Tag Archives: Family Court

Podcasts

Jennifer Roback Morse podcasts on same-sex marriage and prop 8

1 Comment
Cloning her would solve the marriage problem
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

From the Ruth Institute podcast page.

An update on the federal trial on California’s Proposition 8

The MP3 file is here. (from 1/19/2010)

Topics:

  • what is the prop 8 federal court trial about?
  • what is at stake in the prop 8 trial?
  • what is the only argument in favor of SSM?
  • what is the purpose of marriage?
  • what is the end goal of the marriage redefiners?
  • what would happen if sexual orientation were protected like race?
  • what happens to people today who disagree with SSM?
  • does SSM diminish the biological basis for assigning parenthood?

Reponding to Ted Olson’s pro-SSM arguments:

  • traditional marriage violate the Equal Protection clause
  • people have a right to demand respect from other people
  • children don’t need a mother and father
  • there are no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples

Understanding same-sex marriage

The MP3 file is here. (from 1/21/2010)

Topics:

  • how did Dr. J get interested in the marriage issue?
  • what got the pro-marriage Prop 8 movement started?
  • what do we know about the federal judge in the prop 8 trial?
  • how will the school curriculum change if SSM becomes legal?
  • how same-sex unions are a stepping stone to legalizing SSM
  • how SSM empowers the state to regulate private relationships
  • children have a right to a relationship with their parents
  • how SSM threatens the rights of free speech and association
  • how the purpose of SSM differs than the purpose of TM
  • how SSM expands the state’s power to coerce individuals
  • how the province of Quebec opposes heterosexuality as normal
  • SSM’s goal is the elimination of sex differences
  • how the SSM agenda is an extension of third-wave feminism

Wonderful stuff. I really, really like listening to her talk about these things!

Dr. J’s wonderful blog is here.  Please give it a visit! She has really been writing a lot of her own thoughts into her posts lately. It’s very fun and engaging!

It’s too bad that more single women don’t talk about the things that Dr. J talks about. Do you know what single Christian men think of when a single Christian woman comes along and starts talking about the role of husband/father, marriage and children? He thinks about marriage and children, of course, and it’s fun to talk about things like that.

News

Marriage under attack by the left in Australia and India

Leave a comment

From The Australian, separation between biological parents and child custody. (H/T Thoughts Out Loud)

Excerpt:

A homosexual couple has been granted leave to appear before the Family Court in a bid to gain access to a girl who isn’t biologically related to either of them.

The men, who cannot be named, have successfully argued that they are important people in the life of the three-year-old.

The girl, who likewise cannot be named, was not conceived with sperm from either of the men. But her mother was, until last year, in a same-sex relationship with another woman who does have a child conceived with one of the men’s sperm.

Do children have a right to be raised by their biological parents? Shouldn’t we be enacting child-friendly policies? In Australia, it seems as though the needs of adults are trumping the needs of the children.

And from The Hindu, men are suffering discrimination by the feminist state.

Excerpt:

Mr. Zaveri claimed that 98 per cent of all domestic violence cases were found to be baseless and false. He said: “We stand by the women who file genuine cases. But these laws, made for Sitas, have been cashed in on by Surpanakhas. Many women misuse these laws to exact alimony from their husbands. We are instead in favour of sponsoring professional courses for wives so that they become self-sufficient after parting from their husbands.”

Jaspreet Singh, a member of the IFF, said that he had to give 50 per cent of his salary to his wife as alimony, while she herself earned 50 per cent of his salary. The amount was huge considering that their marriage had lasted only a year and they had not had any children.

Dr. Sandeep Padwale, another member of the organisation, said that his wife was employed but had claimed to be otherwise in her affidavit. The emotional turmoil had cost him his job.

In order to address the problem of false cases, the men demanded a provision for punishment for all those misusing the law. They said that there should be a separate section in the IPC to safeguard the rights of men who were victims of the misuse of domestic violence laws. They also demanded the formation of a Ministry of Men’s Welfare “as it would take care of the very originator and contributor of the tax to the government.”

Mr. Zaveri said that the most basic problem encountered by men was that the police did not register cases against their wives. As a result there were no statistics regarding the number of men suffering because of false cases of domestic violence.

Indian men should consider avoiding marriage. Once discriminatory divorce laws are passed, it just becomes too risky for men to make any kind of legal commitment to women. Why can’t women understand how victimizing men with high taxes and punitive laws discourages men from marrying at all? The best way to avoid a bad man is to choose to marry a good man.

Commentary

Jennifer Roback Morse evaluates the economics of no-fault divorce

9 Comments

Her post is here on the Ruth Institute blog.

Dr. J talks about the famous actor Alec Baldwin, and his experiences with the family court system in Los Angeles. She then transitions into some commentary on the work of Dr. Stephen Baskerville.

Excerpt:

Baldwin does not discuss the ease of divorce ushered by the no-fault divorce revolution. Like most Americans, Baldwin has probably made peace with no-fault divorce, believing easy divorce to be an enhancement of individual liberty. But Baldwin’s story of his life after Basinger decided she had no use for him illustrates that the opposite is more true. Easy divorce opens the door for an unprecedented amount of government intrusion into ordinary people’s lives.

…enforcing the divorce means an unprecedented blurring of the boundaries between public and private life. People under the jurisdiction of family courts can have virtually all of their private lives subject to its scrutiny. If the courts are influenced by feminist ideology, that ideology can extend its reach into every bedroom and kitchen in America. Baldwin ran the gauntlet of divorce industry professionals who have been deeply influenced by the feminist presumptions that the man is always at fault and the woman is always a victim. Thus, the social experiment of no-fault divorce, which most Americans thought was supposed to increase personal liberty, has had the consequence of empowering the state.

And then things get really interesting:

Some might think the legacy of no-fault divorce is an example of the law of unintended consequences in operation. That assumes its architects did not intend for unilateral divorce to result in the expansion of the state. But Baskerville makes the case in this book—as well as his 2008 monograph, “The Dangerous Rise of Sexual Politics,” in THE FAMILY IN AMERICA—that at least some of the advocates of changes in family law certainly have intended to expand the power of the state over the private lives of law-abiding citizens.

Who are these people? They are the Marxists, who call themselves advocates of women: the feminists. Unbeknownst to the general public, the Marxists have had marriage in their cross-hairs from the very beginning.

[…] The goal is to return women into “social production” outside the home, where they can be completely independent of the oppression of men. This of course, requires the collective rearing of children. It also requires the obliteration of the distinction between the private sphere of the home and the public reach of the law.

Click here to read the rest. You know you want to!

It is especially important for unmarried women to understand how no-fault divorce laws and activist family courts dissuade men from marrying. My concern today is that the feminist ideology has become so entrenched that young women will drag themselves through the muck of the sexual revolution without even reflecting on how a string of drunken hook-ups destroys their innocence, vulnerability and capacity to trust and love.

This is not just bad for men, who will increasingly face financial ruin, and loss of access to their own children. No-fault divorce opens the door to totalitarian control of men, women and children by the state. Women who wish to marry and have children will find it increasingly difficult to find men willing to take the risk of marrying and raising children. Women need to consider the incentives created by a Marxist-feminist state.

I recommend to every man considering marriage to spend at least one day listening to family court trials. Then ask yourself. Is it worth it? Marriage may have made sense before feminism, but it makes no sense now. Why take the risk of being financially destroyed, separated from your own children, and possibly imprisoned? Wait until women turn away from feminism and clean up their mess. The risks are too great.