I was reading a column by Glenn Sacks, a men's and fathers' issues columnist, radio commentator, and blogger who criticizes conservatives for their feeble defense of men and fatherhood issues. He perceives a new tack by some Christian conservatives who have embarked upon a softer and more acceptable approach, advocating "shared parenting" in divorce actions.

There's really nothing new here. If religious leaders are facing up to vital family matters like divorce, custody, and the problem of large numbers of fathers frozen out of their children's lives, it is some progress.

Most enlightened people would favor joint custody except where abuse, drugs, or alcoholism was present. If both members of a divorced couple want to be part of their children's lives, they should both have that right, and that responsibility.

Sacks has been labeled, as an "unabashed testosterone-driven advocate for males", regardless of the subject. He quotes Michael McManus, criticizing the norm of granting sole custody to one parent and thereby separating the other from the lives of their children. McManus wants to replace no-fault divorce with mutual-consent divorce.

I don't agree with this proposed change. No-fault divorce became universal because there was a real need to reform the war-like atmosphere of proving fault on the part of one party. The key flaw of mutual consent divorce is that without your spouses consent, or proof of abuse or infidelity, you stay married, no matter what. I believe the Christian conservative movement's hidden agenda is to simply make it more difficult to secure a divorce.

If a couple has decided that their marriage is broken, the law should not place obstacles to a legal split. If one party has decided that their marriage is broken, the law should not force them to stay. Government should only be involved by providing a neutral vehicle, through the courts, to make divorce a more comfortable and efficient process, always protecting the welfare of children.

Click here for more.