without a host of problems. “Proof” of the guilty party was often difficult or impossible to obtain. Then there’s the problem of determining what psychological and emotional effect upon the children if “proof’ is made public, or even private. Sorry, but for those of us who been there, there’s no simple and easy answers.
there is a simple awnser. The state has no business or ability to deiscern what is going on in a marrige. Making a pre-nup, having a solid plan for what happens if you hvae children and keeping your marrige well and healthy are all things that are very indivudal to your circumstances. And your responsibility. If anything maybe the state could provide more support for making pre-nup planes that involve the care for hypothetical children, but even that would probably not be easy as individual cirumstances vary to much
These ladies nailed it
I disagree --- There is no such thing as a no-fault divorce --- there is always one party that gets faulted so the court can decide on the kids.
You are living in a pipe dream if you think there is no fault in a family court when children are involved... The court has to make a decision on the children that means fault is declared
Reply
@Ardent Enquirer you don't need grounds for divorce anymore. You used to have to prove there were grounds. It's called no fault divorce and every western country that has adopted these laws has seen a drastic increase in divorce rates ever since.
@@thewealthofnations4827 You miss understand what I am saying ... Yes it is called no-fault divorce ... but COURTS must have a reason for why the kids go here or there ... that is where the fault creeps in they must make one parent worst than the other to justify the court's decision on the children only
You need to go listen to parents ...where joint custody is not acceptable according to one parent
Your eyes will be opened
@@thewealthofnations4827 This is why men and some women will not get married or have kids ... The courts and the lawyers are too political
@@thewealthofnations4827 Why do you think Mick Jagger married Jerry Hall in Indonesia
The marriage that was not a marriage ... the legal system in the WEST has created a scam that harms children
I actually taught and preached man and women to never marry in the west
Why do you think the birth rate is falling in the west it is one of the factors
I came from a broken marriage, mum decided to say with her Dad rather than her husband and me. I knew stuff was going on and it was relieved as the arguments were over. Fortunately I had siblings from my dad’s previous marriage, his wife died.
I was lucky enough to meet hubby when we were 18, we took time to get to know each other and our families. I’ve been blessed with a 52 year marriage and two wonderful daughters. I didn’t realise until I had my own children that there is no way I would have walked out on them. We’ve had arguments, disagreements and money worries over the years, but we talked it through.
Unfortunately it’s easy to walk away instead of working at a marriage.
I feel for those who struggle on when their spouse loses interest. Especially a mother on her own who doesn’t get decent monitory income to look after their kids and keep a roof over their heads.
it's harder for single fathers ... there are a LOT less support agencies, groups etc for men ... and society in general expects men to cope and not ask for support
"Especially a mother on her own who doesn’t get decent monitory income" 100% NOPE. Women drive 80% of no fault divorces, these are women's choices, they deserve zero sympathy when it doesn't work out they way they hoped.
@@pablorages1241dude don't compare the suffering. Have some decency.
@@slowdown7276 ...you know any single fathers?
No need for a "judgement" if no one is at fault...
There is no such thing as a “ no fault” anything!
Where there is conflict that BOTH parties fail to resolve then there is an “at fault” situation.
It is not about laying or apportioning, it is about to resolve the conflict and move forward, together or separately.
Forcing people to stay together is beyond sadistic
two changes need to happen BEFORE marriage is safe. 1. FAULT divorce needs to at least be an option. 2. IMO no fault is actually a violation of the constitutions contract clause (i.e. the state is not supposed to create laws that ignores the obligation of contracts) but IF there is gonna be such a thing as no fault, it really needs to be NO FAULT. A no fault divorce is OVER in 6 months, alimony DOES NOT apply to no fault.
Finally something sensible.
Fault has its flaws. No fault has its flaws.
Anyone who wishes to file should be able to file accordingly and the outcome between fault vs no fault should be different as well.
Australia's Family Law Act of 1975, abolished the contract that protected the interests of the person who sacrifices her own earning capacity in order to bear and care for children.
It is extremely dangerous for a woman to have children, when there is no legally binding marriage contract.
Even more dangerous for men who can loose access to their kids on a whim. The PM was sacked by the Queens representative but the legislation was never overturned. It's by far the worst thing to happen for father's, middle aged women, but especially children.
Which is worse giving up your earnings or giving up your children?
@@dnaphysicsmoney
"Divorce" became a lawyers' golden goose, that's why no-fault was brought in. Lawyers have too much control.
Cope harder
So if you take away no fault divorce that means lawyers will be trying cases rather than just doing paperwork. Wanna know what it costs for a lawyer to try a jury trial? Ask Rudy Giuliani…
I'm not getting married because no fault divorce exists. Im swearing off women, relationships, etc. I will not bring a child into the world, where their mom or dad can break up the marriage at the flip of a coin.
My wife and I take our vows very seriously.
If you do get divorced, please let us know here.
It might be called no fault divorce but what it really means is that your wife gets all of your money even though she was in breach of every letter of the marriage contract. In the UK when I got divorced, to get it though more quickly my wife lied about what had happened. Nobody cared about this. It become clear very quickly that this was considered standard practice. Nobody made any attempt to see if her claims were remotely reasonable. In the rare event that the wife has more money than the man, the law has that covered. There is an old law to stop people marrying to get the wife's wealth and then divorcing her. Modern lawyers are quire proud of themselves in using this to ensure that the woman still gets to keep all her money.
God marriage has been replaced with government marriage. Government marriage is designed to enslave the man to the woman by divorce court alimony and kidnappers ransom known as child support under penalty of prison if he refuses. The idea is that women will then vote for more tyrannical government as payment for their man slaves.
Guess what happened next?
The Netherlands 2019 - a new law was passed reducing the maximum spousal support period from 15 years to 7 years. Once passed by the parliament the law was due to come into effect within a month or two. Any divorces filed before December 2019 would use the old system. Any filed after would use the new system.
So what happened next? Of course the number of divorces filed before the deadline peaked, way above the same figure the previous year. The gender split of those filing? Over 90% female! What a surprise!
Marriage was never designed to be just between two people who can take it or leave it as they please. It was designed to be a stable commitment between two people, God, and society to form a bedrock of love, securitry, and care for the family and everyone in it. No fault divorce just ignores this with great destruction in its wake (even if you don't believe in the God part, the society part is still every bit as relevant). Historically, polygamous societies and societies without strong, stable marriages were more violent and less stable.
You said well what I wanted to say but couldn’t figure out the words for. 😆
It was designed as a way to transfer wealth and property.
Victim-blaming, just as in domestic violence cases. And since the mother often has less income, the wealthier one wins.
No fault divorce has ruined marriage and has messed up our kids.
Only the party that has been wronged should be able to file. You don't get to break your promises and then say oh this isn't working because I broke my promises.
Anyway Divorce is GREAT.
YOU are responsible for keeping your marrige well, for choosing a partner who wants this marrige. The states ONLY position is porviding a legal framwoek to enable the unique reltaionsip (of being married). What the state or anyone else sure af not have is any autority, knowlege, ability to decide whether people should be married or not. That one is decided by do they want to be married or not
And YOU are responsible for divoircing when you still feel some kind feelings for your spouse. With a pre-nup. With a defined plan before you marry on how to go about it if you have kids. So you can amicably co-parent.
So with No Fault Divorce, does that mean if the wife just randomly decides she wants to divorce me, simply because she's 'bored', that would ensure she doesn't get half of my money?
Don’t bother eliminating no fault divorce. That’s a losing battle.
Make your state a 50-50 state. Time with kids is always split evenly as well as child support.
Separation rates will plummet as the incentive is removed.
No fault incentives divorce, but a prenup can incentivize marriage.
Only millionaires do that
@@blokeVB anyone can do it, it’s a wonderful investment.
Apparently, it’s called a “Binding Financial Agreement”.
Maybe, all those seeking to get married should first seek legal advice about such a document, how to write it in such a way to minimise the chances that it can get overridden in future by the court etc.
@@annsheridan12 Prenup is more of a "protection" than an "investment" IMHO. I see the benefit of it, but I'm not sure how it can "incentivise" marriage - as far as I'm aware, there are people out there who find it off-putting talking about wealth division before they get married.
In any case, as you said, no fault incentivises divorces - even if a couple agree on prenup, they can always leave their marriage commitment as long as no fault allows them to do so.
@@uberboiz the point is that the reward ,incentive, for divorce is greatly reduced with a prenup.
100% agree.
Anyone can exit the relationship at any time 😂. Women pick then leave 😂
Now the Wife can go with Chad without taking 50~85% of money on divorce.
That X-Wing art tho
If someone is staying with you because they HAVE TO, what is wrong with you that your wish to force then to stay?
Totally agree with not having a no-fault divorce, especially with kids. I also agree with children's rights, parents should be required to put the kid's needs before the adult's wants.
So what happens when the kids are exposed to parents yelling and being mean to each other on a daily basis?
then they should be grown ups and stop doing those things@@Skyking6976
I can sense by your comment that you're saying it's best to divorce when its really just best for the parents to get their act together and stop being selfish@@Skyking6976
Married almost 30 years tried to make it work but my husband has a personality disorder and would never let me leave this means I can and its not good for kids to be In a toxic situation. Staying for the kids at the time you might think is better for them but they deserve to live with happy parents and if that means apart then sl be it.
2 marriages, both cheated. Sorry ladies and gents, I'm out.
Bad choices ? Or bad 🐈
@bloke who knows. It's the luck of the draw. Some people say a successful marriage is one that lasts 10 years...or long enough to raise children until they've finished high school.
Abuse at home causes more damage to kids than a peaceful and safe existence with a parent who provides for them. Glad you corrected yourself there.
Family courts are on an equal footing with both parents even if one of the parents was an abusive criminal.
Equal rights in the best interest of child.
Johns right there.
"Can you believe conservatives want to make it ILLEGAL for a wife to leave her husband?"
"Why should it be illegal for a man to separate from a woman without giving her half his assets and financing her lifestyle for the rest of his life?"
"Well that's different, because.."
Will they ever make it illegal for a man to abandon the children he chooses to create?
As a lifelong single, I’ve come to view marriage as too much of a risk. You give someone the power to destroy your life, with no consequences and you are powerless to prevent it.
Add to that, the current doctrine that feelings are more important than facts, and marriage looks like a bad bet.
We teach young people that they are nuts to buy a car or a home without having insurance for them.
But we never seem to talk about having insurance against a failed marriage or de facto relationship.
By not having legally binding prenuptial agreements, the older you get, the more financially and emotionally damaging a failed relationship can be, due to the power of a court to apportion assets, maintenance, child custody and the cost of associated legal representation, in a legal process that can drag on for years.
A person is wise to consider very carefully before getting in to a long term relationship. Maybe it would be wise to get legal advice before doing so, … as well as relationship counselling!
@@MaxFromSydney1 ... I tend to agree. Can we think of any other legal contract that can be ended so easily without consent of tbe other party and without penalty to the contract-breaker?
@@MaxFromSydney1prenup sounds good at first but ends up leading down a ridiculous path of trying to be 'fair'. If you support a spouse thru years of chemo or mental disorders should the prenup be adjusted if divorce happens after that? What if one spouse cheated? What about adjustments for Alzhemiers? Long periods of no intimacy? Emotional issues? Long term unemployment? Drinking? Drug use?
When you share life intimately with someone and even have kids together, there is no way to make it 'fair'. The two have become one.
Trying to make life fair will make it worse, like socialism. The only good design for marriage is complete commitment.
Unfortunately, life is full of suffering. Otherwise, as Katie Faust says, you just pass your painful cross on to someone else.
@@dnaphysicsSo…what’s wrong with a prenup? BTW a prenup completely negates the OP comment 😏
Solution: Ban the "marriage" contract and replace it with a true reproduction contract. Before humans became "civilised" some 7000 years ago, we were NOT monogamous for life. Such a contract who ensure parental presence for the offspring, and enough money for quality food, shelter, sport, healthcare, etc, spell it out. Too many people marry for the heck of it, of for the reproductive perks marriage USED to be for. The marriage contract was never supposed to be about "love", it started off as a reproductive unit. Make it so again. And if things are rough, you know that the end comes soon anyway.
People who want to reproduce together should enter reproductive contracts which automatically come to an end when last offspring reaches legal majority. Instead of a "pre-nup" is a reproductive nup.
Bearing and caring for children disadvantages women for the rest of their working lives.
Children's needs are unpredictable and often inconvenient. But men have little understanding of the barriers that childcare imposes on mothers. Judges and lawyers, even female ones, have no understanding of what childcare does to women's careers. Because they have never done it.
Marriage Police. The world just gets "better" ever day folks.
Outstanding. President Ronald Reagan said that signing no-fault divorce into being was his BIGGEST REGRET from public office. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee once said that No-fault divorce was the WORST THING that ever happened to America.
Thank you, Katy, for speaking out so forcefully on this issue.
As an Arkansas preacher in the mold of those Duggars where the husband by God rules with an iron fist, I can see him saying such a thing.
Marriage is a commitment to ongoing civilisation.
So we should force people to stay married. Got it.
I love this.
This is crazy. Imagine being unable to divorce someone.
That's what republicans ultimately want. They want a bird, in a cage, that sings on command, and takes its lickings.
Imagine being unable to disown your children?
Imagine being unable to get out of your school loans? or your mortgage? Imagine being unable to get out of prison?
Everyone should be able to do whatever they want. That would solve everything. /s
@@dnaphysics That argument is nonsensical. A better analogy would be, "Imagine being forced to physically live in an apartment after you sign a lease, even when you don't want to." And we're not talking about being charged a fee, or losing the security deposit... We're talking someone physically making you sleep in your apartment several times a week.
It's funny how the party of "freedom" doesn't really care about the freedom of anyone who isn't a straight, white man.
Brilliant
Just forget marriage entirely if you want to make it so easy to leave without consequences.
My 30 year marriage was destroyed by religious abusers. My husband left me a year after I was cast out of church due to the 'leaders' jealousy of my ministry gift and my husband was sick of their nonsense and told me to get a job. I was served my Divorce papers a year after that 9am on a Sunday morning on my Birthday, which I never signed. It was the last time I saw my youngest daughter 8 years ago. My other 2 children have blocked me and I'm the innocent partner. We had been state leaders of a parenting ministry and had beautiful children everyone loved, they would have been shocked. My husband went straight into another relationship. Jesus said that men divorce their wives because of the callousness of their hearts.
There's a reason witches are persecuted. Jesus didn't allow women to teach him, why did you presume to know better than your spiritual leader, woman?
@@JeffCaplan313 I'm not a witch. Witchcraft is a work of religion, not a fruit of The Holy Spirit, it has nothing to do with gender.
@@JeffCaplan313 My spiritual leader, Jesus called me into ministry. You must be part of the Jewish cult forming out of Israel, misogynistic fool. In fact the first person He Apostled was a women when his male disciples were clueless to who he was.
There is neither Jew nor Aramaean, neither Servant nor Free person, neither male nor female, for all of you are one in Yeshua The Messiah. Gal. 3:23 Aramaic
Jw is a cult
When no fault divorce was implemented, the suicide rate for women went down 20%.
Of course, this isn't mentioned at all here.
HOW ENDING NO FAULT DIVORCE COULD LEAD TO LESS MARRIAGES 🤯
th-cam.com/video/y9JZwVzuXQ8/w-d-xo.html
These are secular related issues.. Christian's marry for life and understand the consequences of divorce in the eyes of God.
The only problem is that we came from a reality where no-fault didn’t exist and still there were problems…forcing people to stay together who can’t work with each other usually leads to an abusive situation…I think the intent of the law is right but I think the real world implications will simply be less marriages and more lies used to get out of existing marriages… remember that’s why so many of king Henry’s wives lost their heads.. since he couldn’t divorce them killing them became the next available option
My understanding is with “no fault divorce” there are no “lies” that have to be told. That’s the whole point.
@@Skyking6976 exactly, that’s removing no fault simply brings back the impetus to lie rather than stay in an unhappy marriage
Women initiate divorce 80% of the time... I wonder who benefits from "no fault" divorce.
Еxactly! They refer to these changes as "war against women" yet they apply to men as well!
Because the Lord has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
“For the Lord God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
“Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.” --Excerpt from Malachi chapter 2 NKJV
The government is already way too involved with family matters, what should have happened, which I did instigate through the Department of Justice is some sort of accountability for these churches who have no accountability for destroying people's lives. The Department sent three letters to three leaders of the 'church', two didn't respond and one refused mediation. The 'church' had already paid out damages for causing PTSD in a mature aged youth pastor. Perhaps if they lost their tax free benefits, that would have motivated them to get some help.
I will never co habitate or marriage or common law defacto, its too easy for a gold digger take your money
Make sure that you don't start children then.
Love no fault divorce... FRirst wife was horrible bith... sooo glad im rid of her....
Tim Pool's The Culture War brought me here.
Why is marriage a part of government to begin with? The government shouldn't take sides or be involved in anyone's personal life.
Governments AREN'T involved in marriages. The government only gets involved when one or more of the spouses want to violate their marriage vows.
Without govt, marriages would have no legal benefits or rights.
That means no marriage laws on property rights, burial rights, visitation rights, etc. Think before you speak
Marriage vows can't be broken. Only violated. If you must divorce, remain single as per the bible's instructions.
Don't get married
No fault divorce is one of the factors causing Australia's low birth rate.
@@chriswatson1698 So what you want government to have more involvement in people's marriages? How does that make sense? Couples decide that on their own. Don't want that? Be smart about who you marry and actually work on your marriage. Don't cheat, don't lie and love your partner.
@@saltycat662 Why do you say that I want the government to get involved in people's marriages? My post makes no such suggestion.
Governments only get involved in the end of marriages. The function of the Family Law Courts is to facilitate divorce on behalf of the partner who wants to cheat his spouse.
I want the law to stop rewarding spouses who violate the terms of their marriage agreement.
"Be smart when choosing your partner" What silly advice. No one can predict how another person will be in 10 year's time, let alone 20. And you certainly can't force them to treat you as you treat them. Look up "narcisism". American psychologists estimate that 20% of the population are narcisistic.
There is a whole lot more to marriage than just a relationship. There is the investment of effort and years of your life, and the foregoing of other marital opportunities.
Marriage is safe. But the needs of a child are unpredictable and often inconvenient. Every time a woman asks an employer for time off work, to provide for her child's needs, she jeopardizes her own earning capacity.
What men earn, they earn, because they don't jeopardize their careers for the sake of their own children. They are free to devote their time, thought and energy to acquiring experience and knowledge that is of value in the workplace. They benefit from the other spouse's child care role, for the rest of their working lives.
@@chriswatson1698 This is especially true for middle aged women whose kids have grown up. The husband can then use joint assets to attract a younger model. Fortunately I'm not speaking from experience but I've seen it happen to others.
Well we all know who initiates divorce and why. That, or they stop being intimate and give you no other choice. Accountability is hard for some.
Turns out that it doesn't matter who initiates, since by the time a divorce is served, it's clear both parties want out of the marriage. Men are more likely to want to stay in and be miserable, bc men are socialized to expect marriage to be a "life sentence" of misery with the old "ball & chain", whereas women are socialized to think of marriage in a romanticized way and therefore, she experiences a greater deal of disappointment.
He is passively resigned to his circumstances and expects they'll just both suffer through it, while she is actively requesting more of his involvement in the relationship and her anguish builds off of his apathy. Often times these 2 contradicting expectations will clash and create a rift, but the largest aspect is that men are also socialized to be entitled beneficiaries of women's free labor. And it's only bc of the need to exploit these benefits, that most men will put up with the misery instead of leaving, whereas women grow increasingly frustrated at the unequal division of domestic & child labor - especially if she's also an exhausted career woman.
So although he wants out, he'll stay tethered to her until she forces him off. There's also evidence that men will push women into breakups bc they don't want to appear as the "bad guy" amongst friends & family, or to future prospective partners. It's a political move, and so I typically ignore insinuations that women are the sole seekers of divorce, when there's much more nuance when actually combing through the process.
DONT GET MARRIED!
Intelligent men avoid women to avoid the drama and the trouble. American culture has rendered women undesirable and repulsive. But some men are slow learners.
Men have zero self awareness. Don't you see that women are now behaving like men have from the beginning of time? They're no longer worried about serving you, they serve themselves now. Men got a taste of their own medicine and they hate it. This is what happens when men don't lead in Godliness and get swept up in hedonism. When the men are lost, the women and children go astray.