Legal Scholars Beginning to Question Civil Marriage

by W.F. Price on November 8, 2010

Civil marriage is essentially a Western innovation that arose out of European Christian society at the beginning of the modern era. In the original American colonies, it was the Puritans who first instituted the practice, beating even the British to the punch. However, it was John Calvin who, in the 16th century, first decreed that all marriages must be registered by the state.

It seems that the initial drive for civil marriage had a great deal to do with religious competition, as incipient nations in the early modern period were largely divided along religious lines (Protestant and Catholic), and forcing state approval of marriage bolstered the influence of one sect or the other. In time, it had the opposite effect, and as nationalism eclipsed religion in political influence civil marriage came to take precedence over sacramental marriage.

Despite the diminishing role of the church in marriage, which was never clearly based on scripture in any event, Christians found ways to cooperate with the state in promoting civil marriage to the profit of both. Priests and ministers continued to perform the rites, and took on certain duties such as signing marriage certificates. Importantly, churches also contributed to giving civil marriage an aura of validity that surely would have been eliminated by now without some spiritual imprimatur. Perhaps most cynically, the Catholic Church is in the annulment business, which forces Catholics to get a second divorce. Annulments are rubber-stamped, but they still cost around $500 on average — it’s little more than a tax.

Although the state is the most important arbiter of what constitutes marriage today, religions are not without some influence, which is why gay marriage and polygamy are such controversial issues. This is necessarily the case when there exists a symbiotic relationship between institutions, and the institutions overwhelmingly involved in the marriage business today (in the West) are Christian churches.

So, perhaps it is no surprise that one of the more serious, learned voices emerging in opposition to civil marriage is not Christian, or even of Christian background, but rather Edward Zelinsky, a Jewish legal scholar at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University.

In a 2008 article published in the Oxford University Press’s blog, Dr. Zelinsky argues that divisions in state courts concerning whether or not the state has the right to regulate relationships amongst consenting adults suggest that deregulation of marriage is the most straightforward approach to solving this problem:

By a 4-3 vote, California’s highest court has ruled that California’s constitution requires the Golden State to legally recognize the unions of same-sex couples as marriages. Supporters of the court’s decision hail it as a victory for equality. Opponents criticize the ruling as unwarranted judicial activism rejecting traditional morality.

I suggest a third perspective: The California court’s divided decision indicates the desirability of abolishing civil marriage. The state should not define, regulate or characterize relationships among consenting adults. By abolishing civil marriage, the law would deregulate marriage. Such deregulation would strengthen marriage as a social, cultural and religious institution while eliminating the divisiveness inherent in one definition of marriage being imposed politically upon a diverse polity.

Although Zelinsky is using the debate over gay marriage to make his point, the other, more important implications are clear:

A world without civil marriage would still be a world with marriage. Indeed, marriage would thrive in a deregulated world. Released from a single, state-imposed definition of marriage, religious, cultural and other groups would promote their respective versions of marriage. Once the law no longer monopolizes the definition of marriage, individuals would contract for their own versions of the institution.

[...]

Upon the dissolution of familial relationships, the courts would be required to interpret and enforce the contracts defining those relationships. In the absence of such contracts, the courts would be required to make decisions about income, assets and minor children, just as they do today.

I doubt he would ever admit it on paper, but I am almost certain this Zelinsky fellow holds some views in common with us here at The Spearhead. In fact, I can’t find one single point in his article with which I take issue.

If there is anything about Zelinsky’s idea that is somewhat unsettling, it is that it would be so effective at reestablishing marriage as a cultural norm if put into practice. As I grow more and more accustomed to bachelorhood, I am finding it to be fairly agreeable in many ways, but I suppose men of my generation will never be expected to have anything resembling a normal marriage anyway, so perhaps I shouldn’t worry.

Aside from Zelinsky, I was only able to identify one other legal scholar arguing for the elimination of civil marriage, a Catholic law professor named Daniel A. Crane. Crane’s essay (linked below) argues from a more religious perspective than Zelinsky, comparing and contrasting Catholic, Protestant and Jewish marriage traditions, and suggests that all support privatization of marriage. Those who have a religious interest in the matter would do well to take a look at his paper, found here:

A “JUDEO-CHRISTIAN” ARGUMENT FOR PRIVATIZING MARRIAGE

I’m sure there are more out there, and it is encouraging to see that this movement is growing in academia. For those of us here with our boots on the ground it’s time to start giving some serious support to this idea.

Most importantly, conservative Christians who are trying to solidify state control over marriage in order to prevent gay marriage are going to have to do a quick about face and start arguing for the abolition of civil marriage. If they feel uncomfortable with that, they should simply imagine what a liberal regime armed with greater power over “marriage” will do.

{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }

Rebel November 8, 2010 at 10:44

Marriage is something that does not exist anywhere in nature, but generates money for lawyers, judges and all the intestinal fauna that people the “justice” industry.

Gullible humans…

If civil marriage is abolished, the government will find alternative ways to put their hands in your pockets. And maybe this time, even bachelors will be taxed.

It`s all about money and population control: all else is academic.

I am not saying that marriage should not be abolished, but government must be abolished first. That’s much more pressing, IMO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
JohnJ November 8, 2010 at 10:55

I felt this way at one time, but I’ve come to the idea that the state enforces marriage because it enforces contracts, and marriage is, essentially, a contract. I’d like to see some real-world examples of marriage “deregulation” before I can say for sure, though. Hard data always trumps theory.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
Nergal November 8, 2010 at 11:17

Anything that removes the men with guns from the bedroom is cool in my book.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Migu November 8, 2010 at 11:20

Well, I won’t marry the state. I won’t move the state into my house voluntarily. I won’t engage the state romantically. I will however buy a pussy for an hour where it’s legal.

The state. Ladies you married it and it’s soon to be bankrupt. The state didn’t tell you?? Divorce is only for your slaves not your owners. How’s uncle sugar these days.

Also for you reformers. How do you reform a turd? Spray it with perfume? Plate it with gold? Either way you cut it your still eating shit.

If only we could organize blah blah.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 8
Firepower November 8, 2010 at 11:33

The ONLY valid reason our current liberal rulers have for invalidating marriage as a contract:

Replace it with a secular version much MORE legally binding against the male, thus more “empowering” for the female.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 1
Keyster November 8, 2010 at 11:44

Marriage is a business contract between two people, with the glaring exception that women own it. They agree to do and undo it based on emotion or how they “feel”. They want the man to commit, so they’ll be secure for life, whether it works or not.

The government intervenes in this emotional turmoil and tries to make legal sense of it where there’s very little. The marriage and divorce industry exploits female emotion through and through. It’s a racket. When you allow gays to marry, only gays will marry. It’s the final nail.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
SingleDad November 8, 2010 at 11:51

I think issues regarding reforming marriage is not early enough at this point.

Refroming marriage is like putting a band aid on an amputation stump.

From a post on the comment from the Wall Street Journal from this article summarizing what I have been saying in my posts here:

The jist of the article is that the Mayor of NY, Bloomberg, a billionarie liberal who flouted the two term limit for mayors in NY, a place, as I have said, is where I believe the center of power is in the US, when discussing how the new folks elected of office in the US cannot read and do not have a passport, said, I might point out by a US Mayor on foriegn soil in the middle of a trade war:

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/06/bloomberg-to-america-lay-off-the-chinese/

“1:40 pm November 8, 2010
Basil Coukis wrote:
I am a 73 year-old retiree who has worked on three continents, has repeatedly visited every country in the world (except, to my shame, Hungary), and whose hobby is re-reading the books that everyone refers to (Marx, Thucydides, Smith, Spengler, Gibbon, Tacitus, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Saint-Simon, Homer, Cao Xueqin, Valmiki, Plutarch, Kautiliya) without having ever looked even at their covers.
Experiences accumulated via diets such as the above cannot be compatible with experiences derived from a so-called normal life. Nevertheless, and at the risk of upsetting my fellow-citizens, I make bold to submit a few conclusions provoked by reading the Bloomberg article and the reactions to it.

Viable cultures are egotistical and exclusive.
Egoism arises out of the conviction that one’s culture is so superior to all others that one is willing to die for it.
Exclusion is mandatory to preserve intact the values defining one’s culture.

Democratic cultures proceed through two distinct stages.
The first is one of expansion at the expense of enemy cultures. In the process, the democratic culture becomes imperialistic.
The second is some form of globalization arising out of cultural imperialism. In the process, the dominant culture becomes degenerate and perceives all manner of attractive characteristics in enemy cultures.

Degenerate democracies are not viable cultures. Their citizens condemn egoism and exclusion. They do not believe that their culture is superior and, consequently, they are not prepared to die for it. Consequently, all degenerate democracies rely upon mercenaries for their national defense and upon demagoguery for their political discourse .

Today, on November 8, 2010, it is advisable that responsible citizens ponder on what alternatives are available to degenerate, and therefore non-viable, democratic cultures like those of the United States and of Western Europe. ”

This is why I think it’s time to make the hard decision to leave the US now.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 6
Robert November 8, 2010 at 12:37

From what I have learned, marriage is a scam against men. How much revenge do feminists require? There are too many ways feminism profits/benefits from marriage. One example is false DV/abuse claims and other crap from/based on VAWA.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 6
Robert November 8, 2010 at 12:39

I forgot to add; false claims of marital rape .

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
Firepower November 8, 2010 at 12:42

Robert November 8, 2010 at 12:37

How much revenge do feminists require?

You need to formulate questions as a man – as an adult.

How much revenge did the Russians require for WW2? How much revenge do blacks require for slavery?

See the point.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 27
Migu November 8, 2010 at 13:06

Ignore women. It is the only way to win.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 5
SingleDad November 8, 2010 at 13:06

I can’t help myself, Firepower, please do not imply my friends posting here are either un-manly or immature.

Disagree all you want.

But we’ve all had enough of that sort of talk already.

Thank you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
Migu November 8, 2010 at 13:08

Firepower.

Call a spade a spade. Man or woman

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7
Emperor Maximillian of Austria November 8, 2010 at 13:14

As a Catholic who was married in the church, I was very unhappy with the heirarchy’s stance on civil marriage. I wanted to marry in the Catholic church, which according to my beliefs is the only real authority on marriage, but not by the state. The current policy among the US Bishops’ conference is that one has to obtain a marriage licence by the state to marry. I think this is hogwash; why should the state be aware of, let alone regulate, my marriage which is between myself, my wife, and God?

I should have sought to marry in another country where the episcopate is not in bed with the state.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3
tweell November 8, 2010 at 13:44

Marriage is really for the children. It still takes a man and a woman to produce offspring, and that offspring statistically does best with a committed man and woman taking care of them. The best choice is usually their parents, it’s much harder to find folks that will provide care for children that aren’t theirs. Religions saw this as being an excellent way to provide new followers, so promoted marriage. Governments got into the act for the same reason, ensuring the next generation are productive members of society.
That’s been turned upside down in the madness that is Western society. Single mothers are subsidized, marriages are treated as luxuries to be taxed. Divorces are now money siphons and their obligations are far more permanent than the marriage is allowed to be.
Doing away with civil marriage would be a positive action. Prenup agreements would be the sole (and hence controlling) legal document. I just don’t see it happening until every last drop of blood is drained from it, there are too many special interests involved. As long as civil marriage exists, it would be good to have gay marriage. Why should heterosexual males be the only suckers?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
POIUYT November 8, 2010 at 13:45

All male / female associations or unions between the sexes in genderist societies as this one, inevitably come in for state intrusion along secular and statutory lines favouring the female side.That is, in a manner just as surely and inexorably as all contractors in the feild of employment by employers inevitably come in for state intrusion and regulation favouring unionists.

But just as surely as the overbearing and intruding State fucks up the smooth running of every single privately run business or industry, of which it has no clue, so too does the overbearing and intruding State fuck up the smooth development of every single private association of either marriage or co-habitation engaged in between the sexes … whatever their sectarian or religious bases.

The State fucks businesses up by empowering irrational unions and unionists whom run every business, firm or industry it touches into the ground. And so too does the State fuck up relations between the sexes by unionising the female side alone, whom as irrationaly empowered unions and unionists do, run the relationship into the ground.

There is no getting away from these dire conclusions applicable to both sexual relationships and commercial or business relationships between employer and employee. In both cases, the States intrusion, effected by empowering unionists or females respectively, into hitherto and originally private, mutually profitable, efficient and amiccably aggreed affairs, culminates in their eventually being fucked up as going concerns.

These outcomes are inevitable, inescapable and irrefrageable conclusions to anything the State touches, for the simple reasons that sexual relations and private businesses are not run on votes alone but on the will of mutually contracting parties whom freely come together in voluntary exchange of that which they have to to offer one another.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Troll King November 8, 2010 at 14:15

OT:

I created my own subreddit on reddit.com. Come join and create a voice separate from the damn feminist infested r/mensrights.

here it is:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Trollkingdom/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6
Gx1080 November 8, 2010 at 14:23

Shut up, Mikee. Grownups are talking.

I support this. It would really solve one of the biggest dangers for the modern man, it would put a serious stop to the State’s money train, and it would leave a bunch of divorce lawyers on the street (take that, scumsuckers). Who knows, maybe it will encourage women to not be a bunch of bitches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
mk November 8, 2010 at 14:54

“I forgot to add; false claims of marital rape .”
.
It shouldn’t matter if the claims are false or not.
A man should not be punished for raping his wife.
A man should not be punished for marrying/having relations with/ a young fertile female who has reached puberty.
A man should not be punished for raping an unmarried/unbetrothed young virgin female: he should just take her as one of his wives.
.
Ofcourse, you are all opposed to such things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
Herbal Essence November 8, 2010 at 15:07

I agree that Social Conservatives looking for a “Defense of Marriage Act” from the State are being horribly misguided. Almost willfully so, like they are having their strings pulled.
Were I a religious man getting married, I wouldn’t want the State to have anything to do with my marriage. So I can understand that perspective. And the overall discussion is interesting on an intellectual level. But this still doesn’t address the main problem, which is that modern women are unworthy of marriage.
I could see women agreeing to a privatized marriage, happily walking down the aisle, and making her vows. Only to regret it a few years later and making her husband’s life a living hell. Remember that many women want a ring on their finger more than ANYTHING and once she thinks she’s snagged a good man she’ll say or do anything to make it happen. And it’s not as if the Church will be able to defend the man if she cooks up a false Domestic Violence charge or something. The State has given women too many incentives for bad behavior, whether or not she can actually divorce you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Type 5 November 8, 2010 at 15:16

JohnJ:
I felt this way at one time, but I’ve come to the idea that the state enforces marriage because it enforces contracts, and marriage is, essentially, a contract. I’d like to see some real-world examples of marriage “deregulation” before I can say for sure, though. Hard data always trumps theory.

Pre-Nuptual agreements. One can view these as people’s attempts to negotiate their own marriage contracts instead of accepting the state’s one-size-fits-all, subject to change by courts and legislature, “We define your relationship for you” civil marriage contract.

Of course, the state feels free to nullify these negotiated contracts whenever they deviate in any significant way from the state-mandated contract.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price November 8, 2010 at 15:21

I agree that Social Conservatives looking for a “Defense of Marriage Act” from the State are being horribly misguided. Almost willfully so, like they are having their strings pulled.

-HE

They are being willfully manipulated — no doubt about it.

You know the old saw about the preacher’s daughter. Always out running around and then crying to daddy when things go wrong.

That’s the feminist/socon relationship. It’s as American as apple pie.

But we have to stop it.

rob November 8, 2010 at 16:07

Should I ever, in a moment of serious weakness, after 98 shots of tequila, 125 blowjobs (I’m further away than one), and if it would be guaranteed to bring world peace… and cure all disease… and if it would make the planets align… and she was a mute… three feet tall, big ears, and a flat head to rest my beer on… and her dad owned a brewery… and she had ten million dollars… and I was 103 years old and had a terminal disease and only 6 months to live…

If all of those things were in place, then perhaps I might consider committing suicide-marriage (for the good it would bring to the human race).

And if such a time and place were ever to occur, I would simply get a Bible, and in the opening cover, I would enter Mr. & Mrs. Fedrz on the inside pages, the date, and that Bible would become “The Family Bible,” the same way that people have been getting married on the Bible throughout history. Each child born would get entered beneath the marriage date.

From what I understand, according to the old rules, in order for a marriage to be valid upon a family Bible, you need permission from your parents, and I believe there has to be a public notice of the upcoming marriage – only for 48 or 72 hrs or something.

Apparently, a Family Bible still stands for inheritance and such… you have to keep the guest book, so you have a ready amount of witnesses to the ceremony should the court contest it, they can testify that you are indeed married.

I don’t know if you still swear on a Bible in court – lol, it’s been a long time since I was in a court. But you certainly used to.

Having strictly used the Bible, without involving government, also specifically shows what kind of marriage you intended – the one written in this book, you asshats in gov’t!

Now, I’ve seen some that say it will still work to marry on the Bible (even ministers), but I also have to say, “what do you mean ‘it still works?’”

Of course it still “works.” Regardless of the government’s views.

Should all of those conditions I listed in the beginning be met… I would get married on the Bible and on the Bible alone, regardless. In fact, my 22yr old bride should be grateful to see my liver-spotted 103yr old hand swear upon the Bible with my vows… because I’d lie to the government 100,000 times quicker than I’d lie on the Bible.

Who would dare tell me I am not married, if I married on the Bible?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 6
rob November 8, 2010 at 16:23

I forgot to include Alzheimer’s in my list… although, I’m not sure if it would be better to forget what happened, or to wake up each day and rediscover over and over what a mistake I had made.

It really shows to me what has happened to Christianity that Christians don’t hardly dare to stand on the Bible anymore.

A person who believed in his convictions, should stand on the Bible in the face of government, and dare the fuckers to knock you off of it.

Throughout history, one of the greatest political values of the Bible is it was able to be used to beat back government. Even kings could not over-rule God, and the Bible was used many, many times to fight the corruption of government.

Christians really have become cowed – like Ned Flanders… okelee dokelee big government, let me bend over and spread ‘em.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
novaseeker November 8, 2010 at 16:34

It’s not a terrible idea, but as with everything, the devil is in the details.

One would need to sure that the state would enforce the terms of the marriage contracts, and not pick and choose as it does today with respect to pre-nups, in order for this idea to work. I think we’re pretty far away from that happening, because more or less the entire society believes in the “best interests of the child” standard which, in many cases, will require ignoring the marriage contract. We’d need a complete revolution in family law in order for this to work, in addition to the social problem of convincing the state that it has no interest in incenting/regulating marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence November 8, 2010 at 16:34

Rob-”It really shows to me what has happened to Christianity that Christians don’t hardly dare to stand on the Bible anymore. ”

Yes. Very true. The word of their God is only followed when it suits their political and cultural beliefs. And it’s one reason why so many Christians are either becoming “church-less” or turning to less wishy-washy versions of the faith like Pentecostalism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Peter November 8, 2010 at 16:41

@Emperor Maximilian of Austria

The current policy among the US Bishops’ conference is that one has to obtain a marriage licence by the state to marry.

It is still possible in some states to not get a marriage license and yet have a Catholic marriage. This is done in states which still permit the publishing of banns, which is a public notice that the couple will be married and anyone with objections can voice them.

This carried over from the Catholic Church into the Church of England, and I have heard but cannot verify, that one can publish the banns in Canada and be married without a marriage license there.

It is something that should be investigated to keep the State out of your marriage and bedroom, not to mention finances.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Firepower November 8, 2010 at 17:09

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 27
SingleDad November 8, 2010 at 17:10

IMO it is a travesty that the church has not opposed feminism. It will be the downfall of christianity.

The Pope understands this and has published a finding that feminism is abhorrent to the church. To little to late.

The muslims are pushing their laws in the West and winning, but we are a house divided.

Eve was once again seduced into betraying her man and here we are, the death of the West.

In my opinion, it can’t happen fast enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
misterb November 8, 2010 at 17:15

We definitely need to go back to the marriage of old, before the puritans. A marriage of old – I mean a union between a man and a woman. Of which the woman submits to the man, the man takes the woman by her hand and leads her.

Personally I don’t believe in polygamous, multiple marriages and same sex marriage.

It should be one man and one woman. The State ought to butt the hell out.

I have a feeling that the feminist Christians and the narcissistic feminists would try to find way in making life more interesting for the male species. So the State would intervene make criminals out of the males.

In the Northern Bush, women had to marry men, in order to survive. Where life is harsh, the land is unforgiving. dispensing rewards from time to time.

Women are prone to superstition, drawing men into them.

as it is true where housewives are required to know a lot of things. From who’s messing with the kids, cook meals, handle a shotgun, needlework and so forth. Nowadays women are going for douchebags and turd bags.

While men had to hunt, work and toil. And a man’s work is never over.

When a man cheats behind his woman, he is no better than the harlot who spread her legs open to any man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
W.F. Price November 8, 2010 at 17:37

One would need to sure that the state would enforce the terms of the marriage contracts, and not pick and choose as it does today with respect to pre-nups, in order for this idea to work. I think we’re pretty far away from that happening, because more or less the entire society believes in the “best interests of the child” standard which, in many cases, will require ignoring the marriage contract.

-novaseeker

You know, that’s the only thing I found a bit credulous about Zelinsky’s paper. The idea that the state would enforce a marriage contract as regards custody just sounded impossible as things stand today. Incidentally, though, this is the one thing that strongly suggested to me that Zelinsky is on our side — he surely knows the current state of affairs in regards to that, so he must be describing some alternate reality that he evidently believes is possible here.

But I should thank you for reminding me of this issue, because the “best interests of the child” is a nebulous concept over which feminists have claimed ownership that they don’t deserve. I think it’s time to start hitting them on that one as hard as we can. Not only to weaken their grip on power, but to help the millions of real children whose lives are turned upside down because female sexual license has become a sacrament in today’s version of marriage that always trumps children’s future.

Feminists’ main concern is sexual and reproductive control — feminism is about empowering fertile women – at most 15% of the population – at the expense of everyone else.

misterb November 8, 2010 at 17:38

My father has a strict view of marriage. he view marriage as an act of duty. Women weren’t allowed to make life and death situations. he even considered marrying another woman while the wife is still alive, as an adulterous act. same goes for women.

Ever since Eve was deceived and Adam kicked out of the garden. Women needed to be anchored by men.

If God exists, I bet he would be not too pleased on how Christians carry themselves.

He didn’t intend Christians to become a bunch of sissies.

About several years ago, when I researched on it, I found that long ago, feminism had hijacked marriage and Christianity.

I have this thought for quite, I think the memory of the goddess worship. Had inspired feminism.

misterb aka misterbastard

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
misterb November 8, 2010 at 17:55

@ WF Price

Actually abortion and sexual license is considered a sacrament among feminist women.

Whenever I hear reproductive rights. B.S. comes to minds. No one on this earth have the right to take lives of others. Especially children.

I am starting to think women are natural born murderers.

misterb aka misterbastard

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
fondueguy November 8, 2010 at 18:26

@troll king

“OT: I created my own subreddit on reddit.com. Come join and create a voice separate from the damn feminist infested r/mensrights.”

Omg your so right. I haven’t got in enough dialogue to see enough but I can tell by the voting there must be feminists. At least the owners are good.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
misterb November 8, 2010 at 18:50

I am willing to bet women will have a fit and a bad reaction. When they lose control of the so-called reproductive rights.

Even though Obama is biggest man with a vagina. He axed most of the offshore bank accounts, such the Bahamas, Switzerland. The feminists had the hand on it. Ergo, it is challenging to create a offshore account, legally. Even you transferred money that is yours, legally. The tax man would still come after you.

the tax man are narcissistic, in regards how they view themselves. As kings, who think that they can do what they pleased. Like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer.

misterb aka misterbastard

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
ElectricAngel November 8, 2010 at 19:11

As Bill Price wrote a few weeks back, “Stop looking for a wife; you won’t find one.”

But I am here to report, Spearheadians, that I met a wife 10 days ago! A charming young woman enthralled with her husband, submissive to him and desirous to do whatever he thought best for their family. She wanted to work while he continued in school, which was not something I had heard much of recently.

Here’s the kicker: they were from Iran. It seems under all the burqas that the tight control causes the man who “frees” a woman from that to reap an immense bounty. And now you know why the West, and the US, wants to make war upon that place: the existence of one land still producing wives is a mortal threat to the gynocracy here.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
misterb November 8, 2010 at 19:37

@ElectricAngel

Now that’s definitely a kicker. The dark nature of gynocracy. And greed.

In addition Iran has two resources that the US and the west wants. Oil and uranium. The Saudis, well the Royal family are aiding the west.

given the choice between Saudi Arabia and Iran, I would choose Iran.

We’re heading towards world war three. and darker times are ahead

misterb aka misterbastard

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Robert Reis November 8, 2010 at 20:50

Gleaned from the web and an article:

Said the legendarily excitable Berlusconi, 72, (Sun, 3 xi): “It’s better to be passionate about beautiful girls than to be gay.”

HM Prison Service learned a lesson from its equality-minded over-recruitment of women as five of the lucky officerettes had to resign after being found having sex with the young male prisoners of HMP Onley, near Rugby (Daily Mail, 1 xi).

http://notinfallible.weebly.com/1/post/2010/11/bigots-fools-and-liars-doctors-and-guns.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Robert November 8, 2010 at 22:51

Firepower November 8, 2010 at 12:42
Robert November 8, 2010 at 12:37

How much revenge do feminists require?

You need to formulate questions as a man – as an adult.

The question was rhetorical as I already know the answer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
rob November 9, 2010 at 00:41

In some ways, I am deeply ashamed of my Christian Heritage.

It is kinda like coming from a long line of carpenters…

And then watching your son, with his new hammer held high in the sky, sun glinting off the shiny metal…

And then he tries to beat the nail in with his forehead!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
woggy November 9, 2010 at 03:03

‘And it’s one reason why so many Christians are either becoming “church-less” or turning to less wishy-washy versions of the faith like Pentecostalism.’

I don’t know how you’re reckoning that Pentacostals are less wishy-washy, particularly where marriage is concerned.
They are among the worst.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Phil November 9, 2010 at 03:41

There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian”. Christianity and Talmudic Judaism are two very different religions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Anathas10 November 9, 2010 at 04:19

I think I must be missing something fundamental here as I cannot why this is such a good idea.

So we go from a situation in which we have marriage, a clearly defined status sanctioned by the state and officially recorded, to a situation where it is standard practice that the court is the arbiter of all relationship breakdown – rather than just marriage breakdown. Isn’t that just opening up the floodgates? Won’t we just see the application of the same principles in handling marriage breakdown applied on a wider basis? Won’t the lawyers all just start running adverts saying, “been in a relationship for two years? Unhappy with your lot? Remember, you don’t need to have your marriage sanctioned by the state to be able to get all this…….” Or “Feel like your married? Then you probably are. Make sure you get what is rightfully yours etc……

Won’t we get situations in which a woman simply claims that “they exchanged words on a beach and committed to one another forever” and the burden of proof will be on the men to show that actually they are not married? Just like it is on men to show that they are not a wife beater or not a child molester when women make unfounded accusations in divorce proceedings?

I can see the media article now…

“Since the removal of state sanctioned marriage a worrying trend has emerged that people are calling “seduction by marriage” in which unscrupulous young men are pretending to get married and then turning around and denying it later………

Enter expert Psychologist – “well its perfectly understandable that men, who are driven by their sexual urges, will make use of such tactics and very unfortunate for the innocent young women who are no doubt emotionally scarred forever”

Enter feminist action group “what we are going to do to protect our young women from the sexual predators using marriage to ensnare innocent young maidens”

Enter politician who proposes changes to the ways in which such things are conducted so that men are effectively assumed to be married as long as there was a relationship and the women says that they were – after all, what women would want to pretend she was married?

In fact, if this goes ahead I predict the invention of a totally new type of rape – Marriage Rape (not marital rape) – In which men make commitments which women feel are marriage but then want to end the relationship. By pretending to get married they have effectively raped the young women, who was “saving herself until she was married” – shock horror “Rapist, rapist, rapist, protect the females regardless of the consequences on our young men, pass legislation, imprison offenders etc etc etc…..”
At least as it stands now you actually have to get to a licensed place and get it done properly….some woman can’t just make up a pack of lies later and claim you were married. At least men still have a little bit of choice about whether they get married or not.
As I said I must be missing something as everyone seems to be with one voice on this. While I often disagree with the odd commentator on a particular subject – I normally agree with a lot of what is said by many of the same commentators – not least yourself Welmer!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 9, 2010 at 04:22

btw, you can be married in a Quaker ceremony without a license, remember “Clark Rockefeller”.
*****************
The thing that will really change the power back to men where it belongs will be the male pill and the male’s complete control over reproduction. Illegal sperm would be classified as a controlled substance and any female in posession of it prosecuted.
There is nothing the female can do to counter this. Even if at some time in the future technology became so advanced that a female could take one of her eggs and that it could be induced to start dividing and then either implanted into a female volunteer or put into some artificial womb (after we completely understood every factor of developement during the 9 months in the womb) all it would produce is another useless female which would be as unproductive and drain on society as today’s. There will never be a female only Utopia in the future and the society would degenerate to a primitive animal existence very quickly in a matter of a generation or two.. Even in he best case scenario they could never rise above what they now are. Using this method to reproduce would cause inbreeding and all sorts of mental and physical disorders.
Men have got to get complete control of reproduction because then they can pretty much dictate all terms to the female who has an insatiable compulsive naturally programmed desire to get pregnant and have a baby. Females will have to pay for the privilege of getting knocked up( like a $500k fee) and also show that they have ample funds to support the baby and that it is in a secure trust fund and is enough for 18 years(another $500k) So girls, I suggest you save up every penny from that “career” and live very frugally (no clothes, shoes, holidays, beauty treatments, cars etc) if you want a baby otherwise you have to be a cat hoarder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Peter November 9, 2010 at 05:52

Peter November 8, 2010 at 16:41
@Emperor Maximilian of Austria

One more time “Peter”, I was here first, get your own goddamn handle. If you come to a forum and you see a guy who’s been posting before, and even had a feature article published, then you by courtesy assign yourself a different name.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
DEI November 9, 2010 at 06:13

This is a good article. Let the people decide what system of marriage they want for themselves. Reality is emergent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
red November 9, 2010 at 06:18

This is a really interesting issue Wilmer. Thanks for posting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Herbal Essence November 9, 2010 at 07:46

Woggy-True, that they may be wishy washy on marriage, but they are pretty darn strict on literal interpretations of the Bible. That’s more what I was referring to than just marriage, though I wasn’t very clear. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) November 9, 2010 at 08:51

SingleDad November 8, 2010 at 17:10
“IMO it is a travesty that the church has not opposed feminism. It will be the downfall of christianity.”
SD, the christian church was a creation of the Illuminati and they want it to end. The same people run all the religions and all guvments at the top. I keep saying it….as do many other people….but men simply refuse to do their research to find out that this is true.
At a wedding in a church? The minister is re-presenting BOTH the state and the church. That is THEIR claim. Why? Because a contact requires ‘meeting of the minds’. Well? Who from the guvment was there to have a meeting of the minds with? Answer? The minister.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6
KK November 9, 2010 at 09:01

Christians forget (or ignore) one scripture that reveals non-married relationships and premarital sex are perfectly fine with the Judeo-Christian God:

2nd Samuel 5:13:…”And David took MORE WIVES AND CONCUBINES and more children were born unto him.”

Concubines are not wives, but a sexual relationship is inferred, albeit optional. Note the next scripture following that verse; David has a direct conversation with God, but he doesn’t hear “HEY! Only ONE wife!” but instead “Sure, go attack that other tribe.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi November 9, 2010 at 09:33

””””’Upon the dissolution of familial relationships, the courts would be required to interpret and enforce the contracts defining those relationships. In the absence of such contracts, the courts would be required to make decisions about income, assets and minor children, just as they do today.

I doubt he would ever admit it on paper, but I am almost certain this Zelinsky fellow holds some views in common with us here at The Spearhead. In fact, I can’t find one single point in his article with which I take issue.
””””””””’

courts interpreting and enforcing.

How is this guy saying anything diferent than what is happening now?

Marriage certificates are cheap at the courthouse.

Probably lowered the cost of marriage compared to only the church doing it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
Joe Jackson November 9, 2010 at 09:51

Marriage worked fine until the feminist movement came along! Lets just go back to what we had! We don’t need some moronic theorist from the Middle East to tell us how to run our Western Culture. Is “Yeshiva University” a real university anyway? It conjures up images of a bunch of Rabbis dressed in Caftans chanting in a synagogue!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Höllenhund November 9, 2010 at 10:05

Welmer & Novaseeker,

my knowledge about the feminist movement is limited but it seems to be that they indeed successfully expropriated the idea of “putting the interests of the child first”, spun it and used it as a canard to advance their own ends. I explained my point earlier here:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/07/20/end-game-the-beginning/#comment-34359

What nobody dares to mention is that marriage 1.0, as enforced by the patriarchy, was the system that actually went to the greatest lengths to put the interests of children first. In fact, the very institution of marriage 1.0 serves that purpose above all else. As marriage declines, so does the overall social well-being of children – largely due to policies pushed by feminists who speak about “putting the interests of the children first”. It’s a good example of shrewd propaganda and really shows how dangerous feminists – just like all other leftists – are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 9, 2010 at 10:14

Robert November 8, 2010 at 22:51

Firepower November 8, 2010 at 12:42
Robert November 8, 2010 at 12:37

How much revenge do feminists require?

You need to formulate questions as a man – as an adult.

The question was rhetorical as I already know the answer.

That’s so much more clear and efficient than just saying “feminists require bottomless revenge”

Good tactic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
SingleDad November 9, 2010 at 10:17

@ Hollenhund

That was a great summary of the basic problem we are seeing, bravo, I wsh i could give you 20 up ticks.

Thanks, with regard to the declining welfare of children in the West you’ve hit the nail on the head.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Robert November 9, 2010 at 12:31

Firepower November 9, 2010 at 10:14
Robert November 8, 2010 at 22:51

Firepower November 8, 2010 at 12:42
Robert November 8, 2010 at 12:37

How much revenge do feminists require?

You need to formulate questions as a man – as an adult.

The question was rhetorical as I already know the answer.

That’s so much more clear and efficient than just saying “feminists require bottomless revenge”

Good tactic.

How much revenge do you think feminists “need” in order to be satisfied?
How many men/boys/males must be destroyed before they are satisfied?

Answer; all.

Their creators created “Frankenstein” and they are afraid to kill their creation as long as “it” gives them true power.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Robert November 9, 2010 at 12:36

What is your answer to the question:?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Robert November 9, 2010 at 12:40

If female feminists could impregnate themselves, how many men do you think would be “authorized” to exist (non castarated men)?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi November 9, 2010 at 13:21

What do you think will happen when babies can be made in vats of goo?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Höllenhund November 9, 2010 at 14:43

Thanks, with regard to the declining welfare of children in the West you’ve hit the nail on the head.

SingleDad,

there are certainly similarities with other leftist policies to be observed here. The Soviet communists ruled in the name of the proletariat, claiming that “all power belongs to the workers”, while at the same time subjecting them to levels of oppression that even the sleaziest capitalists never instituted. A classic case of ideological doublethink.

Recently I have developed an eager interest in corporate marketing and political propaganda (two sides of the same coin) and one thing that strikes me is just how successful feminist propaganda is. Even Dr. Goebbels would be stunned were he alive. The idea of selling blatantly unjust divorce laws to the public by claiming that they protect the interests of children above all is both very simple and very effective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Type 5 November 9, 2010 at 14:55

Anathas10:
At least as it stands now you actually have to get to a licensed place and get it done properly….some woman can’t just make up a pack of lies later and claim you were married. At least men still have a little bit of choice about whether they get married or not.

Right now, the trend is for couples increasingly to negotiate pre-nups or to simply co-habit precisely because they don’t want to be subject to the state’s marriage contract. The trend in government has been to assume authority in those relationships anyway. Palimony, for instance. I have also heard rumblings about extending the “protections of marriage” to women who are only co-habiting. I remember something specifically about that in the UK a few years ago. I don’t recall if it went anywhere.

It seems to me that, as couples try to get around the state contract, the governement impulse is to reign them back in. The absence of a marriage license is in no way proof against government intervention. That is why I see value in expressly getting the state our of the relationship sanctioning/regulating business.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
woggy November 9, 2010 at 15:46

Responding to Herbal Essence:
Woggy-True, that they may be wishy washy on marriage, but they are pretty darn strict on literal interpretations of the Bible. That’s more what I was referring to than just marriage, though I wasn’t very clear

If the Pentecostals were strict on literal interpretation, then they’d be in a good place on marriage.
Jesus Christ was quite clear on divorce and re-marriage (He called it adultery, if the former spouse was still living)
If everyone, men or women, were to be dutifully instructed that they must remain celibate until their ex is dead, that would provide incentive to make a marriage work, and I dare speculate that it just might lead to a more careful approach to the idea of getting married in the first place.
To be fair, the Pentecostal denominations are not alone in the shirking of their duty in this regard, but, as I said in my earlier post, they are among the worst. Even among their luminaries, people with three or more marriages under their belt are not uncommon- and many of those marriages are/were initiated, consummated and dissolved while the participants were “in the faith”.
The concept of male leadership in the home and in the church is not difficult to extract by literally reading the New Testament epistles, yet the Pentecostals are rife with woman pastors, apostles and prophets. Think about that butchy blonde lady TV preacher, Joyce Mayers:
Think she’s taking the Bible literally? Not on your life.

If they are that off-base with things related to gender/marriage, it seems folly for them to be involved with anything termed “Defense of Marriage”.

That’s not to say that I don’t believe that the churchmen should oversee the institution of marriage (or what’s left of it).
Maybe the ominous task would cause the “posers” to find new careers and those truly called to get literally serious-or seriously literal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence November 10, 2010 at 06:39

woggy- All true. Pentecostalism is supposedly growing rapidly partially due to their literalism and Charismatic practices. You make a very good point in that it seems to be selective literalism.

KK Re: David and his concubines- Very good find, but if I may evoke my Sunday School teacher from 20 years ago- “In THOSE days, the male patriarchs were supposed to have many, many babies to build the tribe. But NOW, you gotta keep it in your pants and only have sex with ONE person in your life, ever, and only after you’ve dated for several years and been married. Also, probably best you don’t enjoy the sex act either. It was okay for David, but not for you. I will now pass the collection plate.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
PeterTheGreat November 10, 2010 at 10:01

@”Peter”

One more time “Peter”, I was here first, get your own goddamn handle. If you come to a forum and you see a guy who’s been posting before, and even had a feature article published, then you by courtesy assign yourself a different name.

Ah, but I have not seen your posts before, and know nothing of you. What is this, “one more time?” Perhaps you should take a different “handle”, hey – out of courtesy?

Nevertheless since you are such a sensitive and emotional type, not to mention profane, I will henceforth use PeterTheGreat to differentiate myself from your sensitivities and emotes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert November 10, 2010 at 10:10

Gunslingergregi November 9, 2010 at 13:21
What do you think will happen when babies can be made in vats of goo?

We are all fucked.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: