This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
|| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Next — Fix the problem, not the blame |
| Back — Marriage and the State |
There are few better ways to build suspicion, mistrust, and hatred than by preventing communication between people who are at odds. If that is the object of the present domestic violence and abuse arrests and retraining orders, then they are wonderfully effective. However, if domestic harmony is of any interest, it escapes us how keeping a man and woman apart, no matter what the wishes of the couple may be, is likely to promote peace and tranquility?
A State that promotes disharmony at the family unit level seems likely to be unstable at higher levels. With nations, as well as families, diplomacy is preferable to war and should be fostered by the State.
Under current laws a single complaint of domestic violence or abuse touches off an irreversible cascade of useless and often destructive legal and therapeutic events that are designed to force a man and woman apart regardless of what the couple may wish. Conversely, we feel the State should have as its primary interest keeping domestic partners together whenever possible.
There are few more traumatic experiences than an accusation of domestic violence or abuse for either the man or the woman. Rarely will either party be aware of the magnitude of feminist-inspired law that they unleash.
With “no drop” an integral part of the feminist agenda, and current laws based on that ideology, citizens cannot get out of the trap no matter how much the man or woman may wish to. To correct this injustice, we advocate the return of individual decisions on whether charges should be filed and prosecution pursued.
Making combatants face further travail in the mock combat of the legal system, as currently done, is more likely to promote war and violence than solve the problem, and it is certainly a windfall for the attorneys involved. However, benefits to society of the present approach to domestic violence are absent and if families continue to be destroyed, as is presently done, civilization itself will fall.
In her February 10, 1999, article the popular columnist Kathleen Parker has called for dismantling the divorce industry. Without mincing words she states that: “The system of adversarial attorneys, advocacy agencies and judges constitutes an industry that deserves to be outlawed for crimes against humanity.” Continuing, she states that: “One thing's clear: Anything couples can do to avoid the courtroom battlefield, where people who once loved each other become winners or losers, has to alleviate if not forestall most post-war trauma.” Above, we have suggested eliminating the marriage license with one objective the elimination of divorce. Marriage should be returned to the beliefs of the couple and not mandated by the State.
A courtroom should also be the last place couples having difficulties with their relationship should end up. Instead, under current laws, a courtroom is frequently the first place couples find themselves, with no way out. The courts are a major factor in the success of emotional terrorists and directly support divorce-related malicious mother syndrome. These afflictions on mankind would cease to exist if family courts enforced their own orders for child visitation, made joint custody the standard, and treated men and women as equals. But they don't and, hence, should be eliminated.
Mediation and counseling are critical in a divorce but are explicitly banned under current law if domestic violence or abuse has been alleged. Mediation or counseling won't always work but it will frequently enough to relieve a major financial burden on the individuals. It will also act to protect the civil rights of the parties involved. The only people hurt by such an approach are lawyers and the domestic violence industry.
We propose that the present adversarial approach to a couple's separation be eliminated by defining such terms in an initial contract either of marriage in their own religious terms or for cohabitation.
Where mediation and counseling fail, and a couple desire to separate, arbitration should be tried, rather than having the man arrested, and then dueling through attorneys.
The Institute for Certified Divorce Planners is probably a good place to look for alternatives and help if you are contemplating divorce under current laws.
In the longer term, however, the laws and legal system must change to protect the children and preserve our society.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Next — Fix the problem, not the blame |
| Back — Marriage and the State |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.