Your Challenge and Opportunity
Well-made laws and judicial and
law-enforcement systems are essential to promote social order.
Based on 29
years' research, this divorce-prevention Web site proposes that our American
society is gradually decaying because we lack some family-related laws, and
the will and means to enforce them.
You
and your fellow legislators are the only people who can change this, because
the average citizens' vision is too limited.
Premise: the current [wounds
+ ignorance] cycle can be broken, once average people (a) understand
it, (b) what it means, and (c) how to stop it. The first step is to inform
our citizens of the cycle and what it means to their family and our society.
One thing it means is that most family adults are ignorant and
psychologically unhealthy, and they don't (want to) know that.
This puts them
at significant risk of (a) wounding their kids, (b) major personal and family
problems, (c) impaired health, and (d) premature
death. Our array major U.S. social "problems" - like
rampant obesity,
"mental illness," crime, homelessness,
excessive personal debt and bankruptcy,
and
- is stark evidence of this.
Your Challenge
Learn about yourself - answer the following items with True, False,
or "?" ["I'm not sure," or "It depends (on what?)]
I believe that if choices must be
made, the welfare of society is
more important than the welfare of individual families.
(T F ?)
I believe that typical unmarried and
legally-married couples are either (a) able to evolve a long-lasting,
relationship; or (b) they aren't able to do so
without wanting to learn some key information. (T F ?)
I believe that the current U.S.
divorce epidemic (a) is tragic proof that most couples are not qualified
to marry, and that (b) our society and mainline religious institutions
currently condone this. (T F ?)
I believe couples should demonstrate
their competence to form a healthy primary relationship to a qualified
authority before being legally licensed to marry. (T F ?)
I believe that typical mates are
(a) psychologically qualified to
children effectively or
(b) they aren't, until they want to learn some key
information. (T
F ?)
I believe that for children's
and our society's welfare, research-based laws should determine who is
competent to conceive and nurture minor children effectively, and who is
not. (T F ?)
I believe that as a professional law
maker, I have the moral responsibility to (a) educate my fellow
legislators, and (b) fight for passage of laws and amendments that...
-
require partners seeking marriage
licenses to demonstrate to appropriate authorities that they're each
psychologically able to sustain a healthy primary relationship;
and...
-
require couples seeking marriage
licenses to demonstrate to appropriate authorities that they are
psychologically and intellectually qualified to conceive or adopt
and nurture children. (T F ?)
I believe that without such laws, our
society will continue to degrade - and future generations will suffer -
because of our passive national acceptance of the toxic cycle of
[ignorance and psychological wounding]. (T F ?)
My
is
these questions. (T F ?)
If
you answered "false" to most or all of these statements and are not open to
re-evaluating your basic values about them at this time, then I respectfully
suggest this article will be of little use to you. I urge you to reread
these two articles, and honestly evaluate whether
the [wounds + ignorance] cycle is affecting you and your family. If you have
the courage and commitment to work for new marital and family laws, I salute
and welcome you!
Your Opportunity
Two ways that new public laws and related law-enforcement responsibilities
can help to break the cycle are:
-
require schools at all levels to demonstrate they are
teaching
their students about (a) the cycle, (b) what it means, and (c) how to
stop it; to attain
and maintain legal accreditation; and...
-
require couples seeking marriage licenses to...
-
be evaluated for marital and parental competence, as all
states do
for people seeking legal permission to operate public vehicles.
"Blood tests" are universally required to protect the couple and
possible children from unseen disease. Couples need similar
protection against psychological wounds, ignorance, family stress,
and probable divorce - but they won't ask for it.
And legally
require couples to...
To implement this, public funds would need
to be authorized to set up and maintain a state or county examination
program, including a training program and facilities for examiners. Discussion of this
political and financial requirement is beyond the scope of this article.
Is your first reaction that
these prevention laws are not practical or possible? If so, converting your glass
half-empty attitude is the first part of your challenge. See the
"Objections" section below.
What is "marital and
parenting competence? I propose that most psychological and legal divorces are caused by
wounded, unaware couples choosing the wrong
for the wrong
at the wrong
Each of these is preventable!
Premise: an adult is probably competent make
three right marital or commitment choices if s/he:
-
has few behavioral
symptoms of false-self wounds, and
s/he...
-
can demonstrate to a qualified observer that
s/he knows most or all the answers to questions like
If the person is applying for a stepfamily
re/marriage
license,
then "competent" means s/he can also...
-
accurately define (a) these five
and (b) these 12 co-parent
or equivalent;
and...
-
answer these
questions "well enough," according to an informed, objective
evaluator; and s/he...
-
genuinely wants to study and apply
articles like these.
Premise: an adult is probably
competent to nurture young children effectively if s/he...
-
has few behavioral
symptoms of false-self wounds,
or is clearly working at self-motivated wound
and...
-
has a clear, realistic definition of
and
and...
-
can accurately describe kids' typical
developmental needs, and...
-
can demonstrate s/he knows and uses
these seven communication
and...
-
can describe most of these
traits of a high-nurturance family;
and...
-
can accurately describe the principles of
effective child discipline; and...
-
(a) wants to, and (b) is able to
devote a significant amount of daily time to nurturing resident minor kids,
vs. using baby sitters, au pairs, relatives, and/or day-care programs;
and...
-
wants to maintain a healthy balance between
personal, marital, and parenting
and...
-
knows when and how to discern, ask for, and
accept qualified co-parenting help
If
you disagree with this proposal, what do you believe - specifically
- are minimal requisites to be an effective parent?
Average people will have strong resistance to the prevention laws proposed
here, because the legislation challenges traditional freedoms and cultural
denials. Consider these responses to
some typical objections...
Overcoming Common Objections
Reality: Wounded, ignorant civil and religious policy-makers and
citizens will righteously oppose the laws proposed above. The laws are as
radical and provocative as legalized abortion, sanctified gay marriage, gun
control, and women and minority races demanding full civil and social
equality. If you believe marital and parenting licensure laws should be
passed and enforced, how can you respond effectively to fervent (uninformed)
objections?
Reality: People who are controlled by a well-meaning
will rarely change their basic beliefs or values because of logical
arguments. For example, do you know anyone who heeded logical advice
that they should stop smoking, overeating, overworking, self-neglect, or
ending addictions? You can learn to discern
who is usually guided by their
and enlist their support in
passing new legislation. For options in dealing with wounded, ignorant
colleagues, see this.
See what you think about these common objections and possible responses...
Objection:
"Federal, state, and county governments have no right to determine who can marry
legally and who can't."
Response: Democratic
governments exist to promote the security and welfare of the people who
elect or appoint them. Most unqualified U.S. marital partners
psychologically or
legally. This (a) significantly stresses and weakens our society, and (b) puts
millions of minor and unborn children at major risk of psychological wounding.
Average
parents are unaware of this, and/or (their false selves) are unwilling to
take responsibility for becoming qualified to marry legally.
Objection:
"My legislative colleagues are
elected or appointed, and would oppose such controversial legislation for
fear of losing their jobs and status."
Response: True.
Your colleagues are motivated to protect their personal health,
marriages, and families (yes?). So your opportunity is to
alert your colleagues verbally and in print to (a)
the toxic [wounds + ignorance] cycle and (b) what it may mean to them personally. Then see how
they feel about patiently educating the public on the value of new
stress-prevention laws, and reducing their fears and objections.
Objection:
Federal and state governments have no right to decide who can conceive
children and who can't.
Response: Unwanted,
psychologically-wounded, and ignorant
cause most major
societal problems. Parents are ethically and morally responsible to their
minor kids and to society for preventing these personal and social
stressors. Typical
ignorant parents (i.e. their false selves) are
unable (vs. unwilling) to accept their responsibility, so their elected
governments are justified in evaluating couples' (a) knowledge and (b)
degree of woundedness, and requiring them to gain the information they lack
on these vital topics before authorizing them to marry and possibly conceive
kids.
Objection:
The people in my jurisdiction won't
accept or obey such legislation.
Response: If so, that
indicates the extent and scope of societal wounding and lack of information
among those people. Option: patiently work to educate
those people before trying to pass or enforce new marriage-licensing
legislation. It took over 50 years of determined work before U.S. women won
the legal right to vote. Protecting future generations from wounds and
ignorance is similar in scope and priority.
Objection:
the choices to marry and conceive children are primal human rights that
clearly supercede societal needs for order and regulation.
Response: All young
children need protection from physical and psychological
harm. Where their caregivers are unable to protect them and prepare them
for healthy independence, society has a responsibility to do so for the
children's and society's welfare.
Society also is responsible for
preparing parents to nurture effectively. That's what these prevention laws aim to do.
Objection: marriage is a holy sacrament that is the province of a committed, loving
couple and God. This sacrament transcends societal regulation.
Our nation's founders wisely promoted separation church and state,
and our current laws reflect this.
Response: The
sacredness of marriage is not in question here. The personal and social
effects of premature marriage and inadequate parenting are a legitimate
social concern which mainline religions support. The prevention laws proposed here don't aim to prevent or de-sanctify marriage, they aim to help
couples make successful marriages and high-nurturance families,
long term. Divorce rates and our social problems document that the
majority of American couples can't do this now.
Are you experiencing other objections ("resistances") to the two basic prevention laws proposed here? The
core
attitudes (e.g. these) behind these sample responses
are more important than the responses themselves.
Key Implications
If you agree with the need for preventive marital and parenting laws,
then consider these ramifications:
Condoning irresponsible parenting - couples who conceive a child
without being prepared to...
-
stay together (at least until the child
lives independently) and...
-
provide a stable, high-nurturance
environment for minor children and themselves
are not fulfilling their
responsibly toward their child/ren and to our society. We pass and enforce
laws regulating (a) vehicle operation, (b) sanitation of drinking water,
food, air quality; and (c) second-hand tobacco smoke in public places; but
have no laws protecting children and society against premature conception
and incompetent
parenting. I propose that this unarguable double standard is clear evidence
of our national wounds and ignorance, and our denial of the toxic [wounds +
ignorance] cycle.
Redefining "child abuse and neglect" - If you accept the need for
these new prevention laws, then see if you agree that passively
allowing couples (and schools and churches) to provide low-nurturance
environments for minor kids is publicly-sanctioned child
and
State governments and some counties include a department for Child
Protective Services or Child and Family Services, and laws and personnel to
empower them. However, these only try to guard kids from reported blatant
neglect or abuse. The legislation
proposed in this article aims to protect kids (and society) from daily
psychological harm that accumulates for years, and is often invisible
to casual observers as it happens.
If you lobby for marital and parental competence laws, then for consistency
you also need to propose revisions to existing statutes that define and
react to (vs. prevent) child neglect and abuse. This has major implications
for law-enforcement professionals,
clergy, domestic court judges,
and family attorneys, mental-health professionals, and
mediators;
and social-welfare workers.
Doctors, therapists, clergy, teachers, police, and counselors who learn of
probable child abuse or neglect from the people they serve are usually
legally required to report that to local or state law-enforcement officials.
The laws proposed in this article extend that ethical responsibility to
report child-caregivers who clearly cause low-nurturance family environments
for minor kids (or elderly). Implication:
public laws and professional codes
of ethics need to be extended to include sanctions against significant
parental incompetence. Does your response begin "Yes, but..."?
More major implications of these proposed prevention laws...
Public Education Accreditation - because the quality of public
education on all levels primally affects individuals and our society, all
states and our federal government have standards and laws that regulate
schools, funding, and license teachers to ensure competence. Premise:
I suspect that none of these standards and laws currently require
schools and teachers to teach public and professional students about the
[wounds + unawareness] cycle that is silently crippling our society. There
is no informed public demand for such standards and teaching because...
-
research has not validated the need for it yet,
-
the media minimizes or
ignores it, and...
-
average people don't want to admit the personal and
massive social impacts of this cycle. It's too scary and depressing, and the
solution seems too revolutionary and Draconian.
Beside the
media, schools are
the most powerful option for informing the public of what they don't know
they need to know. Accreditation and
licensure laws need to be upgraded for the public good.
Licensing clergypersons - most couples legitimize their union in a
religious or civil service led by a professional clergyperson.
Such
professionals are often the only ones who can assess and alert couples to
the possibility they are victims of the [wounds + unawareness] cycle and
could be making wrong marital decisions. If your state has laws about
licensing a clergyperson to practice - or evaluating their professional
(ethical) conduct - the laws need to be expanded to include requiring them
to demonstrate they know about the cycle and are motivated to alert couples
before sanctifying their marriage. Church (a) pastoral-education curricula
and (b) ordination requirements need to be expanded in the same way.
Media executives and policy makers have an ethical responsibility to
their readers and viewers to inform them of the cycle and its toxic effects.
As an average American, I'm not aware of any meaningful media emphasis on
these vital topics. I suspect this is because...
-
media boards and funders
aren't aware of the cycle and its effects; and...
-
our media enterprises are
for-profit, and their paying customers aren't seeking and/or are resistant
to - accurate cycle-coverage.
This presents the question of whether local
and national media-licensing laws should be expanded to include the
requirement for such coverage. I vote "Yes they should." What do you vote?
Our national mindset: prevent, or fix social problems? Generally, our
federal and state governments tax citizens and fund complex programs to
"fix" (reduce) major social problems. I suspect that governmental spending
on "fixing" far outweighs spending on problem prevention.
If so, this
implies that our society, like most children, is mainly focused on reducing
current discomforts (e.g. teen-aged abortions), rather than taking
responsibility for avoiding the problems long-term. Focusing on short-term
comfort and
(temporary) changes are classic symptoms of
false-self dominance and wounds.
Every professional legislator and public policy-maker - like you -
helps to determine whether we as a nation value long-term prevention over
reactive fixes. Our current national struggles over global warming, water
and wetland ecology, energy conservation, legalized abortions, and
overpopulation are major examples of our national values conflicts. I
propose that promoting prevention over short-term comfort ("fixing")
is a sign of
guidance and wisdom. What do you think?
Is your Self (capital "S")
this article? If not -
There are other implications of the need for these prevention laws. These are representative.
Recap
This article - one of a series - invites
professional legislators on all levels to confront their ethical
responsibility to alert the public to the toxic effects of the
[psychological wounds + ignorance]
that is inexorably degrading and
weakening our society and its institutions in a dynamic global village. The
article proposes that lawmakers (a) inform themselves of the cycle and its
impacts, (b) evaluate whether the cycle is affecting them and their family, and
(c) then courageously propose new laws to reduce the cycle. Two
core new federal, state, and county laws would require...
-
lay and professional schools and teachers at
all levels to teach their students about the cycle and its effects, or
lose their accreditation or licenses; and...
-
require couples seeking marriage license to
demonstrate clearly they're able to (a)
and maintain a healthy primary relationship (vs. eventual divorce), and
(b) nurture dependent children effectively, if they choose to conceive
or adopt any. Couples seeking to form a stepfamily re/marriage would be
required to demonstrate further knowledge, or acquire appropriate
education.
The article suggests responses to common
objections to such impactful new laws, based on these
values. The principal value is that family-stress prevention is
more valuable in the long run than legislation trying to fix current
stresses. The article proposes that such prevention is a moral responsibility of
governmental officials and legislators at all levels.
If you have
invested time and energy to honestly
evaluate yourself and your family for
impacts of the [wounding + ignorance ] cycle, then it's more likely
that you
will endorse the rationale for these badly-needed prevention laws
and policies. For brevity's sake, this summary article stops short of
exploring the requisites to create and fund appropriate governmental evaluation agencies and programs for enforcing these prevention laws.
The article concludes with an overview of several major legal and social
implications of the proposed laws.
If
you were a vulnerable young child in a low-nurturance
family (as perhaps you were), what would you need your
society to do to protect you and your descendents from life-long distress
from psychological
and related
If you don't decide to lobby for these
rev
law
For
more perspective, read this related prevention article written
to professional motivators.
<<
Prior page /
Add to favorites
/
Print page
/
Email this article's address
>>
The Web address of this article is
http://sfhelp.org/prevent/lawmakers.htm