CommunityPam's House Blend

The 'abortion of marriage'

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has the knickers of David R. Usher of Men’s News Daily in a big knotted twist.

Usher’s tag says he is “Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition,” a state that voted to not resume funding birth control and wants to prevent access to abortion.

Given that, this essay is not surprising in the least.


VAWA is predicated on the notion that domestic violence is a sex-related problem. Yet, no major study proves that men cause domestic violence more than women do.

VAWA drives the majority of serious family violence

VAWA pretends that men are dangerous in the intact family and should be immediately removed for nothing more than a statement of “fear” or “emotional distress”. If most serious family violence actually occurred in intact families, this would be useful policy.

Here is the truth about domestic violence in married families: Only 4% of serious domestic violence occurs in the intact family. ”[i] The other 96% occurs after the date of separation.

Why would we see nearly all serious domestic violence occur after the date of separation? Liberals often pretend that divorce is a minor surgical procedure. It is not. Abortion of marriage is often a very serious and messy procedure. When one is faced with complete loss of life savings and children in the combative and expensive divorce system, serious spousal conflict can be easily predicted.

If we would not stop forest fires by dumping gasoline on them, we must not pretend we can reduce domestic violence by destroying families as a matter of presumed public policy.

I love that use of “abortion of marriage.” Please. I sense a really unhappy guy here — perhaps you all have some suggestions about how he might feel better about himself.

Ironically, Usher inadvertently makes the case for same-sex marriage, if the stability of the institution itself, as he cites, is key to lowering domestic violence.

If we would not stop forest fires by dumping gasoline on them, we must not pretend we can reduce domestic violence by destroying families as a matter of presumed public policy.

Marriage is the key predicator of low domestic violence rates. Domestic violence rates are higher in cohabiting relationships and non-intact families than in married families.

He later tries to catch himself on this point:

An abundance of evidence proves that women’s centers and radical advocacy groups cover up women’s violence, drive “divorce for the hell of it”, and break up many more families than they actually help. They recommend policies that line their own pockets with billions federal dollars, some of which are misused to lobby for anti-family feminist initiatives such as same-sex marriage, gay. For this reason, no politician who truly cares about the family and the future of marriage could possibly support the Violence Against Women Act.

Is it time for the tiny violin?

Previous post

What Have You Done to Fight the WOT™ Lately?

Next post

Another Dem spine confirmed

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding