Divorce inevitably sees a big decline in the involvement, the biggest decline is usually of the father but the same applies to the mother for a variety of reasons, of the parents in their childrens’ lives. All of the research shows that for a child to grow up with everything it needs, it needs to grow up with its biological mother and father living together in the one household. As I said in Part 5 of this series mothers can’t be fathers, and fathers can’t be mothers.

Consequences – there are consequences for a child, for their parents, and for society from not having a child brought up living with its mother and father. The problem is that we never really hear from the children who are caught up in divorces about what they think. About whether the idea that kids are resilient, is true, or just a self justification for the parents who are prioritising their lives and desires ahead of their childrens’.

So in this programme I’m going to give the children their voices, let you hear what happens to them because you’re involved in shattering their lives, because your own children of your divorce are never going to honestly tell you how they feel because they know that you don’t want to know. As Tom Cruise said in A Few Good Men, you probably couldn’t handle the truth.

Tag words: Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Katy Faust; Them Before Us;Marripedia; divorce; two homes; children of divorce; Peaches Geldof; Bob Geldof; Paula Yates;

Well I was wrong! Australia didn’t invent no-fault divorce. Who did, makes it truly shocking that Gough Whitlam would have copied his idea of all people.

It seems that the father of no-fault divorce was that early proto-type Trump figure, Ronald Reagan, when he was the governor of California. Times have certainly changed haven’t they! In 1969 he passed the first no-default divorce laws in America. He later described those laws as his greatest mistake, and he was right!

Contrast the views about 50 years after Gough Whitlam introduced no fault divorce into Australia with the Family Law Act of the leading feminists who pushed the then new Labor government of Gough Whitlam to introduce no-fault divorce laws. 

Elizabeth Evatt is one of those. She says she still had no regrets about those laws. She’s an intelligent woman, and she was one of the main people involved in bringing in those laws. She was the Chair of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and then she was appointed as the first Chief Judge of the new Family Law Court. No one would have seen the consequences of no-fault divorce than her, from the lofty heights as Chief judge of the Family Law Court, she would pretty well have instantly that those laws were being taken advantage of, not by women subjected to domestic violence, although there were of course women in that category, but also by a flood of people who were just bored with their marriage, perhaps because it wasn’t living up to the standards of a Hollywood RomCom. It wasn’t as exciting as when we first met. As the military would say, children were collateral damage to this easily available divorce – but nothing to worry about. Kids are resilient – right!

Elizabeth Evatt, in the book Women and Whitlam wrote:

I have not wavered from my support for the general principles of the Family Law Act. The model it established was admired around the world, and remains one of the great legacies of Gough Whitlam and his Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy.

Does this lead us to the conclusion that what happened with the divorce rates soaring was what she was hoping for when she pressed for the introduction of no-fault divorce. Consistent with socialist policies which want the family ended and its role taken on by the state.

So how would children suffer from divorce, in what ways and what did no fault divorce do to the institution of marriage.

Tag words: Katy Faust; Them Before Us; Gough Whitlam; Ronald Reagan; Family Law Act; Elizabeth Evatt; divorce; Adverse Childhood Experiences;

Shocking, traumatic events have a way of drilling deeply into the very core and heart of human beings. The shock children experience when they learn that their parents' marriage has died is, for them, the worst moment that they’ll ever have in their lives. This event’s especially traumatic for children completely unaware of the trouble in their parents' marriage. One day everything’s fine, those children are totally oblivious to the fact the entire foundation of their lives is about to disappear. One moment they’re safe and secure; the next, everything they thought was a permanent fixture in their life is gone. Children of divorce will never forget the moment their parents announced their separation or when Dad bailed, or the day Mum never came home. The emotional scars of those fateful moments remain even decades later. The consequences are often the ruination of their lives and very often too, the lives of people that they will connect with when as adults they’re looking for something that may always elude them – a stable, permanent relationship because they can’t give that themselves.

From this programme I’m going to start to look at the catastrophic effect that divorce has on children, but also on the people involved in the marriage too.

It would be better to lose your parent in the collapse of the Twin Tours on September 11 than to have your parents; marriage break up.

Tag words: Melissa Kearney; The Two-Parent Privilege; Katy Faust; Stacy Manning; Them Before Us; marriage; divorce; Gen Xers; Millennials; Family Law Act; Gough Whitlam; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; GK Chesterton; Marxist theory; Judaeo-Christian; Bolsheviks;Communist Russia; Joseph Stalin; Pandora; Jordan Peterson;

Never before in the history of the world has marriage between people of the same sex been recognised by law. But here we are today with most Western countries having recognised it and passed laws to that effect. And it has made a difference beyond comprehension. It is all good? It it all bad? Is it a bit of both?

Let me tell you a bit about it in the context of children’s rights in the world of same sex marriage, because the impact it has on children’s rights is massive.

Tag words: Jordan Peterson; Beyond Order; same-sex marriage; the Cinderella Effect; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; marriage; throuples; polygamy; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution;Survival of the Fittest; Karl Marx; miscegenation; Loving v Virginia; Stolen Generations; Obergefell v Hodges; Pavan v Smith; God; Christian; Kay Faust; Them Before Us;

Do you want your own harem?

Marriage has changed enormously in Australia since 12 June 1975 when the Family Law Act became law. Marriage between a man and a woman for life, with few exceptions, became marriage until you got bored and wanted to move on. All of the people that thought these changes would just loosen things up for those in a terrible marriage found that they’d opened the floodgates for large numbers of unexpected people to get divorced.

In America from 2015, after the Supreme Court case of Obergefell v Hodges, and then in Australia soon after the November 2017 referendum, a new kind of marriage, that hadn’t existed anywhere in the world before – same sex marriage - came in. In a future programme I’m going to look at how children have fared from same-sex marriages, but now another ancient type of marriage, never known in the West, is now rearing its head seeking to be legalised. This series of programmes is looking at the whole question of how children fare growing up in those different life style situations. If it's damaging for them, then we should think about what limitations we should put on those alternative relationships, including preventing people in those relationships from having, or being able to have, children.

So let’s start with the common ancient form of polygamous marriages. Articles appear regularly in the media promoting our new found freedom to cast off the ancient shackles that have bound us and letting adults do whatever they like.

Tag words: Jordan Peterson ; Katy Faust; Them Before Us; Family Law Act; Obergefell v Hodges; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; monogamy; polygamy; throuple; Cinderella

You want to adopt a child. A particular child. But the child has parents. Bother. So think out of the box. Have the parents murdered, so you’re not caught, hire a good hit man, then adopt the child.

If you’re more conventionally minded and wanted a child, not the traditional way, you could buy a sperm and/or an egg and perhaps get a surrogate mother.

Doesn’t matter which way you go, murder or sperm/egg donation. The result’s going to be the same for the child – devastating.

Tag words: Katy Faust; Stacy Manning; Them Before Us; adoption; sperm donation; egg donation; surrogacy; slave trade; Milly Fontana; Big Fertility; UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; Hague Convention on Protections of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption; Uniform Parentage Act; My Daddy’s Name is Donor; Mark Newton; Peter Truong; Theresa Erickson;

The parties in a traditional marriage are a man, a woman and later, very often, one or more babies. In this scenario, the baby happens as a matter of biology. 

When you change the law to say that a same sex married couple can enjoy all of the benefits that a heterosexual married couple you can’t, of course, mean the natural outcome of a child. The only way that can happen is if the couple obtain either an egg or a sperm, or both, from some other party. So when a homosexual couple has a child, the child will be missing one or both biological parents in its everyday life. What does that mean?

Tag words: Katy Faust; Them Before Us; intent based parents; adoption; Big Fertility; Mitsutoki Shigeta; Mark Newton; Peter Truong; paedophile; David Farnell; Wenyu Li; Sperm donor; egg donor; surrogate;

The biggest issues, badly affecting children’s rights, have been same sex marriage and science. Science in many forms, some not yet arrived although they’re being talked about, like artificial wombs for men. The science topics will be talked about in future programmes, this programme’s about the Love is Love movement around the world that ushered in what is labelled “same sex marriage” – picking up on the Christian word, marriage, that had previously uniformly meant the union for life of one man and one woman.

Like no fault divorce, our governments around the Western world rapidly and totally remodelled the institution of marriage that had existed for thousands of years without ever really asking why it was structured the way it was and with it have destroyed and are continuing to destroy children’s rights.

This takes me back to what GK Chesterton said in Part 7 of this series – if you’re a properly intelligent human being, you don’t pull down a gate without knowing what it’s there for. With these two changes we pulled down the very cornerstones of our society without knowing what doing what we did would mean.

The core proposition of this series of programmes is that it is the right of every children on earth to grow up with their biological mother and father. This is what Article 20 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, says. Australia (and every country on earth except for the United States) area signatories. And all that Convention does is what all of the science, studying the effect of these radical changes on children, shows is absolutely essential for a well-developed child. There is some poorly conducted research that suggests otherwise.

So let’s look at the Love is Love gate that was pulled down and what came down with it.

Tag words: Tag words: Katy Faust; Stacy Manning; Them Before Us; Love is Love; GK Chesterton; UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; Glenn Scrivener; Defense of Marriage Act; DOMA; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Obergefell v. Hodges; Pavan v. Smith; Heather Barwick; Millie Fontana; children; motherlessness; fatherlessness;

To get married or not. If children are involved then there’s really only one answer if you’re a woman - yes. If you’re a man, then the answer’s really the same – but not as obvious.

But for the unconceived child of these two, this isn’t even a question. The consequences for them, from this biological process that they have no say in, makes it vital that you’re married. Because if you have children without being married to the other biological parent, you’ll almost certainly damage your child – perhaps very deeply, perhaps ruining their entire lives. And that is a sin.

Tag words: Jordan Peterson; Katy Faust; Stacy Manning; Louise Perry; marriage; Them Before Us; traditional marriage; same sex marriage; love; romance; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Dr. Louann Bizendine; The Female Brain; Beyond Order; What Is Marriage?; Ryan T Anderson; Sherif Girgis;Robert George; consent-based marriage; conjugal marriage; Glen Scrivener; Dr Elizabeth Evatt; Women and Whitlam; Anglican Archbishop Marcus Loane; Gough Whitlam