It’s Time For Marriage v3.0! Who’s With Me?

The recent Supreme Court decision to grant marriage rights to every gay and lesbian couple in each of the 50 states of America has been a sad and utter routing of a prized American institution.

No your enemy. It's good to know that your enemy is willing to display their insignia openly.

Know your enemy!  It’s good to know that your enemy is willing to display their insignia openly.

So what does the gay marriage decision have anything to do with the foreign bride seeker?  Because the foreign bride seeker is ahead of the curve.  The political and social environment that eventually made gay marriage possible also stacked marriage against the interests of the American man and he simply decided to go Galt.  America should care about what is happening to such men.  Searching for a foreign wife isn’t cheap.  So consequently, the American women that everybody seems to care so much about are losing the opportunity to choose husbands that are productive, skilled, loyal and have a strong sense of personal identity.  So pay attention.  The reasons why legalized gay marriage became possible are the reasons why the AM is searching for love abroad.

The hypocrisy that I see is that while we are celebrating gay marriage, we are also trying to make it illegal for AM to find wives abroad and we try to shame them by calling them losers or misfits.  We assume that such men want maids and sex slaves which equates the man’s righteous search to human trafficking.

Paving the Road to Hell

Judges, politicians, bureaucrats and elected leaders have turned marriage into the mockery that we see today.  You’ve enabled women to nuke their marriages for the most frivolous reasons and called it empowerment.  And they encouraged them every step of the way with success stories of women that have dumped their husbands.  You allowed women to expel a man from the home by granting restraining orders on baseless grounds, then held him down by the barrel of a gun while the courts robbed him in one of the largest wealth redistribution schemes that our law makers can come up with: the family courts system.  You’ve imposed crippling child support and alimony windfall rewards that the man must pay.  If he’s unable to, you throw him in jail!  Meanwhile, you celebrate single motherhood as something honorable and heroic. You always campaigned on your love and respect for family values but you are merely a white-washed tomb. Shame on you!

Our churches and men of the cloth were regarded as vanguards of the nuclear family, but they failed.  They were good men who chose to do nothing while serpents slithered into their churches preaching new age, post-modern, moral relativistic nonsense.  This makes them collaborators.  You married couples that had, at best, a tenuous connection to the church, but you did not counsel them as to what their parish, society and God expected of them.  When their marriages stumbled, you did not help them.  When they divorced, you did not condemn it.  You did not insist that the man is the leader of his family.  You preached that man is supposed to love his wife like Christ loved the church by giving into the wife’s growing childish demands including her demand to divorce.  Shame on you!

Men, where were you?  How did you drop the ball on this?  Why couldn’t you have put your foot down with your wife and children and lay down the law?  You are their provider and protector. You lead, they follow.  It’s that simple.  This means saying “no” once in a while.  Sure they’ll scream and yell.  They’ll get over it.  Drama is the domain of women.  You are supposed to be their rock and their support, but you got sucked into their distractions as a result.  How comfortable is that couch?  How comfortable is that studio apartment you had to move into in the wrong side of town?  How comfortable is that jail cell you have to stay in because you couldn’t pay your child support?  Maybe if you had put your foot down you may have gotten some respect at least.  Shame on you!

(American) Women, the worst of them all.  You’ve turned your homes into a hostile working environment because of your childish demands.  Instead of deferring to your husband on matters of the family and home, you deferred to Oprah and every other half-wit standing in front of a camera.  You listened to them tell you that you were unhappy, oppressed and were worth more than what you were getting from your husband.  So you challenged him on everything, you withheld sex, you nagged him, you insisted he do chores around the house that he was providing you out of love, and when this made him a different man than the one you married, you detonated the marriage for your 30 pieces of silver.  Shame on you!

Only when we have debased the institution of marriage to the hollowed-out husk that it is, did we think it was a good idea to expand it to include gays and lesbians.  It is only the beginning of a long slippery slope to hell.  They’ll be legalizing polygamy next because, you know, love is the only thing that matters, right?  What about pedophiles?  I’m pretty sure “love” is a factor there too.  Incest? Bestiality?   I don’t even want to contemplate that and we have long ago lost the moral authority to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Boundaries exist for a reason.  Unfortunately, too many people insist on tearing them down.  And once everybody can marry (and divorce) for any reason, there will be no compelling reason why anybody should marry.  Marriage rates are already in decline.  How much worse will it get before we feel a need to shore up and restore the institution of marriage?

Marriage v3.0

Women and their enablers in government, the church and their peer groups are driving divorce in this country.  Statistics vary, but roughly 60-70% are filed by women, and there is reason to believe that this is understating matters.  How many divorces are men filing because their wife has decided to make his life a living hell?  I wish there was more data to quantify this type of divorce.

However, while women are driving the divorce trends, men are clearly driving the marriage trends.  I’m not just talking about the formal proposal on bent-knee with diamond, but whether or not men are showing up in the first place.

Kay S Hymowitz

Stories abound all over the internet of women wanting marriage and asking where the real men are?

Marriage v1.0 is the idealized arrangement in the past that was made between a man and woman in front of God and everybody while celebrated and seen as the foundation of any civilized people, and the only legitimate means of procreation.  Both man and women had the roles in the marriage and society expected both of them to live up to them in exchange for the benefits they received from the arrangement: love, respect, loyalty, security, etc

Marriage v2.0  is what happened to marriage after the feminists and their enablers put their claws on it.  It gave the women the “right” to terminate a legally binding contract on baseless grounds while still keeping the children and a sizable portion of the marital assets as well as claims to a sizable portion of her ex husband’s future income under the threat of imprisonment.  This is the version we are currently operating in and it’s being acknowledged by more and more people as being a raw deal for men and harmful to children.

Marriage v3.0 is intended to be an attempt to restore the institution of marriage to its rightful place, but due to modern solipsistic concerns, it will differ from Marriage v1.0 slightly, which is why I’m suggesting a new version instead of a return to v1.0

At some point, there will need to be a dialog in this country.  If the family unit and availability of men is such a pressing issue in society, we need to gather a representative sample of men and ask them:

1. Do they want to ever get married (again), and if not, why?

2. What do they expect from the arrangement in exchange for committing to a single women and supporting her and the children she bears?

3. If you are considering seeking a wife abroad, what would it take to consider AW again?

Women will not be allowed to participate in this discussion or respond to it.  There will be no female panel for the sake of “balance”.  It’s not about suppressing the women’s views on the matter.  It’s about creating a safe zone wear the men can feel free to talk about their needs and desires in marriage without being ridiculed, judged or shouted off of the stage.

This will never happen, at least not in the near future.  Women dominate the mass media platforms in this country (even FOX hasn’t escaped the tentacles of modern-day feminism) and they aren’t giving it up without a fight.  But I imagine that such a list that men come up with for Marriage v3.0 will include these.

  1. Marriage v3.0 will be regarded as a binding contract between two consenting adults. This means there will be a cost to whoever breaks this contract.  Marriage v3.0 will be considered under jurisdiction of the church.  Consequently, the government cannot interfere under the precedent of Separation of Church and State. Marriage became the abomination of Marriage v2.0 because we let the government get involved.  This ends now.
  2. A person who initiates a baseless divorce under Marriage v3.0 forfeits their claims to custody of the children, marital assets and future income of their spouse.  They are to immediately vacate the marital home.
  3. The only grounds for divorce in Marriage v3.0 will be adultery committed by their spouse or abandonment for a period not less than two years (except if a spouse is called away to war or conscripted for any other national emergency).  Abuse can be used as grounds for divorce if there is a trial separation and a court of law has determined that an assault has occurred.  In these cases, the offended spouse will be entitled to compensatory and punitive damages from the offending spouse.
  4. The wife will defer to the husband in concerns of finance, rearing of the children, and religious and political affiliations.  In regards to weightier matters, the husband is the boss.  He may solicit input from his wife, but his word is final.  Men are being blamed for a lot in society while women are raising feral, entitled children and squandering wealth on conspicuous consumerism.  It’s time to actually return authority and responsibility to men so they can accept this blame.  They can’t do any worse the way I see it.
  5. A groom will expect a dowry from his bride or bride’s family if his bride is not a virgin before the marriage contract is final.  A wife that has had sex with a man (or men) prior to her husband is a risk to the durability of the marriage and the husband can never be certain that he has her love solely and completely.  Therefore a type of deposit is required in the form of a dowry.
  6. A husband isn’t required to support children that a wife may have had with a man from a previous relationship when he marries her.  He may formally adopt them when presented with an additional dowry.  If he does so, his wife will defer to him in regards to their upbringing.
  7. All births in the marriage will require a paternity test to ensure the man that he has fathered this child and can raise it as his own without worry that it may not be his (especially if his bride wasn’t a virgin).  If it’s discovered that it isn’t his child, he can divorce on ground of adultery and is entitled to damages.  He will not be responsible for raising this child or supporting his ex-wife.
  8. If a wife withholds sex in the marriage (except in the case of serious illness), refuses or is unable to give birth to children that the husband wants, he may not divorce, but he can marry another wife.  He will be obligated to support additional wives but this won’t be considered adultery so there’s no grounds for his wife to divorce.  One of the major factors that weighs in a man’s decision to marry a woman is having exclusive and regular sex with her, so that he knows his children are his and can provide for them and his wife with good reason.  So this part of marriage needs to be guaranteed for a man to think seriously about entering such a contract.  If she fails or refuses to do this, a man can seek satisfaction elsewhere, but she must marry her and raise the children from such a coupling.  Financial ruin and humiliation in a divorce hangs over a man’s head like the Sword of Damocles while he’s married.  This is the only way I can think of to turn the tables so that women will realize that they have obligations also and consequences for failure to fulfill them.

This isn’t an exhaustive list, but I think you get the idea.  It seems heavily slanted towards men and that’s because it is.  If you want men to consider marriage with American women, then you have to sweeten the deal.  If women want to marry they may have to join a church and play along.  Either way, this should increase church attendance and perhaps give people a moral compass in the process and realize that a marriage isn’t just about them or what they can get.  They have to consider the needs of another person. I need to emphasize that nobody, man or woman, will be trapped in marriage.  They can leave at anytime, but it will cost them.

Until then, you can find me overseas with the other bride seekers.



Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “It’s Time For Marriage v3.0! Who’s With Me?

  1. pukeko60

    You have just described what the Hindus or the ancient Chinese do. This is not marriage 3.0, it is marriage 0.5.

    What you need to do is look at the Hutterites and Mennonites and work out how they remain in marriages and (more importantly) keep the courts and social workers out of their homes. And it requires social cohesion, church discipline, and the ability to shun.

    • keep the courts and social workers out of their homes.
      I don’t think this will happen. If we call Marriage 3.0 (or 0.5) “Marriage” then the state will claim jurisdiction and intervene anyways. We need to come up with a different name. We can call it a “covenant agreement” or something along those lines and regard it as a private contract that is enforceable in the courts. This is how I think my idea differs from other conservative arrangements.

      In all honesty, this was a brainstorm on my part. It can still use some polish. The goal is to make marriage more appealing to men while holding women accountable for what happens in it.

    • Mickey Singh

      What do the Hindus do and what did the ancient Chinese do?

  2. pukeko60

    It was a good brainstorm.
    Perhaps something akin to the Jewish marriage contract or a legally binding covenant that seals a family within the faith i.e.. you forfeit if you leave the Reformed Church (or Orthodox — sorry, I can’t see the Roman Catholics or Mainstream churches doing this).
    And, if needed, a parallel civil marriage. As in France, where you have to have a state marriage to be married in the church — done on the same day, so sin does not take hold of the couple :-).
    The Mennonites etc. have problems right now as their style of child raising is considered abuse because physical discipline and even if no physical discipline the patriarchy. The state is against the church on these issues at present.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s