Wednesday, August 11, 2010

There is No Sanctity of Marriage to Preserve

No, I have not abandoned this blog.  I just lost interest in blogging for a while.  I intend to post regularly from now on.

A week ago, a federal judge struck down California's Prop 8.  The subsequent conservative reaction to gay judge Vaughn Walker's ruling demonstrates how worthless modern conservatives are.

Since August 4, conservatives have been clamoring louder than usual about defending marriage and preserving its sanctity.  There's just one problem: marriage in 2010 America is not worth defending.  Thanks to no-fault divorce, something conservatives (except the ones who read blogs like this) never criticize anymore, marriage can essentially be unilaterally be ended by the wife (yes, that wasn't a gender neutral statement, but most divorces are initiated by wives) who will end up with half of the marital assets (read: her husband's money), alimony, and custody of the children with their accompanying child support.

Considering that half of all marriages end in divorce, calling marriage sacred is a sick joke.  I fail to see how gay people marrying each other could make it any worse.


  1. If there IS a threat to marriage, it seems that it is not so much the Gays as it is the current feminist version of 'marriage' as it is presently practiced -- where the woman marries the man, later divorces him, legally kidnaps his children, smears his reputation with false charges of all kinds, and steals nearly everything he has and will earn in the future (with the full approval and assistance of the government, to boot!)
    If anything, the current furor over Gay Marriage seems ridiculous, like a red herring that draws attention away from the present injustices in divorce that severely punish the husband...
    On second thought, maybe the best way to kill the idea of Gay Marriage would be to let the gays marry, and THEN have them go through the wringer of "no-fault" Gay Divorce! Turn the divorce industry loose on the Gay community and let it do to the gays what it has done to hetero husbands, and then the idea of Gay Marriage will probably become anathema.
    The only foreseeable problem with this scenario is...which of the two gay partners is going to get assigned the role of 'husband'? (Maybe the one with the greatest amount of money?)

  2. "The only foreseeable problem with this scenario is...which of the two gay partners is going to get assigned the role of 'husband'?" - Ping Jockey

    Well, that's where the marriage analogy ends. A settlement ending a gay marriage couldn't be influenced by anti-straight or anti-male bias.

    Conservatives have a very strong emotional attachment to old-fashioned marriage. It's like the respect people have for their dead ancestors - I'm talking about those kinds of respect being related, not just analogous.

    Conservatives would be better off trying to end no-fault divorce (through ballot measure), as well as open marriages and infidelity (through civic action - a change in attitudes), than to try to stop gay marriage.

  3. The issue isn't really about gay marriage, or at least it shouldn't be. It's about the ability of states to make their own laws defining the terms of marriage. Marriage is not a federally protected constitutional right. It is a religious custom that was codified into law by various states with differing terms for each state. A federal judge should not be able to overrule a state's constitutional referendum simply because he doesn't like the law. The idea that denying officially recognized marriage status to gays somehow denies equal protection under the law is absurd because gay marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage. To say as much, you would have to say that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, which it clearly isn't. There would be a stronger case against denying incestuous marriage, yet I don't see anyone championing that cause.

  4. I agree. Marriage is dying.

    The bigger story was that the ruling revealed who is running the country. The voters of CA said no. A judge said yes, in part because it was in the "interests of CA." Apparently the voters are not to be consulted in determining the interests of the state.

    The elites are firmly in control. If you doubted it before, it's not possible to doubt now.

  5. New York doesn't allow no-fault divorce, and it doesn't make NY a better place to live, it just creates more work for divorce lawyers.

    Under community property theory, which I prefer over the older theory, all money earned during the marriage belongs to each partner 50/50, but any money people had before they got married, and they didn't comingle, they can keep for themselves. This is fair enough.

    When determining custody of children, judges determine what's in the best interest of the child. It's strange for someone who believes in HBD to argue that mothers aren't better with raising children than fathers.

    The law has always been like this, but there used to be strong social stigmas against divorce so it didn't happen. You can't blame the legal system because social customs have changed in a bad way. But feel free to blame liberals and the media if you'd like.

  6. My passion for blogging comes and goes too.

  7. Your point is well made about marriage being a dead institution in the USA. When I discuss marriage with conservatives, they seem to have some idea that we are still living back in the 1950s. They do not quite get the point that the world which they are trying to salvage has long since been overrun by barbarians.

    When determining custody of children, judges determine what's in the best interest of the child.

    "Best interests of the child" are usually code words for taking away the rights of adults in general, and men in particular.

    For the best interests of liberty, we ought to be tossing a lot of judges into the hoosegow!