The idea is in part a return to the original meaning of marriage--an agreement between two partners to have and raise children. With the upsurge of de facto relationships and unmarried mothers the government panicked and introduced laws that were once contained only in the marriage contract and compulsorily applied them to ‘de facto’ relationships and ‘illegitimate children’.

I’m aware there’s an enormous amount of anger among men who feel they were unfairly ‘saddled’ with a child they didn’t want—especially in an era where there’s contraception and abortion. Although I am horrified by the suggestions some of these men make of enforced abortions and even infanticide to solve their predicament, I do think their situation needs addressing. On the other hand because women get pregnant I don’t think there is a ‘perfect’ solution to this.

I don’t agree with your ‘opt’ in clause for fathers who decide they want to be involved with the child. The ‘opt in’ clause I suggest is the father can marry the women if she is willing.

I know this gives an advantage to a woman in that she can choose to have a child on her own while a man can’t but the only alternatives I can see are:

enforced abortion and infanticide
enforced adoption of the child
enforced responsibilities and rights on the biological father (current law)
enforced use of women as incubators for men’s children
enforcing the women to have a relationship with the father if she doesn’t want it

If the father can chose to opt out or to opt in and choose how much commitment he wants with the child and can enforce that on the mother he has more rights and control over the relationship than she does. It also encourages under-committed fathers. I am seriously not into enforcing abortion and if you force the women to let the father be involved then it’s only fair to force him to be involved and not allow him to opt out either which was what I was trying to avoid.

It also weakens the meaning of marriage as a legally binding contract where both parents commit to having and raising children equally which is what I am aiming for.

My emphasis means reducing the wasted time, commitment or money a man commits without full rights to the children and also reduces the disruption to the children of their relationship with their father after it has developed.

The not negotiable rule of the new husband having full rights and responsibilities over the step-children is in part to protect those stepfathers that commit to a relationship and pour their time, their caring and their financial support into children only to have no legal rights over the child in a split up. The only way they do that now is to adopt the child. That requires the agreement of the mother and of the biological father. If the biological father is not committed and another man is, he should be encouraged not discouraged.

There are men prepared to commit to a woman with small children *provided there’s no other father on the scene*--it’s when the children are little that women have the best chance at a new normal family relationship with a proper father figure. Having a half-hearted, foot-dragging, partly committed biological father in the background is a huge disadvantage to cementing a new and decent marriage. Strengthening the rights of the men who are prepared to commit would be an advantage.

Anyone who marries someone with children (with only one involved parent) and then doesn’t care for them as their own children shouldn’t be involved in the relationship in the first place. No child should experience that.

The marriage certificate would be a statement of a full commitment to the children of the family—unless they’re supported by a non-residential parent. They don’t like that they don’t have to get married.

If people want to get married for the party or a commitment to a spouse only and not commitment to child-raising then maybe we need two types of marriage certificates so the two don’t get confused.

Aziliz, again laregely in agreement and I suspect that the bits where I don't agree are more a matter of a different perspective rather than a serious disagreement.

My opt in clause still leaves the choice regarding abortion with the mother. What it does do is provide a clear point of committment or otherwise. I'll think some more about your comments about that.

I'm still thinking through the issues in taking on responsibility for someone elses kids regardless of how the relationship gos. Your point is a good one about men investing themselves in kids that are not theirs and then having that relationship cut if the relationship with the mum fails. I can see benefits and catches all round on that.

Thanks again for the thought that has gone into what you have put up here.

The point about different types of marriage certificates is one that has been floated before - some suggestions that we change the name because of the baggage associated with marriage. Ideas I've seen include fix term contracts, in the case of what you've written it is mostly a parenting contract, traditional marriage (till death do us part, for better or worse etc). I'd support something which let people agree up front what they were doing, what the exceptions were, and then let them get on with it.

R0bert

No Robert.

My suggestions make sure noone who isn't truly committed to their partner and to having children with that partner can wind up in a relationship with them.

Your suggestion just blows the whole thing apart.

If couples can just ‘get pregnant’ without going through the process of the ten sessions and the prenup and then 'have to' have a relationship because the man wants it then you undermine the whole process. I am anti-abortion so that isn't an option for me. So there would be no escape clause for those sort of women. I would never take a child away from a man if he went through the nine months of pregancy and the birth and the breastfeeding. Why are men so attached to a bit of sperm? It is so easy for a man to get a woman pregnant and any man who made one woman pregnant has obviously proved he is fertile. Women are different. The very decision to have a baby is by nature a huge commitment. Men don't even have to be in the same room as the baby for those three processes--they don't even have to be in the same country.

Women also have a 'biological clock' that goes off earlier than men's--if they are thirty five are they supposed to abort then when a later pregnancy might not happen or may be prone to difficulties? And what about fertility problems? Women have far more of these and if they have been told they can't have children and then they have a pregnancy after years of infertility they are not allowed to keep the child? Women are different to men.

People have a tendency to drift into things often without bothering to find out who their partner really is and what they really want out of life. They hope for the best and then panic when they start to see the long term consequences of their actions and realise their partner is not going to ‘change’ in the way they hoped—but they are stuck like a fly in a web. The mediation sessions and the prenup is there to do this process when it should be done AT THE BEGINNING and I would hope that it would have the same effect, ie 80% or there about deciding to not get married after all.

To have a really informed, well thought out and clear commitment before people partner is what I am pushing for. Your way just completely squashed that, may as well throw the whole thing out.

Azilz,

I think your proposal was excellent.

As Robert has noted, it would be harsh for fathers who get a woman pregnant, but who are then shut out, but I think that is something men could get used to if we, as a society, could get used to the idea that the mere donation of sperm, alone, without any further commitment, does not a parent make. Being cut out of the child's life at that point, whilst excrutiatingly painful for many fathers, would probably be no worse than the life sentence of anguish such fathers are presently faced with, dealing with hostile mothers and a punitive legal and child support system.

It would also give marriage some real meaning. As it stands at present, it is a pretty meaningless, religious phenomenon.