The Aching Void
How My Parents’ Divorce Ruined Our Holidays And Family Life Forever
In the decades since my parents’ divorce and through the years of my marriage, I have learned no-fault divorce is one of the biggest lies of our culture.
December always reminds me how much I hate divorce. As the lights on the Christmas tree twinkle while we wrap presents, I am anxious about family gatherings and travel plans. Three decades ago, when my parents divorced, family Christmas gatherings became very complicated.
My parents’ divorce is the one that their generation was told to have. Like many others married in the 1970s, their marriage ended with a no-fault divorce. One of them wasn’t happy and felt the only way to solve that was not to be married anymore. In the name of fulfillment and contentment, our family broke apart.
Fast-forward 30 years, and you’ll find the children all thriving in adulthood and two parents who rebounded and eventually remarried. On the surface, it seems like we all lived happily ever after. The media loves to feed these sort of lies to their audiences. For example, The New York Times runs terrible pro-divorce articles regularly; here’s a particularly disturbing one.
Pro-Divorce Arguments Are Built On Lies
The writers at The Times of London currently have a campaign trying to reform England’s divorce laws. They believe divorce should be easier to get than current legislation that requires “a married couple wishing to split up [to] show evidence of irretrievable breakdown in the form of adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, two years’ separation with consent or five years’ separation without consent.”
They propose instead: “Divorce, wherever possible, should simply be an acknowledgment that people have moved on. A marriage that lasts only ten years can still be deemed a success. It should be assumed that divorces are no one’s fault and that people need a simple, dignified, relatively fast way to split up, while also acknowledging that a partner who has sacrificed their career to look after children will need help to set up again.”
Pardon me while I roll my eyes. As our culture tries to negate the beautiful union of covenantal marriage, we look the other way from the hurts and hardships divorce creates.
In the decades since my parents’ divorce and through the years of my marriage, I have learned that no-fault divorce is one of the biggest lies our culture tries to get people to believe.
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 December 2017
Saturday, 30 July 2016
Regrets--I've Had a Few
The Silent Grief
The book of Malachi tells us that God hates divorce. So, it seems, do many who have been through the divorce washing machine. It has become a case of "divorce in haste, repent in leisure". An article in the NZ Herald profiles the lingering post-divorce regret that many experience and suffer in New Zealand.
For our overseas readers, New Zealand has a liberal divorce construct. You can divorce with less discomfort than enduring a winter cold. It is easier to break up a marriage than de-incorporate a company, or extract yourself from a business partnership. In New Zealand, the bar is so low and such is the social and legal disrespect for marriage that the State has introduced a plethora of competing variants, so that everyone can slide down the snake to the bottom of the ladder with equal facility.
So, we have social relationships called "partnerships", "de-facto's", people "living together", homosexual marriage, serial monogamy, serial polygamy, and anything else that takes your fancy. Two lesbians living together with a budgie constitute a family in New Zealand.
Friday, 27 May 2016
From the Caverns of Isengard
The Divorce Revolution Has Bred An Army Of Woman Haters
W Bradford Wilcox
The Federalist
Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine I’d earn the ire of a character named Turd Flinging Monkey, the nom de plume of a popular online activist. A leader in the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement, which encourages men to avoid romantic relationships with women, Monkey did not take kindly to my new Prager University video talking up the benefits of marriage for men.
In the video, I noted, among other things, that married men work harder (about 400 more hours), smarter (they’re less likely to quit without having found another job), and more successfully (they make about $16,000 more per year) than their single peers. I described these as features, not bugs, of married life for men.
In response, in a video of his own, Monkey unloaded on marriage, arguing that the things I had described as features of marriage were in fact bugs.
For men, marriage equals slavery: “Marriage, in essence, is a man choosing his slave master.” For men, marriage equals unrequited sacrifice: “So married men work 400 hours more per year than single men; that’s not a good thing. They’re not hanging out with their friends… They’re sacrificing their life for other people. Now, you may think that’s noble, but that’s not a benefit for the man.” For men, marriage equals emasculation: it means “giving a woman power over your life, power over your income.”
Above all, for men, marriage equals a soul-destroying divorce: “talk to the men in MGTOW who have had their wallets ripped out their a** in family court. Go to the graves of men who killed themselves after they were unemployed and couldn’t afford child support and faced jail. Talk to those men about how wonderful marriage was… Ask them about the hundreds of hours they work extra each year to avoid going to prison because they owe so much child support or alimony that they gotta move in with their parents.”
Turd Flinging Monkey Isn’t Alone
This is Turd Flinging Monkey’s view of marriage.
W Bradford Wilcox
The Federalist
Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine I’d earn the ire of a character named Turd Flinging Monkey, the nom de plume of a popular online activist. A leader in the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement, which encourages men to avoid romantic relationships with women, Monkey did not take kindly to my new Prager University video talking up the benefits of marriage for men.
In the video, I noted, among other things, that married men work harder (about 400 more hours), smarter (they’re less likely to quit without having found another job), and more successfully (they make about $16,000 more per year) than their single peers. I described these as features, not bugs, of married life for men.
In response, in a video of his own, Monkey unloaded on marriage, arguing that the things I had described as features of marriage were in fact bugs.
For men, marriage equals slavery: “Marriage, in essence, is a man choosing his slave master.” For men, marriage equals unrequited sacrifice: “So married men work 400 hours more per year than single men; that’s not a good thing. They’re not hanging out with their friends… They’re sacrificing their life for other people. Now, you may think that’s noble, but that’s not a benefit for the man.” For men, marriage equals emasculation: it means “giving a woman power over your life, power over your income.”
Above all, for men, marriage equals a soul-destroying divorce: “talk to the men in MGTOW who have had their wallets ripped out their a** in family court. Go to the graves of men who killed themselves after they were unemployed and couldn’t afford child support and faced jail. Talk to those men about how wonderful marriage was… Ask them about the hundreds of hours they work extra each year to avoid going to prison because they owe so much child support or alimony that they gotta move in with their parents.”
Turd Flinging Monkey Isn’t Alone
This is Turd Flinging Monkey’s view of marriage.
Tuesday, 22 March 2016
Parallel Legal Systems in the UK
Appalling Disabilities
The Telegraph
Couples who are getting married should be forced to have a DNA test first to ensure they are not cousins amid growing concern about incest within Pakistani communities, Britain's first Asian peer has claimed. Baroness Flather, a former Tory who now sits as a cross-bencher, said in the House of Lords that it is "absolutely appalling" that first cousin marriages in Pakistani communities are leading to "so much disability among children".
She said: "There are a lot of first-cousin marriages in certain communities, particularly among Pakistanis who come from the Pakistani Kashmir area. We know so much about DNA now, but there is so much disability among the children, which is absolutely appalling. "You go to any such family and there will be four or five children, at least one or two of whom will have some disability. That is absolutely unacceptable, and if we cannot do anything about it, is it fair to the children?"
Baroness Flather, a former barrister who was born in the Pakistani city of Lahore when it was part of India, said: "Never mind the parents — it is not fair to the children that they should be allowed to become disabled because of a social practice. It is a social practice which does not belong in today’s age, when we know so much about DNA.
First cousin marriages in Pakistani communities leading to 'appalling' disabilities among children Baroness Flather, a cross-bench peer, says it is 'absolutely appalling' that first cousin marriages in Pakistani communities are leading to 'so much disability among children'
Steven Swinford, Deputy Political EditorThe Telegraph
Couples who are getting married should be forced to have a DNA test first to ensure they are not cousins amid growing concern about incest within Pakistani communities, Britain's first Asian peer has claimed. Baroness Flather, a former Tory who now sits as a cross-bencher, said in the House of Lords that it is "absolutely appalling" that first cousin marriages in Pakistani communities are leading to "so much disability among children".
She said: "There are a lot of first-cousin marriages in certain communities, particularly among Pakistanis who come from the Pakistani Kashmir area. We know so much about DNA now, but there is so much disability among the children, which is absolutely appalling. "You go to any such family and there will be four or five children, at least one or two of whom will have some disability. That is absolutely unacceptable, and if we cannot do anything about it, is it fair to the children?"
Baroness Flather, a former barrister who was born in the Pakistani city of Lahore when it was part of India, said: "Never mind the parents — it is not fair to the children that they should be allowed to become disabled because of a social practice. It is a social practice which does not belong in today’s age, when we know so much about DNA.
Friday, 9 January 2015
Friday, 1 August 2014
A Good News Story
Progress At Last
Separation and divorce is painful enough for adults, many of whom remain permanently scarred. In hindsight not a few come to regret their decision to split apart and look back at the conflict and circumstances that led them to that fateful decision, concluding (now) that it was all small change in the grand scheme of things. They regret their immature decisions and hasty actions. But we have learned that the children of such divorces often are damaged for their entire lives.
This bad situation is made ten times worse if the divorce is acrimonious. Far too many divorces have ended up that way, even if the decision to separate initially was reasonably amicable and mutual, due to the involvement of the Family Court. Courts require lawyers, and lawyers' stock-in-trade is disputation and argumentation, getting the best-deal-no-matter-what for their client. The resulting anger and bitterness can last decades, inflicting yet far more needless damage upon children. And, not a few lawyers have preferred a long drawn out process because of the higher fee payoff.
Finally, the NZ government has introduced some reforms which are deconstructing the hostilities. The Minister of Justice, Judith Collins has announced:
Separation and divorce is painful enough for adults, many of whom remain permanently scarred. In hindsight not a few come to regret their decision to split apart and look back at the conflict and circumstances that led them to that fateful decision, concluding (now) that it was all small change in the grand scheme of things. They regret their immature decisions and hasty actions. But we have learned that the children of such divorces often are damaged for their entire lives.
This bad situation is made ten times worse if the divorce is acrimonious. Far too many divorces have ended up that way, even if the decision to separate initially was reasonably amicable and mutual, due to the involvement of the Family Court. Courts require lawyers, and lawyers' stock-in-trade is disputation and argumentation, getting the best-deal-no-matter-what for their client. The resulting anger and bitterness can last decades, inflicting yet far more needless damage upon children. And, not a few lawyers have preferred a long drawn out process because of the higher fee payoff.
Finally, the NZ government has introduced some reforms which are deconstructing the hostilities. The Minister of Justice, Judith Collins has announced:
Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
Neighbor-Love in the Handbasket
Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, 20 August 2012
Here are a few quick comments about how R2K theology is rapidly running out of options. A few months ago, Michael Horton explained how concervative Christians could (tentatively) support domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. If the culture wars were something that involved four walls and a paint can, this is what painting yourself into a corner looks like.
This goes back to May, but it was only yesterday that I found out about it. In discussing domestic partnerships, Michael Horton allowed the following:
Christians should be really concerned about this, but they should not get whizzed up because Horton is going soft on the sinfulness of homosexuality itself. In the course of the article he says, pretty plainly, that "God’s statement on the matter is pretty clear: he hates homosexuality."
The problem lies elsewhere, but first we must face the problem squarely.
Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, 20 August 2012
Here are a few quick comments about how R2K theology is rapidly running out of options. A few months ago, Michael Horton explained how concervative Christians could (tentatively) support domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. If the culture wars were something that involved four walls and a paint can, this is what painting yourself into a corner looks like.
This goes back to May, but it was only yesterday that I found out about it. In discussing domestic partnerships, Michael Horton allowed the following:
"The challenge there is that two
Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may
appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex
marriage."
Christians should be really concerned about this, but they should not get whizzed up because Horton is going soft on the sinfulness of homosexuality itself. In the course of the article he says, pretty plainly, that "God’s statement on the matter is pretty clear: he hates homosexuality."
The problem lies elsewhere, but first we must face the problem squarely.
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
One of Those Yellow Rattlesnake Flags
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Sunday, 05 August 2012
As we continue our discussion of politics (and economics) in the name of Jesus, I want to pick up on at least a few things that have arisen in the comments.
When it comes to reasoning from Scripture, applying the word of God to our lives, there are two ways of reasoning -- inductive and deductive. Inductive moves from the particular to the general, and even if the particular is in Scripture, it makes sense to see this process as a move away from the authoritive word. This means that the further you get in your applications, the further out on the skinny branches you find yourself.
I think this is still a legitimate way of proceeding, depending on the issue, but taking care should be the name of the game. But what I have been arguing for is a deductive approach.
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Sunday, 05 August 2012
As we continue our discussion of politics (and economics) in the name of Jesus, I want to pick up on at least a few things that have arisen in the comments.
When it comes to reasoning from Scripture, applying the word of God to our lives, there are two ways of reasoning -- inductive and deductive. Inductive moves from the particular to the general, and even if the particular is in Scripture, it makes sense to see this process as a move away from the authoritive word. This means that the further you get in your applications, the further out on the skinny branches you find yourself.
I think this is still a legitimate way of proceeding, depending on the issue, but taking care should be the name of the game. But what I have been arguing for is a deductive approach.
Sounding More Fair and Smelling More Foul
It's an Orc-ish Thing
Homosexual marriage is the oxymoron of the decade, maybe the century. Chronicler J R R Tolkien records that in the history of Middle Earth the orcs were created as an attempt by the Dark Lord, Sauron to replicate the elves. The issue turned out to be a degenerative infamy. So with homosexual marriage.
As long as the remnants of the realm of the Dark Lord linger in Middle Earth attempts will be made to replicate the glory and realm of the one true King. How should servants of the King respond? In part, with unrestrained derision at the oxymoron. Those who think they can disregard the divinely created order and succeed deserve to be mocked. There can be few things more asinine.
Homosexual marriage is the oxymoron of the decade, maybe the century. Chronicler J R R Tolkien records that in the history of Middle Earth the orcs were created as an attempt by the Dark Lord, Sauron to replicate the elves. The issue turned out to be a degenerative infamy. So with homosexual marriage.
As long as the remnants of the realm of the Dark Lord linger in Middle Earth attempts will be made to replicate the glory and realm of the one true King. How should servants of the King respond? In part, with unrestrained derision at the oxymoron. Those who think they can disregard the divinely created order and succeed deserve to be mocked. There can be few things more asinine.
Monday, 7 November 2011
The Scourge of Socio-Economic Inequality
A Modest Proposal to Reduce Poverty
It has become the new normal--particularly in these heady election days--to shriek and moan about income inequality in New Zealand. OK, so it's not helped by parties on the Left loudly alleging that the current government has committed the unpardonable sin of causing wider wealth disparity than when it took office.
But, the government buys into the assumptions and the allegations as well, since its defence is to talk about what new programmes it is going to roll out to combat economic inequality.
It has become the new normal--particularly in these heady election days--to shriek and moan about income inequality in New Zealand. OK, so it's not helped by parties on the Left loudly alleging that the current government has committed the unpardonable sin of causing wider wealth disparity than when it took office.
But, the government buys into the assumptions and the allegations as well, since its defence is to talk about what new programmes it is going to roll out to combat economic inequality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)