May 192012

This was said at Dalrock’s:

Too few people are questioning the very obvious problem that the institution that conducts the marriage is not the same institution that conducts divorces. The two have no relation. How can so few people see the obvious problems with this.

So either the church should handle divorces, or the courts should handle the marital contract (which would itself make the lopsided arrangement far more clear to the man).

Also, if the church is not at least lobbying hard for this, that means they are either not serious about keeping the institution of marriage alive, or are too stupid to even grasp the dynamics.

That is why the focus on gay marriage is more irritating than anything else. They actually believe *that* is a threat to marriage. Rather, it is like firing a bullet into a corpse that has already been dead for a year.

This is very true.  When people get married, they go to a church (or some other place that isn’t a courthouse) and only give minimal thought to the legal side of it.  When they get divorced, they go to the courthouse and maybe later think about the religious side like getting an annulment (if that’s even relevant).  The primary institution of marriage to most people is not the law/courts/government, but for divorce it is.  This is why to solve the problem of rampant female initiated divorce, the solution must deal with the law/courts/government.  Tradcons and socons refuse to get this so they try to fight this as a culture war issue which leaves them fighting a useless war against gay marriage.  They ignore the fact that the biggest threat to marriage is female initiated divorce a lot of which is done by churchgoing Christian women.

  18 Responses to “Not The Same Institution”

  1. YES YES YES!!!

  2. The problem is that the law/courts/government are masked when one gets married.

    One’s vicar is actually an agent of Caesar when conducting a marriage; that people don’t fully realize this is as much a fault of their own as it is the clergy who voluntarily carry water for Caesar in God’s (or increasingly, god’s) house.

    You also mentioned the marriage contract. There is a contract of sorts being agreed to by men when they marry, and that is to enter into a 3-way agreement with a woman and the state for his unlimited liability with no enforceable reciprocation. Ordinarily this lack of equity would invalidate a contract, but the marriage contract isn’t really a contract, nor can it be, so no issue of defect on this point.

    Last, I agree completely that homogamy is merely a red herring, a stick that socon dogs happily chase down because it relieves them of the duty to think hard about why marriage is on the rocks in the West. The issue is easy divorce, and at the moment is it female initiated because of the undeniable advantages and financial windfall that accrue from doing so.

    • @Elusive Wapiti

      Excellent comment … could you elaborate on why a marriage contract isnt really a contract, for those who dont understand contract law …


      • Reaching back 20-odd years to my undergrad Law 301 course, and I’m certain the barristers in the audience will be happy to correct my facts if I jam them up, but IIRC contracts need three elements to be valid:

        1. Consent of both parties
        2. Enumerated dut(ies) to perform
        3. Equity for both parties, i.e., a contract that benefits both parties in a balanced manner.

        It is points 2 and 3 where I consider a marriage ‘contract’ to be not a contract at all, nor can it ever be, nor do I think we would really *want* it to be. Briefly, it is not possible to list out the duties that one spouse should/must perform for the other, and marriage is characterized by potentially infinite liability to another parter.

        • From my understanding …

          The main problem with marriage contracts, is the lack of liability on the womans part

          & the fact she can get out of the contract at any time, without any penalty, while the man shoulders all the liability & financial source

        • The above lack of liability & the lack of liability or penalty for a woman to uphold the contract, not only makes a marriage certificate worthless

          But it also makes the contract illegal, as a contract without liability & responsibility to uphold the terms of the contract, no longer has any terms to dictate, or a valid contract between two parties

        • It’s as EW says, both parties have to have the ability to contract, and the contract won’t be enforced if, in extreme cases, it is overly one-sided.

          Family law, of course, doesn’t really view marriage as a contract, but as a statutory relationship you “opt into” when you decide to get married. You basically are opting in to a body of statutory and judicial law that governs your relationship with your wife, just like you are opting into a body of statutory and judicial law that applies to property when you own real estate, that applies to driving a car when you drive a car and so on. In fact, it’s probably closer to driving than anything else, because it is considered a privilege granted by the state in the form of a license, and one which can be revoked at any time based on rules made by the state, which can themselves be changed at any time.

        • Two more things missing:

          i/ Certainty: what the contract covers

          ii/ Consideration: what each party is contributing

          Instead, we have an open-ended commitment for just one party, while the other isn’t required to do… well, anything really. Who’d ever sign that?

        • I agree with the above …

          But it doesnt change anything, all laws & statutes are contractual …

          That is they have to be agree’d on by both parties & have equal liability …

          This also makes all laws & statutes voluntary …

          Which is WHY all laws & statutes are enforced by imprisonment & the police …

          IF all laws WERENT contractual & both parties equally liable, you wouldnt be able to challenge the terms of the law or statute & defend yourself in court

          Plus you have the human rights courts & supreme courts, to appeal the terms of the law or statute

          Which is wha ALL MRA’s should be doing

          Marriage contracts & child support are violations of human rights AND basic contract law

  3. In Israel, divorce is handled by Rabbinical Courts.

    • As bad as Sharia Courts

      • That depends. And if yiu are a man, i suspect youd be better off in a sharia court.

        Think about it.

      • The proper solution in any case is something much more radical than rabbinic or sharia courts woild accept

        1. Abdolutely No rights or responsibilities to the man for fathering a child out of wedlock

        2. All roghts and responsibilities to the father if the child is born in a marriage. That means in divorce, the father gets custody except under obviously dangerous circumstances.

        That is, treat children as a possesion instead of a sentimental political object. In a marriage, the woman is offering her sexuality and all that creates in exchange for the husband taking care of her. Outside of such, her sexuality and what she creates is her problem.

        3. (most imoortant) NO WELFARE. It is not the job of every citizen to support any other, except in cases of the common good of all. Welfare is promarily the good of the fabulously stupid, lazy. Shortsighted, and occasionally unlucky.

        If anyone wishes to support baby mamas they should be more than welcome to do so on their own dime.

        Do these three things and you will see a major curtailing of hypergamy, divorce, and even fatherless houseaholds

        • Whats so radical about common sense?

          If you’re classifying common sense as radical, what other pc propoganda are you swallowing, hook line & sinker?

          Its important to realise you’re neck deep in feminism & pc drivel, always assert your point & kick pc assholes where it hurts …

          You need to stop classifying common sense, logic & reason as radical … this is the first step to regaining your manhood …

  4. As an accountant I keep telling my clients who want to enter a partnership for business purposes that it is much harder to get out of a business partnership than it is to get a divorce. You can tell by the way they go white which ones have been through divorce.

  5. Markets operate by price. Marriage is a market. Government is well known for intervening in markets and influencing price signals. This results in malinvestment, because demand and supply curves are artificially adjusted.

    Nofault divorce law is simply another example of market intervention. Allowing the breaking of a marriage contract with no grounds changes the calculation of marriage price (cost). No sane man would get married if he accurately calculated his chances of divorce, financial rape, loss of children and subsequent heavy child support payments.

    Contract law is beinginterpreted from a feminist, victimist mindset. The men are deemed as financially responsible, and asset stripped. Contract law is neither just nor being interpreted fairly. Which to my mind must lead to the next logical stage. Term limited marriage, with a prescribed asset breaup in the event of nonrenewal.

  6. Tradcons and socons refuse to get this so they try to fight this as a culture war issue which leaves them fighting a useless war against gay marriage

    You paint too broad a brush. There are more than a few “tradcons and socons” out here who DO get it. The war against gay marriage, btw, isn’t “useless”, but it should properly be understood as a “secondary theater.”

    Aside from that, I agree with ya.

    • How exactly is the war against gay marriage not useless?

      Enquiring minds probably already know … but could do with a good laugh …

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: