Married to the State: How government colonizes the family

Saturday, September 26, 2009

“Unilateral divorce involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes and seizing their property. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life.”

By Stephen Baskerville

In 1947, with the baby boom in its infancy and few disposed to hearing of family crisis, Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman saw the long-term reality: the family had been deteriorating since the Renaissance and was nearing the point of no return. Whenever the family shows signs of dysfunction, Zimmerman observed, “the state helps to break it up.” During the 19th century, “law piled on law, and government agency upon government agency” until by 1900 “the state had become master of the family.” The result, he wrote in Family and Civilization, was that “the family is now truly the agent, the slave, the handmaiden of the state.”

To read the rest, go to: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/married-to-the-state/.

| More from Mike LaSalle

Stumble It!

Share/Save/Bookmark

  • Trust
    We're probably past the point of no return, but until our society gets it out of its head that one's anatomy determines how trustworthy someone is, and we quit legislating accordingly, there is no hope of turning it around. We need to quit writing laws based on the belief that women are noble and good. Women, like men, are human, and, as you can see with men in other fields, the wrong incentives will result in the wrong behavior.

    When concerned about illegitimacy, we start giving money to women who get pregnant out of wedlock. Then...surprise... we get more illegitimacy.

    When the cost gets out of control, we shift our focus to "deadbeat dads" and use them as another source of money for women who get pregnant out of wedlock. Then...surprise... we get more iillegitimacy.

    Then, women figure out, if they dump their babies' fathers and villianize him, they get more money through child support. Then...surprise...more children have parents in dispute and uninvolved fathers, further breaking apart their "family" (the situation encouraged by the government).

    Then, we worry about children growing up without fathers invovled and with families in dispute, so we work to make divorce more unpleasant--for the father of course--by giving the wife even more money if she kicks him out of the house and divorces him, as a bonus there is even more money the worse she villianizes him. Then...surprise... we get more divorice, more "families" in dispute, more children without involved fathers.

    Through all this, we hold the fathers financially accountable and ethically malign them, even though we have provided mothers with every incentive to create the situation we are blaming fathers for.

    Before any women jump on me for blaming women, i'm not blaming women. I'm blaming sexist laws and a divorce industry that has profitted from paying women to wreck their children and families. If you can point me to a law that encourages a father to do the same, then please do so. Basically, the government has made laws that make it profitable for one member of a partnership to wreck the partnership, and we wonder why it is wrecked?

    I'm no sexist (I'm married with two daughters who I love more than anything)...it isn't my fault it is the women they government make the profiteers of the breakdown of the family. I'm just calling it like i see it.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Please Support MND

Subscribe today:

SUSTAINER: $5/mo.


CONTRIBUTOR: $20/mo.


SUPPORTER: $50/mo.


Or Donate Any Amount
privacy policy | terms of service


Site Meter

Sex+Metropolis is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache