We will not see the new Supreme Court take up these issues easily. First, Federal courts have long avoided hearing anything that has to do with divorce, since they don’t want to have divorces heard in the federal courts. This, of course, is an avoidance of the issues.

Second, the new Supreme Court will move slowly. Rightly or wrongly, Justice Roberts believes in incremental change from settled law, on the grounds that upheaval in the legal system would cause great disturbance. They are particularly worried about having to deal with constitutionality of the welfare-state (which was touched on briefly when the Supreme Court threw out tort suits based in the I.C.C. with regard to VAWA). They know that once this gate is opened, a lot of settled law will go out the window.

It is up to the men’s movement to organize and apply maximum pressure inside the Beltway to end the Welfare State Imperium and restore fatherhood as a norm in America. In particular, this means not voting for any politician that does not specifically call for change and propose intelligent policies to effect the change.

If you are not working for the feminists, don’t make outrageous claims. My position goes towards dismantling the welfare regime, which has disentitled half the marriages in this country. I advocate return to a constitutional, healthy, unfettered free-marriage-market system. This is the only model under which men will not be scared away from marriage or healthy relationships with women, and where women won’t see men as little more than objects for reproductive, social, and fiscal abuse. Selling women into sex slavery is just as reprehensible as what we do: selling men into bondage to government by backing organized feminist takeover of marriage and family.

“Soft paternalism” is how we end invasive government. Under soft paternalism, government has no right to involve itself in a marriage unless one of the spouses requests positive assistance (such as to get a drunk spouse into treatment). The scope of intervention is narrowly tailored to help in a very limited set of circumstances, and tracked on the court record so that if a divorce ensues, we know who was irresponsible to the marriage and who should not get custody of children.

I well know the difference between invasive and non-invasive programs. Example: the Parents As Teachers program was invented by Sen. John Danforth, a leftist progressive liberal Republican. It was founded at a meeting held in Liberty, Missouri on the notion that it is too dangerous to allow a woman to go home with a new baby without having a social worker in the living room. Under the requirements of the P.A.T. Planning and Implementation Guide (euphamistically known as “Pat’s Pig”), all schoolchildren must be placed into one of 12 risk groups. None of these risk groups is “normal”. And, federal funding comes with every child P.A.T. identifies as “at risk”. It was passed in Missouri by former MO State Representative Kaye Steinmetz (D), head of the House Committee on Children and Families, and an outspoken feminist legislator. Danforth later turned it into a federal law.

We can and must recover from 40 years of “shotgun divorce” without returning to a state of “shotgun marriage”.

All readers must understand that we can’t just “turn off” government. It will do something whether we like it or not. The goal is to educate legislators and all conservative and libertarian grassroots organizations to turn away from invasive feminist policies in favor of non-invasive, marriage supportive programs that cost a lot less and guarantee very substantial subsequent reductions in federal social entitlement spending, and spending on crime, as these problems abate naturally.

Moral: we cannot simply turn off the bad. We must offer up a replacement that promises tangible social, economic, and political benefits. When the marriage market is set free, men and women will naturally participate in it. Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that naturally erases all physical, economic, social, and culturally imposed disparities that exist between men and women. When we let marriage do this again, America will be a much safer and more prosperous country, with lower taxes, a robust military, and a balanced budget to boot. The principles and facts prove this will be the result if we follow this course of political reform.

One thing is certain – your kids will never hate you for it.

Clearly there is a conspiracy at work here. You have to fight back, and the only way to overturn a government conspiracy is through civil disobedience.

If celibacy is not an option for men, then vasectomies are the only other choice. Look at it this way. Most men will loose their children anyway. So stop having them.

I may have finally figured it out.

And please forgive the serial posts.

David R. Usher seems to want government to impose a pro-marriage regime, because he basically does not believe men have the intellectual sense to decide for themselves whether to marry or not.

When men have little sense, it increases taxes.

That’s pretty much the whole thesis, right?

that mispelling would be “husbands.” What path are you advocating?

Is a neighborhood “marriage friend” going to show up at my door every month to inquire aout the health of my love life?

I’ve LIVED in Cuba! (Really, during the Mariel harbor exodus period.)

It was not fun.

What degree of surveillance would your program require?

“Normal is what happens to you when you get everything that is not normal out of your life.”

WTF?

No matter who requests assistance from the court to get a chemically-abusing spouse into treatment, the treatment center will figure out who the problem is. It will be the “primary aggessor..” i.e. the man.

We saw this working out perfectly well in the former Soviet Union, where husdabads were routinely committed to psychiatric gulags for precisely the same reasons you advocate for beneficial family interventions.

You, David R. Usher —

Need to closely interrogate your own tendencies towards fascism… and soon.

Please begin by defining for all of us your entire social definition of N-O-R-M-A-L?

A simple list of “normal” vs. “abnormal” behaviors would be delightful!

For sexual harrassment there is a price to be paid for being accused. There is no corollary price to be paid for a false sexual harassment accusation.

Rape accusations alone can destroy any man. There is no corollary price to be paid for false rape accusations. The accusers identity can be kept private. Those accused have no such right.

I could go on.

What are the details of The Plan to get the government the hell out of our lives? It sounds good in principle…but how?

I spent six years working as a volunteer in a Betty Ford style chemical/co-dependency treatment center. I do not advocate using 911 for anything.  In fact, this plan would make using 911 (which is the only path today) unnecessary.  

No matter who requests assistance from the court to get a chemically-abusing spouse into treatment, the treatment center will figure out who the problem is. These people know the games that chemical abusers play. The chemical abuser(s) WILL end up in treatment no matter who asks the court for help. Please note that chemical dependency treatment centers are not run by feminists. They are run by people who work on the problem.  They have no investment in feminism.  They are highly dedicated to helping folks recover from chemical dependency, and nothing more.

This plan has been vetted by a couple of brilliant pro-marriage attorneys. We spent hours discussing how this idea could be abused. The outcome: there is no way this policy could turn into another tool of feminism.

Government is force, and it is going to intervene someplace. We might as well have it apply that force in ways that help get marriages back on track, when a spouse asks for proactive help. The alternative is to leave things as they are. If you don’t like that idea, then we have to go with this, unless of course you happen to have a better policy in mind.

“The consequences of artificially inflating or deflating a market…”

That’s the best description of ROMANCE I’ve ever read!

You are POETIC, when you choose that path, Dr.Usher!

I truly wish I could understand your principles.

But I do not.

They are incoherent.

You are in fact advocating for more government intervention into a family’s private life.

Please educate me.

(And I am not baiting or berating you… I think you are a very important voice in the men’s movement.

But I think we may not be able to be allies…. because you may be walking a path towards fascism …)

—

(DRU) — “If a spouse has a serious drinking or drugging problem, the other spouse can request government assistance performing an intervention to get the sick one into treatment…”

“… pro-marriage options…”

—

So, this is three other reasons a woman can dial 911 and make a false accusation?

Or will the benevolent bureaucrats act with wisdom and grace?

At what exact point would your program restrict government from “helpfully” intervening in an about-to-divorce scenario?

At what precise social location would you say…. “this is now private?”

You are treading on very dangerous terrain, David.

Besides VAWA money, the Social Security Administration offers $4.1 billion to states that establish support Orders; collect on amount due; and, create arrearage. (See 6B, 6C, & 6D).

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

For a year and half, the Kane County Circuit Clerk of Illinois refused to accept from me about $15,000.00 in cancelled checks as proof of payment of child support paid. The four staff members are divorced women.

I also observed after our meetings that they had no training or experience in accounting. For example, the supervising clerk did not know what “prorate” means.

They are apart of the misandry job creation machine of our government. These divorce industry participants are incented to create problems to solve.

While most men do not have an MBA, I stood my ground on sound accounting principles and common sense,even after I was ordered in arrearage of child support (read: deadbeat dad). After two years, scores of court appearences, I did received $21,000 in credits without apology from the family judge, yet I wondered how a man without training would have faired.

Of all the relationships God values the husband and wife relationship above all. He could have put first an uncle and nefue or two sisters or a mother and a son, but instead he placed first a husband and wife first.

When this relationship fails we all fail.

“My prediction is this: we are going to have to move cases to the new Supreme Court. Neither party and no recent president has been willing to deal with these issues. This is unlikely to change. VAWA, UCCJA, and URESA have many unconstitutional elements. Feminists made their advances in the courts. Now it will be our turn.”

That’s what I was talking about above. The flow of money will stop when the U.S. Supreme Court says it can’t be used to coerce the states into doing something a state constitution forbids (spending public funds for a private purpose). The parameters for this review are clarified in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). The child support program doesn’t need to be dismantled. It performs a legitimate function with respect to recovering funds from absent parents of dependent children, but its application to fit parents of children who are not dependent on state support is overbroad.

You said:

“Marital responsibility = If you want a divorce, and you do not have a real good reason for wanting one, there’s the door (no matter what sex you are). If you are married, and insist on doing things that destroy the marriage, and you refuse to be responsible to the marriage, there’s the door (no matter what sex you are).”

This is still the law of the land, outside of the special circumstances under which welfare laws direct the placement of state wards, however, not every child is a ward of the state. It’s the excercise of the state’s parens patriae power that allows government’s interference in matters of guardianship, whether its within an intact marriage or not. This power is not unlimited or absolute. The natural right to guardianship is an absolute right, in that the burden is on the state to show there is a legitimate reason to interfere with it. Finding fault in a divorce, or refusal to assume responsibility for an illegitimate child determines fitness to maintain the right to their custody and control.

Government “help” with a situation that may determine fitness can be worked into state laws regulating the termination of parental rights. These may be ways to avoid governmental interference, rather that stepping in too soon. First, however, it must be determined it is necessary, under a strict scrutiny review (providing due process protection) unavailabe in a proceeding for the placement of a state ward. First it has to be determined that fitness is an issue.

President Reagan once said “The ten most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you’.” I would like less “help,” thank you very much.

I cannot help but notice strong hints of chronic pessimism in your postings. Misery is an optional illness. Perhaps try really considering what we can do to make America better, and then do something about it?