What is behind high divorce rates?

From my experience watching my friends and family get married and divorced, I have made some personal conclusions about the reasons for failed marriages.

1. Ignored Red Flags: When we start dating, we are awash in puppy love hormones which seem to diminish our willingness to "read between the lines" when we see obvious red flags. Some red flags may indicate behaviors that are negotiable, while some may indicate behaviors that are deal breakers (non negotiable). The problem is that we often ignore the red flags because our reasoning capacity can be diminished by our biological responses to our new love interest.
2. Broken Wing Syndrome: You find a person who you perceive to be a diamond in the rough. Maybe they have a criminal history, or bad credit. Some well intentioned people look at their new love interest as a bird with a broken wing. They think: If I can just heal that broken wing, I will have a fabulous bird. The problem comes when we ignore the causes of the broken wing, which are often behavioral rather than circumstance. You can change another person's circumstances, but you cannot change their behavior. Only they can choose to change. Any attempt to change their behavior will exhaust you, and cause resentment from them.
   
3. Jumping Ship Syndrome: This is the opposite of ignoring red flags. These people are looking for an ideal person that they have conjured in their minds, and the moment their love interest deviates from that ideal, they jump ship. I don't have a cogent theory as to the cause of this behavior. But you can see how this type of behavior can cause a person to jump from one marriage to another.
4. The Marriage / Wedding Cult: Our culture has a preoccupation with marriage overall, and weddings in particular. It comes from our parents, religious leaders, friends, and relatives. All of them pushing and prodding us like the father from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding": "Get married, make babies. You look so old!".
5. Religious Pressure: I cannot speak to this at length because it is an alien concept to me. However, I have noticed a great deal of pressure from churches and religious organizations for early and "productive" marriages.

A possible solution?
In my opinion, we need to change our cultural view of marriage. We should encourage our friends and family to get into marriage after at least a year of dating. We should encourage a "full disclosure" session between the dating couple before they get engaged. The full disclosure session would include a history of: criminal charges and convictions, domestic violence, substance abuse, driving record, credit rating, bankruptcy, debt, job history, etc.

Also, a pseudo-marriage arrangement might make sense. I don't mean cohabitation before marriage, or premarital sex. I simply mean going through some of the mundane but important aspects of marriage. Paying bills, managing finances, managing the house, cleaning, decorating, cooking, groceries, childcare, etc.

You don't have to live together to go through the motions. But these are important factors in determining real life compatibility. Many marriages break up over such mundane things. Once the puppy love wears off, it's the every day things that either bring you together or drive you apart.

Those are my ideas on how the dating-engagement-wedding-marriage route should happen. I welcome your thoughts on the topic.

Common Misconceptions about U.S. immigration law

Over the years, I have heard so many people complain about "illegals". Some complain with a bitter tirade, while others wish the "illegals" would choose the legal option.

I was one of the "legal option" people for many years. That is until recently when the realities of American immigration law have become clear.

Most American's believe that the spirit of the following poem (from the statue of liberty) still lives in our immigration laws:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I am sorry to tell you that this beautiful poem, which exemplified the welcoming virtues of our republic, is no longer representative of our immigration law.

Today the "poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to be free" are denied any possibility of immigration. To immigrate legally to the United States, an individual MUST be sponsored by an employer, OR have a U.S. Citizen (who is a close blood relative) sponsor their immigration. To have an employer sponsor an immigrant is a time consuming, expensive task. Most employers won't go through the trouble unless it is a high profit / high demand position. Ask an immigration lawyer if you don't believe me.

So, for those of us who throw our hands in the air asking, "why don't they come here legally", hopefully this will give you an answer.

Despite the lack of legality, why do these people risk their lives to come here? The reasons are vast and varied. But for the most part they come to work, make money, and support their families back home. Some actually do want to stay, but there is no legal way of doing so.

As a result, when they arrive they live in the shadows. Illegal immigrants are brutalized and victimized by gangs and thugs on a massive scale compared to citizens. The thugs know they can get away with it because the illegal immigrants won't go to the police for fear of being deported.

I also hear many people complain that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, which is absolutely false. Click here to read the article discussing taxes for illegal immigrants.

It is true that some of them come and have large families, and the children born in the U.S. are American citizens. I have heard many people complain about this fact. They apparently forget that their ancestors likely benefited from that very same amendment. However, most illegal immigrants live meager lives, and remit their savings to support their families.

Another reason why people come here illegally: there is a need. Certain jobs are hard to fill with American workers (farm labor, housekeeping, janitorial, fast food, etc.). The fact is that these jobs don't pay well, and few provide benefits. Not many Americans want them.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that citizens get jobs first. But if an employer runs an ad and gets no applicants, what are they do to? What if they applicants they get don't fill all their available positions? They could raise prices and offer better wages. But then these same industries have lobbied heavily against minimum wage increases, so that seems like a non-starter.

A few questions that every American has to answer in their own minds:

• When there is a demonstrated need for low wage labor, why do we rail against a migrant worker program?
• When people come here to fill the need, and have NO OTHER LEGAL OPTIONS, why do we then punish and demonize them?
• Why do we treat these hard working people as subhuman?
• Why do we reward our political leaders for either supporting the status quo, or for passing draconian "enforcement only" laws?
• Considering how illegal immigrants are treated, how much better do we treat them than we did slaves before 1864 or blacks before the civil rights act?

I recognize that not everyone will feel the same as I do. I just hope this information can provide a more informed public discourse, and perhaps a bit of kindness toward our fellow humans.

Rampant Racism in Illegal Immigration Discourse

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/17/navarrette.immigrant.hunters/index.html

If you look at the comments at the bottom of the page, you see the rampant racism that has seeped into the national discourse on this issue.

I am certainly not happy that people enter this country illegally, or overstay their visas. I am not happy that many of them end up on welfare. I am not happy that the presence of illegal immigrants puts downward pressure on wages. I am not happy that my old elementary school has all classroom window decorations in Spanish.

There are plenty of things I am not happy about when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I am horrified at the putrid stench of racism that has worked its way into the public discourse on this issue.

I have some questions for my fellow citizens who would crucify the "illegals" and "illegal aliens".

1. Where was your outrage when Bush and the GOP controlled Congress did nothing?
2. Where was your outrage when employers were not punished for hiring illegal immigrants?
3. Where was your outrage when your beloved Reagan signed the amnesty law of 1986?
4. Where is your constitutional outrage over Arizona SB 1070, which clearly violates the 4th amendment?
5. Why has immigration come to a head when the GOP lost both houses of Congress, and the Presidency? Doesn't that timing seem strange?
6. What do you say to people like commenter "Arizona444" who refers to Latinos as "poop colored" people who "multiply like flies"?
7. Do you think that all illegal immigrants should be put through the same punishment? Should a mother trying to feed her family face the same punishment as the drug dealer and gang banger?
8. Why are you so eager to believe unsubstantiated claims (i.e. that illegal immigrants started the Arizona fires), when there is no evidence of that.
9. Why do you assume a hostile intent on the part of every individual that comes illegally?
10. Do you honestly believe that white people will be stopped in Arizona and asked to prove their legal immigration status?
11. Do you support a guest worker program?
12. What would you do to "secure the border"?
13. What other rights are you willing to give up in the hopes of rounding up a few illegal immigrants?
14. What will it take to open your eyes to the rampant racism involved in this issue?

I certainly hope that my fellow citizens will open their eyes to this evil cancer of racism before it gets out of control. I will not be silent while other human beings are dehumanized and demonized for political gain.

UN Group Passes Gay Rights Resolution

UN Group Passes Gay Rights Resolution

The headline of this article is a bit misleading. Here is what the UN Human Rights Commission website says about the resolution:

Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1) regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011 to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; decides to convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner.

So, this resolution is to document, discuss, and study. It does nothing (yet) about violence and discrimination against LGBT people.

What is interesting is that the following 19 countries voted against even studying this issue:

Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda

Not surprisingly, most of these countries are in Africa and the middle east. Their excuses: respect for religious sensibilities, respect for "democracy", lack of precedent in current international law. One idiot actually claimed that being gay is a matter of "choice", so it is not a human rights issue.

There were three countries that "abstained": Burkina Faso (africa), Zambia (africa), China

The countries that voted for the resolution (23):Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay

It is interesting how CNN did not specify which countries voted which way...

I found this information on the following page:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11167&LangID=E