Marriage in the UK at an All-Time Low

The work of the feminist/socialist revolution of the West is reaching a new level of success in the UK...

Marriage rate falls to its lowest level since records began

Marriage has slumped to its lowest level since records were first kept more than 150 years ago, official figures have revealed.

The proportion of couples tying the knot has fallen back into line with its declining long-term trend following a clampdown on sham weddings.

The popularity of marriage has been waning since 1973, but in recent years it has been artificially boosted by such bogus unions. In London alone, new rules which make it harder to use marriage to win the right to stay in Britain cut the number of ceremonies by more than a third.

But the report from the Office for National Statistics said the crackdown was responsible for only some of the steep decline.

It said the long-term fall in the popularity of marriage was continuing, with millions of couples choosing instead to live together and delay having a family. The figures, which cover 2005, the same year the new rules were brought in, show the number of weddings in England and Wales dropped by more than 28,000, from 273,070 to 244,710.

The fall brought the marriage rate, the number of people marrying compared to the population as a whole, to its lowest level since records were first kept.

The figures show that 12 people married in 2005 for every 1,000 unmarried individuals. That compares with a figure of 27 in 1851.

The proportion of married people among the adult population is now only a fraction over a half, at 50.3 per cent.

This figure compares with 54 per cent in 1997 and more than two thirds in the 1970s.

The report said: "There is evidence that London, a location with a greater than average proportion of non-European nationals, may have seen an effect from the legislation, either in removing sham marriages, or in delaying and deterring marriages."

The findings show that the law putting limitations on the marriage rights of those from outside Europe had an immediate impact after it came into effect in February 2005.

Under the rules, anyone without the right to live in Britain must get a certificate of approval from the Home Office before marrying, and must give notice of the marriage in one of 76 designated register offices.

However, the ONS said the action against fake marriages was 'certainly not enough' to explain such a large drop in marriages.

The analysts said marriage rates had picked up in 2002 and 2003 in advance of the 2005 slump. They said couples were influenced by a number of factors that compounded the effect of sham marriages.

Of course, as is typical of the pro-feminist/socialist/progressive press, no mention of the underlying factors that could possibly explain the decline in marriages - factors that are directly related to the feminist platform that have been enacted into the legal system to change the very fabric of Western society.

In 2003 and 2004 widespread publicity about the state of marriage, the legal rights that go with it, and discussion over the intromarriageduction of gay civil partnership may have encouraged more couples to marry, the report said.

It added that other influences on the figures could be migration, because incoming migrant groups include those with more commitment to marriage than the existing population, and the growing fashion for people to marry abroad.

Yes, incoming migrant groups from traditional Patriarchal societies vs. the homegrown mass of entitlement princesses who's precious legal rights to be sluts without incurring consequences for their irresponsible behavior and encouragment to enslave men into becoming wage slaves without reciprocating anything in return

Critics of marriage insist that the institution reached heights of popularity in the 1950s and that in past centuries people married in similar numbers to now.

Marriage is the foundation of Patriarchal society...the society that has been branded as "oppressive." The very same society of "oppression" that raised children in intact, nuclear families that were much more likely to become productive, law abiding and positive contributors to overall society.

Instead, we in the West are afflicted with the exponential growth of Matriarchal-empowered relationships that result in the pandemic of broken homes, millions of children sacrificed on the altar of "choice," and millions of couples failing to reproduce adequate numbers of the next generation to support the socialist redistribution schemes of the government. Bankruptcy for the UK is not too far off in the future...as the retiring generation seeks to attain their share of redistributed earnings from the younger generation - a generation much smaller than their own due to the feminist agenda's implementation.

The story is the same for the USofA...it's only that the UK has moved further along on the path of "progressive" feminist's re-making of society, so you in Great Britain are much closer to the endgame than we in the US are. Nevertheless, all of us cultures in the West are due at some point or another to reap what we have sown.

In recent years the decline of has come alongside the abolition by Labour of the Married Couples Allowance tax break, the removal of references to marriage from official documents and register office signs, and the growth of the tax credit benefit system which discourages people from living as a couple.

The drop in marriage has also meant that the teenage wedding - a phenomenon that caused great concern in the 1960s and 1970s has virtually died out.

Last year the number of teenagers marrying dropped to fewer than one for every 1,000 single people.

As more and more teens grow up in broken homes, they are unable to even comprehend what it means to grow up with a stable family between two normal people that work together and complement each other in life to nurture a healthy family. This is a generation raised in homes where positive examples of marriage simply do not exist...not in their own homes, not in their peers homes, and certainly not anywhere in popular culture as reflected by today's television programming of sitcom's, reality shows and dramas of insidious propaganda masquerading as entertainment. So of course the next generation of teens have no desire to do something for which all of their experience or all they've been told about the system of Patriarchal Families has been the tragedy of modern matrimony promulgated by the feminist fascists.

This article is merely a report on what is essentially a marker on the road to civilized society's ruin.

The Eternal Bachelor is Hanging it Up

No, he didn't go and get married...

FIN

Well, after almost two-years of typing and posting away, and a fairly impressive 700,000 hits or so, it's time to close this blog. It's been fun but there's only so many times I can rant and rage before repeating myself. Plus as well as running out of things to post about, the blog was taking up quite a bit of time and I've just moved to a new country and need to concentrate on sorting stuff out.

Not that I have any intention to stop being an bachelor, naturally.

I'll probably see some of you on the various forums out there anyway.

Ciao.

Damn Duncan.

Thanks for all the contributions you have made to the MRA movement. You inspired myself and others to pick up the blogger's pen and join the fight!

But couldn't you have at least left your archives up for us to peruse and reminisce? lol

Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud

Tom Leykis had Gulf War Veteran Taron James on his show today.

Taron James was serving in Gulf War I back in '91 when a former lady friend of his claimed he was the father of her illegitimate child. Upon returning from the war with multiple decorations for his service, he got slapped with a default judgment and the State of California began garnishing 50% of his wages for the next 9 years.

Here's the Glenn Sacks article from 2003 on Taron's case:

"Sometimes it's hard to feel much pride on Veterans Day," he says.

"Sometimes I just feel like a sucker. Veterans Day only reminds me that my government holds me and other vets in such contempt that it cannot lift a finger to stop a blatant fraud which victimizes tens of thousands of servicemen. Worse, the government actively enforces that fraud."

While serving in Iraq, James was notified that a woman he knew back home was demanding that he pay child support for her newborn son. James knew from the beginning that the child could not possibly be his.

The Navy's Judge Advocate General is not authorized to handle a serviceman's legal problems outside of the military justice system, but a sympathetic captain helped him obtain an agreement from the child's mother for a DNA test.

Before the test could be done, however, the mother reneged on the agreement and disappeared with the child.

James requested a blood test from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, and was told repeatedly over the next year and a half that he would be notified when there was a new development in the case. The D.A. instead went to court without James' knowledge and obtained a default judgment against him. James did not find out about it until the D.A. seized his driver's license and began taking 50 percent of his take home pay.

Despite subsequent legal appeals and an April, 2001 DNA test which confirmed that the child is not his, the courts have refused to set aside the judgment. In the years since the D.A. and later Los Angeles County Child Support Services have: seized James' tax refund for six years in a row; blocked him from renewing his notary public license, which in turn caused him to lose his job as the manager of a business; ruined his credit, denying him the chance to purchase the business at a low price when the owner offered it to him for sale; blocked him from obtaining a passport; and forced him to drop out of college before finishing his degree.

James' problem is not uncommon. According to Carnell Smith, Executive Director of the National Family Justice Association, military men such as James are often "preyed upon" by unscrupulous "father shoppers" who can make fraudulent paternity designations without penalty.

"The military provides (a mother) a steady, easily garnished income as well as medical care for the baby. It's hard to contest paternity when you're thousands of miles away and losing a good chunk of your income to child support," he says.

"Sometimes the time limit for contesting runs out and the guy ends up on the hook for 18 years of child support simply because he served his country."

The solution to the problem is paternity fraud legislation of the type enacted in Illinois, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio and other states. This legislation allows putative fathers more time and greater judicial flexibility in challenging paternity findings.

Similar legislation in California was vetoed last fall by Gov. Gray Davis, and a revised paternity fraud bill, SB 1030, passed the Senate 34-2 in June but is currently stalled in the Assembly.

James has joined with 600 other victimized veterans and their families to form the Los Angeles-based activist group Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud.

"The problems we face wouldn't be hard for the government to solve if someone gave a damn," he says. "Every Veterans Day and Memorial Day I think the same thing -- we don't need parades and speeches -- we need justice."

Amen Taron. How can our Government get away with this crap for our veterans?

If you'd like to support Taron and his cause, check out his website, Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud.

UPDATE: Looks like the courts have denied Taron James a refund for the money fraudulently taken from him by a false claim of paternity. Via Glenn Sacks,

No Refund Due Man Ordered to Support Child Not His

James last year renewed his motions to set aside the paternity judgment and obtain reimbursement. Carroll granted the set-aside motion but denied his reimbursement request. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge that Family Code Sec. 7648.4 barred reimbursement. Sec. 7648.4 expressly provides that, following the set-aside of a paternity judgment, “[t]he previously established father has no right of reimbursement for any amount of support paid prior ot the granting of the motion. ”Writing for Div. Eight, Justice Paul Boland said a plain reading of the statute precluded reimbursement. Adding that such a reading was consistent with legislative intent, he explained: “The section was intended to protect a declared father who, under existing law, lacked the procedural means to set aside or vacate an existing paternity decree after genetic testing determined he was not the biological father. While the statutory change was designed to enable a declared father to challenge a paternity decree, it was also intended to safeguard the child. ”While aware of the harm that paternity fraud inflicts on a declared father, Boland said, the Legislature balanced the competing interests of declared father and child and concluded a right of reimbursement should not be allowed.

Should not the interest of the child include having laws that do NOT give their mothers incentives to lie, cheat and steal?

Why shouldn't this mother that defrauded Taron James out of $12,000 and ruined his credit and caused other hardships that Taron did not deserve...why shouldn't she face ANY consequences for her despicable behavior?

California law Sec. 7648.4 needs to be changed! Taron is an innocent victim here, and the fact that the Government is the de facto accomplice of this woman's blatant theft of Taron's money just goes to show exactly how misandrist and feminized our Government has become.