Screw off, fake priests! How to get governmentally-organized-crime out of your marriage.

The Cautious are always cowards: Theirs is a teleology of fear, after all. Whether you are heterosexual or an extreme outlier suffering from a putative birth defect that no one is permitted to call a birth defect, it is surely to your interest to keep gun-wielding thugs dressed up as the high priests of an unquestionable religion out of your marriage. This chapter from Father’s Day will show you a better way to manage your marriage, bulletproofing it from divorce from the outset.

 
Chapter 18. A Better Marriage Contract

The academic/feminist ideal of love, sex, marriage and family is destructive of everyone’s interests – especially your children’s. Men and women are both encouraged to behave as clowns, as loosely-committed meat mannequins, but only women are given the power of the state to repel their children’s fathers by force, when they are in their turn counseled to blow their families to bits.

A man is necessarily the leader of his family, but he is never its dictator. He leads by his nature as a man, by order of precedence, by consensus, but most especially simply by acting first and decisively. He is normally larger and stronger than his wife and children, and he is almost certainly able to beat everyone up. Even if he restrains himself to mere bellowing, he can win any battle of belligerence. Yet almost no men do these things, despite the awful things feminists say about them. Why don’t they? Because they don’t want to, for one obvious reason. Belligerence – war – is the opposite of love. But it’s also because intimidation of any sort does not work as a leadership strategy. You may get what you’re demanding right now, but you will never get anything else – and you will have turned yourself into a target. A man who beats or bellows at his wife or children is Mister Divorced without one more minute of maybe.

The balance of political power in an intact family belongs to Dad for all the reasons we’ve named so far, but, in fact, his de facto political power over his wife and children is effectively unlimited – at any given moment. He restrains himself from using this power because he wants his family, not its destruction. When he wants its destruction more, the headline in the newspaper reads, “Man kills wife, kids, self.”

That story is very rare. The countervailing yarn – “Mom kills her own baby, Supreme Court applauds” – is too common to make the news. But the real story behind both of these stories is the imbalance of political power Mom holds over her family as soon as she steps outside of her home.

Inside the house, she and her children live at her husband’s mercy – and he and they at hers. But outside the house, the law is all on her side. If he knocks her up, with or without a marriage license, he’s on the hook for twenty years – unless she invokes her unilateral power to exterminate the baby, thereby possibly flushing the only chance either one of them may ever have to be a parent. If they divorce both of them will be wiped out financially, but the law will bend over backward to impoverish him to her benefit. And even assuming a higher-than-average civility in their orchestrated incivility, his relationship with his children will be ruined forevermore by family court. Mister Divorced likes to brag about how well his kids are doing now. The kids like to talk about how much better things were before – except, mostly, they just don’t talk at all.

There is a men’s rights movement out there, and I applaud it with one hand. Changing the marriage and family laws would be a good thing. Repealing them entirely would be an even better idea. But if anything changes in the legislatures or the courts, I would expect changes for the worse, not better, for fathers, for families and for children. The objective is to give your children nowhere to turn but to the state, and driving their fathers out of their lives is the perfect means of attaining that goal.

To ask the law to rebalance marriage is to ask it to renounce the steady paychecks of millions of attorneys, judges, psychologists and jailers. The economy being devoured by this vast army of parasites will collapse in a husk before they do anything to put the brakes on the divorce gravy train. Missus Single-Mom, divorced or never married, is all the leverage they need to keep clutching that throttle until the whole thing – all of Western Civilization ultimately – comes crashing down.

The good news is, you don’t need to persuade voters or legislatures to rebalance the political power in your marriage. The two of you can do it yourselves, simply by agreeing to a new marriage contract, one like the instrument shown here:

Mister Gonnabe would have a much easier time selling this covenant than Mister Maybe will, but the more he looks like Mister Married, the easier it will be to convince Missus Maybe that he intends to follow through. And this contract commits both parties – completely – to their family, to their children, with no judge’s gavel poised over Dad’s head.

Would this language hold up in court? It doesn’t have to. Simply negotiating this contract will tell you everything you need to know about your spouse – or, ideally, your spouse-to-be. If you end up in court, you picked the wrong one despite yourself. But to surrender all recourse upon default is the best assurance you can give that you intend never to default – and it is one hell of an incentive not to!

If your claim is that you’d gnaw off your own leg to escape this awful trap of a marriage – that there is no price too high to pay for your freedom – then do your gnawing in advance, in explicit, undeniable words.

If you marry – or remarry – with this contract, your marriage stands the best possible chance of lasting forever.