great article
the subject matter is just so headdesk, though.

As a student of religion, and ancient Christianity in particular, I always feel a little queasy and a little like banging my head against something hard when I encounter the Religious Right's attitudes towards marriage. The fact that modern marriage is a largely Western and largely middle class construct maybe MAYBE 400 years old (I can't speak to much that happened later than 500 CE) is unsurprisingly lost on the same group of people who insist that fossils are a test of our faith from God. Early churches didn't even perform marriages--it was a civil (read: political/economic) matter. So hardly ancient and God-given.

Also, the fact that their solution to the divorce rate is to keep people in unhappy situations rather than KEEP THOSE SITUATIONS FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PLACE is troubling. I applaud the group's efforts to push pre-marital and couples' counseling, because a lot of bad marriages can be avoided or saved that way (kind of like contraception = fewer abortions. Crazy!), but I wish they'd put more energy into that rather than trying, once again, to dictate everyone else's morality.

Also, if they're going to insist on some Biblical ideal for marriage, why aren't they pushing to legalize polygamy? Or dowries? Might as well go all the way. (/snark)

These Mens Rights Activists came to my school a couple of weeks ago. This whacko named Stephen Baskerville was on the panel. I guess students invited him because they wanted a "fair and balanced discussion" on immigration and domestic violence, which was the supposed to be the subject. The entire event devolved into an argument about whether domestic violence even exists and how men's due process rights are trampled by restraining orders (which they are not.) He had a posse with him, who would not stop calling out and disrupting other speakers and came armed with bootleg print outs full of ridiculous statistics on domestic violence. I was insulted that they would even come into an academic institution with such intellectually dishonest lies. Bottom line: steer clear of Baskerville when lining up your next event.

zoelawgirl,
That event shouldve been taped and sent over the web to show how aimless and irrational the Mens Rights Activists are. Why is it people think in order to have a 'fair and balanced' discussion on something they have to bring the opposite of one side. Going with that baseless standard a school should bring KKK to counter race activists, anti-choice nuts to counter Planned Parenthood speakers, and religious militants to counter secularist speakers.

I don't think Kathryn's article is great. They're not proposing to repeal no-fault divorce. So it's wrong at a very basic level.

Did anyone read this little gem that was linked on the side?

http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&Id=166#

Great stuff:
"It’s possible we will have to take a more serious stand and take up arms against the society that abuses women in these ways. But the oppressed women of America deserve a chance. We have to offer them the opportunity. In fact, once we have killed off a bunch of these men, things will be better for American women. They will be grateful to our boys for emancipating them from a destructive lifestyle. They will flock to us seeking security and guidance. We are their only hope. They know not, and they cannot help themselves. It’s up to us."

What got me was: “in four out of five cases, one spouse did not want the divorce, but had no choice.�

Setting aside the question of where the hell they got those numbers, the fact is that if one partner wants to divorce, and the couple can't come to some compromise, they've got to get divorced. Two can't work as a unit if one wants out, and no amount of obstacles to divorce is going to change that. If anything, those obstacles will just cause more misery.

Their logic reminds me of a 1979 cartoon by Sally Artz. It shows a wife with a miserable, pleading expression on her face, and her scowling husband is saying from behind his newspaper, "We have a perfect marriage. Why spoil it by whining for a divorce?"

This is why I've always felt uncomfortable with liberal arguments about "Well, if they want to save marriage, why don't they target divorce instead of gays?"--while that would make more sense, it's still not an initiative I'd support, so why encourage them?