I would like some input from the married and divorced men and women. I don't believe the aversion to marriage is due the culture of African-Americans or financial irresponsibility of Black men.

I believe the primary aversion to marriage is having the Government control your life and create red tape and financial problems in the event of a divorce. Once the government, which may not be trusted by Black men who distrust a government comprised of White elites, has control over your marriage arrangement, your life comes under greater scrutiny and control by the govt. In the event of a divorce, a judge will need to decide on financial punishment and alimony.

Therefore, I believe that Blacks and White men are resistant to marriage because the financial headache that it can cause. We have an innate desire for less govt control over our lives and the signing of that marriage contract is a binding agreement between a man, his wife, and the govt.

If the country really wants to encourage more People to get married, it needs to come up with a better solution than divorce.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

You can't blame the government for the fact that 75% of black children are born out of wedlock.

This might make sense save for one fact... White people go through the same divorce process as black people. So I would say it's either a problem for both, or neither.

They make divorce a bit of a pain for a reason... they want to make sure people arn't getting married just for financial benefits.

My point is that a marriage certificate is a contract with the Government.

If someone does not trust the Government, then they won't want to engage in such a contract.

If a Black person distrusts the police, the criminal justice system, the court system, the economic forces of banks, corporations, poor public schools, taxes, etc. they will be less inclined to trust the government in their personal relationships and have control over marriage, divorce, and their finances.

There are many divorced men who vow to never get married again, from what I've heard.

The incentives to get married are no longer there. There are more incentives to remain Free from a government-sanctioned and enforced partnership.

I think most people get divorced for financial reasons and the guy doesn't not want to lose half his savings. Perhaps to encourage more marriages, they should make divorces easier and less financially destructive.

Whites also have a better understanding of the court system and access to lawyers. I think Blacks distrust government and do not want any part of govt if they had a choice in the matter.

Whites also have a stronger foundation in religion and view marriage as a stepping-stone to financial and personal success. There is a strong understanding that the offspring will have a strong chance at success.

Maybe the key to marriage and families is a greater emphasis on preparing children to succeed financially. I know many parents who hate each other but stay together for the sake of their children. Its a tough and painful pill to swallow that many people don't want.

No, it's a contract between spouses. The government merely enforces it.

What power does the marriage contract give the government? If you don't trust contracts, then you must distrust mortgages, car loans, etc.

If a person distrusts all that, they've got bigger problems than not being willing to marry.

But marriage doesn't give the government control of marriage, or divorce, or their finances. Not sure where you get that.

Okay. So? There are also plenty of divorced people who remarry.

The incentives to get married are still quite large. Being able to file joint tax returns lowers your taxes. And with marriage you automatically get, for free, a lot of legal rights that are important to committed couples: rights of survivorship, parental rights, the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, etc. It would cost thousands of dollars to set those rights up outside of marriage.

Never mind the social approval aspect. Being married is still more respectable than not being married. Or the relationship aspect: marriage is a vow of commitment to a relationship. A lot of individuals value that from their life partners.

Like what?

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

The reason that couples split their assets in a divorce is because they're each entitled to half of their joint belongings. The guy isn't losing half of "his" savings: he and his wife are splitting *their* savings.

Divorces are easy. They're only financially destructive if one or both spouses decide to make it a bitter, contested battle.

Are most people financially worse off after a divorce? Sure: you just divided your assets in half while going from sharing one residence to maintaining two residences. But all that proves is that two people sharing a household have lower per-person expenses than two people living singly.

When you divorce, you split the marital assets. There's no other fair way to split things up.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

If the wife is not working, then it can appear to the guy that he is losing half his salary and savings. It is acceptable now to live with another person without being married, so co-habitation is not imposed by the govt, but one of individual choice and responsibility. If a person wants to get married, they should be married by their church. Other than that, a marriage certificate is just a govt document, enforceable by the government. In the event of a divorce, it will be up to the judge to determine how to split the assets. The reluctance to get married is driven by the high rates of divorce. Its a paradox that only the individual can determine for his or her own life.

The only way I would buy that argument is if you can prove that of the 75% of black children who are born out of wedlock, most have their Father living with their Mother and are jointly raising them.