NationStates Jolt Archive

I propose an end to the so called "no fault divorse" by imposing counseling to those cases which do not have an obvious cause for dissolution, such as, yet not confined to all forms of abuse, abandonment or adultery. A minimum 6 session, government funded marriage therapy report shall become part of the required paperwork entered with the courts. In the case of incompatibility of either or both parties with assigned counselor after 3 visits a second may be requested.
In the event the party/parties are still unhappy with their assigned therapist there will be a six month wait before there may be a new therapist assigned. During this waiting period the petitioner and respondent may seek counsel on their own and upon reciving said report after 6 consecutive sessions with the same therapist and gaining no resolution or interest in further counseling may then petition the courts for dissolutionment.

Firstly, why is this an international issue?

The "No Fault" divorce was created for a reason. There really are some people who don't have a specific reason to break up, and there really are people who get divorced for reasons that aren't government sanctioned, and forcing people to report a reason when there isn't one can have drastic consequences. People have had their reputations ruined because they might have to produce reports of adultery to get the courts to grant a divorce, for instance.

The government cannot control our reasons for marriage -- why should it be able to dictate reasons for divorce?

If you have no specific reason for splitting up then you had no real reason for entering the sanctity of marriage in the first place. Marriage is not to be taken lightly! There are too many marriages for the sole purpose of personal gain, such as citizenship or monetary gains. Marriage is a legal contract and as with other contracts it should not be allowed to be broken so easily, on a whim. Concider situations where parties marry, and divorse the same person, repeatedly. Or any union which involves children, think of the consequences to them. Especially where children are involved this "easy out" approach to marriage is inexcusable. If it wasn't as easy to disolve a marriage maybe people would think more before jumping into the situation.

What if your partner and you live together happily for a while, then start arguing more often, getting into more fights, etc and finally realize that it just isnt working? There isnt a choice for 'We argue too much' on the papers. This choice allows you to basically decidethat it isnt working and then not have to falsly report abuse, infidelity, etc to get out of the marrage.

Trashed, that is what the counseling is for... there is a high likelyhood that those issues could be resolved. Additionally, the report merely is to report that an attempt at resolution has been made. The results would be confidential just as are medical reports.

If you have no specific reason for splitting up then you had no real reason for entering the sanctity of marriage in the first place.

That's not necessarily true. Even if it were, wouldn't that be an argument for my case, anyway?

Marriage is a legal contract and as with other contracts it should not be allowed to be broken so easily, on a whim.

There's a phrase you might do well to know: "Escape clause."

If it wasn't as easy to disolve a marriage maybe people would think more before jumping into the situation.

That may well be true, but I cannot support that ideal.

And, of course, I'll then have to ask you to justify your exceptions. Why should marriage be easy-as-pie to dissolve in those cases? Couldn't issues like adultery or abandonment be resolved by counseling?

The results would be confidential just as are medical reports.

Divorce and marriage records are entirely public in many countries, actually.

Or any union which involves children, think of the consequences to them. Especially where children are involved this "easy out" approach to marriage is inexcusable.

Your proposal does not mention children in any way, shape, or form. Ergo, they are irrelevant to this debate. If you wanted a proposal to protect children in marriage, you would have done well to include that principle in your submission.

That aside, I challenge you to find a psychologist who thinks it is healthy for children to live under a marriage that should be discontinued, but hasn't been "for the sake of the children." Do you really think that's the best thing for them, to live in what is quite obviously a disfunctional home?

And, of course, I'll then have to ask you to justify your exceptions. Why should marriage be easy-as-pie to dissolve in those cases? Couldn't issues like adultery or abandonment be resolved by counseling?
I may have worded that part differently than I intended (which I believe is the purpose for this debate, to clarify the outline before it is set forth as an actual proposal). Adultery could potentially be resolved by this and is not as easy to obtain evidence of as would abuse (police report, restraining order ect.) and probably should not be one of the exceptions allowed in leu of counseling. In the issue of abandonment: if one party in the marriage has moved away (possibly another state, region, country) they might not even be able to be found to impose said sessions. As to the situation of abuse: statistics have proven that once abuse (violent, physical, sexual) starts it rarely if ever ends without seperation of individuals, and even then sometimes not.
Divorce and marriage records are entirely public in many countries, actually
That is in the real world, this is Nationstates. The report itself could be made confidential with this proposal.
Your proposal does not mention children in any way, shape, or form. Ergo, they are irrelevant to this debate. If you wanted a proposal to protect children in marriage, you would have done well to include that principle in your submission.
I mentioned children as an item of debate for the proposal. The proposal is not solely a child protection device and all situations connected to marriage are relevant.
That aside, I challenge you to find a psychologist who thinks it is healthy for children to live under a marriage that should be discontinued, but hasn't been "for the sake of the children." Do you really think that's the best thing for them, to live in what is quite obviously a disfunctional home?
This proposal would not prevent a dissolution where it is truely right and just but only force an attempt to rectify the problems in the union before resorting to the "easy out".

I propose an end to the so called "no fault divorse" by imposing counseling to those cases which do not have an obvious cause for dissolution, such as, yet not confined to all forms of abuse, abandonment or adultery. A minimum 6 session, government funded marriage therapy report shall become part of the required paperwork entered with the courts. In the case of incompatibility of either or both parties with assigned counselor after 3 visits a second may be requested.
In the event the party/parties are still unhappy with their assigned therapist there will be a six month wait before there may be a new therapist assigned. During this waiting period the petitioner and respondent may seek counsel on their own and upon reciving said report after 6 consecutive sessions with the same therapist and gaining no resolution or interest in further counseling may then petition the courts for dissolutionment.

This proposal goes against UN Resolution 245A, "Proper Grammar".

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal as it makes the institution of marriage too easy to break - which we believe is wrong.

I propose an end to the so called "no fault divorse" by imposing counseling to those cases which do not have an obvious cause for dissolution, such as, yet not confined to all forms of abuse, abandonment or adultery. A minimum 6 session, government funded marriage therapy report shall become part of the required paperwork entered with the courts. In the case of incompatibility of either or both parties with assigned counselor after 3 visits a second may be requested.
In the event the party/parties are still unhappy with their assigned therapist there will be a six month wait before there may be a new therapist assigned. During this waiting period the petitioner and respondent may seek counsel on their own and upon reciving said report after 6 consecutive sessions with the same therapist and gaining no resolution or interest in further counseling may then petition the courts for dissolutionment.
This proposal goes against UN Resolution 245A, "Proper Grammar".

This is a rough draft of my future potential proposal. Isn't that what this forum is for?? Also, if you are going to claim merely that it does not adhere to the guidelines of the Un Resolution pertaining to "Proper Grammer"are you prepared to state exactly what part/parts are not grammatically correct?

The regulation of divorce is a purely domestic concern of nations; there is no need or justification whatever for involving the UN. If a nation wishes to force its citizens to remain married against their will, brand their foreheads, feed them to lions, or otherwise torment them, it's not an international issue.

The regulation of divorce is a purely domestic concern of nations; there is no need or justification whatever for involving the UN. If a nation wishes to force its citizens to remain married against their will, brand their foreheads, feed them to lions, or otherwise torment them, it's not an international issue.
I can graciously accept this criticism and have already been thinking that this proposal might be more appropriately submitted as an issue for NS rather than a UN proposal. Thank you for your considerate input and amusing analogy. :D

Although I have reconcidered creating this as a UN Proposal, (with mods approval) I'd like to keep this thread open to comment, criticism and ideas for inclusions/exclusions or clarification. Yet, I would understand if it is decided to close/remove the poll.
Also, could someone direct me to an outline or example of acceptable forms for submitting a Nation issue to be reviewed?

I propose an end to the so called "no fault divorse" by imposing counseling to those cases which do not have an obvious cause for dissolution, such as, yet not confined to all forms of abuse, abandonment or adultery.


divorce, not divorse. You impose something on something else, not to. "such as, yet not confined to" doesn't make any sense at all. What you probably mean is "including but not limited to".

quote="Bandaloopdreams"]A minimum 6 session, government funded marriage therapy report shall become part of the required paperwork entered with the courts.[/quote]

Generally, when you quote small numbers, you use words not figures. For instance you say 'six people' but '145,000 troops'. Do you mean "government-funded marriage therapy" or "government funded-marriage therapy" ?

Should I continue ? :)

*waits for an elaboration* I don't believe "Of course." quite explains your arguement.

It is my belief (mods please correct me if I'm missing the boat here) that the resolution in which you refer addresses gross negligence to the English language and is not meant to "nitpick" extreme minor typos which occasionally invade even our most cautious mods postings. Incidentally, have you bothered to read some of the proposals that have been accepted since that resolution?? Neither you nor anyone else in this game is infallible or perfect.

If you have no specific reason for splitting up then you had no real reason for entering the sanctity of marriage in the first place. Marriage is not to be taken lightly!
Frankly, that's opinion, not law. Do with your marriage as you will, but leave mine out of it. This proposal doesn't impact relationships between nations in any way - it simply attempts to shove one group's version of moral behavior down the throats of eveyone else.

Not only should this not be a UN issue, it shouldn't be a national issue. Unless you wish to make a case for modifying contract law, this is an interpersonal issue, and anyone outside the partnership / marriage have no business interfering in it in any way.

Divorce law should come under the same heading as contract law. You agree to this, this and this, along with a generic bit for marriages that just don't work for unspecified reasons; break it, and the marriage can be dissolved, and shared property/benefits divided according to the contract.

Other than that, the government should get its hands OFF.

Not only should this not be a UN issue, it shouldn't be a national issue. Now wait just a second. I already stated I no longer intend to submit this as an actual UN proposal and how is it unacceptable as a Nation issue when we recieve issues which result as to meat being allowed to be consumed or not.
If you recieved this as a Nation issue and did not like any of the debate points of the issue you have the right to dismiss it.

*waits for an elaboration* I don't believe "Of course." quite explains your arguement.

Fine you asked for it. :) See above. :)

It is my belief (mods please correct me if I'm missing the boat here) that the resolution in which you refer addresses gross negligence to the English language and is not meant to "nitpick" extreme minor typos which occasionally invade even our most cautious mods postings. Incidentally, have you bothered to read some of the proposals that have been accepted since that resolution?? Neither you nor anyone else in this game is infallible or perfect.Did you preview your attempt to correct me? You have also made errors. Until your postings are perfect you have no basis for argument. With that said...This is a rough draft of my future potential proposal. Isn't that what this forum is for??I don't see any point in further debate to your argument. It might do you well to pay attention to all postings in a thread which you are participating.
*moving on*

Actually, I think this could make a good national issue. The main thing to be careful about would be making it a fresh one -- there's already at least one issue dealing with divorce that I know of.

Linkage (both found from the national issues page):

Submit an issue - http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=submit_issue
Issue guidelines - http://www.nationstates.net/pages/submit_issue_guidelines.html

There's a whole section of the forum dedicated to issues. There's probably more material there, but I don't go there much, so I wouldn't know.

Anyway, if you decide to try it, good luck.

We at Burkonia respect the intent of this legislation, but will not support it as we believe that beyond the UN Declaration’s protection of the right to marry, specific marriage and divorce law should remain within the domain of individual sovereign states.

It is my belief (mods please correct me if I'm missing the boat here) that the resolution in which you refer addresses gross negligence to the English language and is not meant to "nitpick" extreme minor typos which occasionally invade even our most cautious mods postings. Incidentally, have you bothered to read some of the proposals that have been accepted since that resolution?? Neither you nor anyone else in this game is infallible or perfect.Did you preview your attempt to correct me? You have also made errors. Until your postings are perfect you have no basis for argument. With that said...This is a rough draft of my future potential proposal. Isn't that what this forum is for??I don't see any point in further debate to your argument. It might do you well to pay attention to all postings in a thread which you are participating.
*moving on*

Actually my postings are perfect. You're probably right, though. There's no point flogging dead horses.