ROUND FOUR

MND Roundtable Discussion on
Fathers' Rights and the Marriage Movement

I was asked to participate in this forum because I have vocally supported marriage and those in ‘the marriage movement’ who wish to promote healthy, committed, long-lasting family partnerships as an ideal for all and as a genuine reality in individuals’ lives. I came into the discussion with some sympathy for fathers who’ve experienced injustice at the hands of former spouses or government agencies, but without much confidence that the fathers’ rights movement and the marriage movement could work hand in hand. I agree with Tom Sylvester that there hasn’t always been a clear understanding by all parties of the others’ assumptions.

The following is more or less my understanding of the fathers’ rights movement: Marriage is a contract in which both parties promise to stay with each other for life. If either party wishes to leave, or causes fault in some other way, the other party should have no further responsibilities toward him or her, should retain custody of children, and should be eligible to receive financial support from the offending partner. Government should enforce these consequences, unless both parties privately agree to another arrangement. This is based upon an understanding that government’s main role in family life is to uphold contract rights rather than to (re)define what family is or should be.

I am interested in the issue of individual rights versus group rights. However, in the case of fathers rights, there are a few points yet to clarify. First, no-fault divorce might be a stark example of society influencing and changing marriage and the family, but it surely was not the first. Second, it was not an act of arbitrary group control (it was passed by elected state legislatures). Third, the first and most sympathetic victims of no-fault divorce were the women who married before 1969, sacrificed fostering the means for financial and emotional independence in favor of devoting themselves to their families, and found themselves—ex post facto—vulnerable to divorce. This was not what they had signed up for. At least a man who married in the 1970s and after should have known clearly that his family life might be not only in the hands of himself and his wife, but also, to some extent, in the hands of his community.

As for feminists, one type might tell their daughters that they shouldn’t rely upon men, but should look out for themselves. Another type might wish that marriage really was a contract so that both men and women could be treated as autonomous individuals with equal power. Another type might believe that the philosophy of individualism which underwrites contract is itself too faulty to provide fairness for women. After all, Locke seemed to assume that individuals thrust themselves into the world with no natural dependence upon others (mothers and fathers?). It’s no wonder that modern liberalism has deepened patriarchy. The only solution is for women to take over the patriarchal system and give themselves some institutional power. Other women (and men) might believe that the best course of action is to take your time, choose your partner carefully—one who will work with you to overcome obstacles and instill a sense of partnership. Of course it helps if there are lots of external reminders of your commitment.

I think the marriage movement falls into the latter category. I think they are interested in nurturing all types of relationship, but they believe marriage is best because it provides strong external reminders of commitment, as well as the explicit commitment of spouses.

That said, I also find that Tom Sylvester has more clearly stated a point I have been hinting at: the divorce industry shapes the rules by which most couples operate, but it does not decide which couples divorce or break up. So, while I find Stephen Baskerville’s suggested principles for child custody worthy of consideration, and I recognize that they are more sophisticated than simply reinstating fault-based divorce, I do not believe that they would solve all the problems which cause and are caused by family breakdown.

Re-instating fault-based divorce will not work, because people simply will not marry. If people were looking for stronger commitments with stronger government enforcement, they’d have embraced the idea of covenant marriage. But they haven’t. In all the states where covenant marriage—which generally requires limited grounds for fault, and/or long waiting periods and usually pre-marital education—is available, take-up has been very low.

I’m not saying I’m completely satisfied with the situation. But there it is.

Rebecca O'Neill