NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the government mandate counseling and waiting periods before granting civil divorces?

Or is it yet another intrusion in our personal lives?

Anyways, I bring this up because it's on the Texas legislative agenda (as well as bans on gay civil unions, stem cell research, slot machines, and also mandatory waiting periods for divorces, protection for employees of hospitals who refuse to give out contraception and morning-after pills, even to rape victims).

I ask this because it's not a topic that has been done to death, but it still a very real threat to us freedom-loving liberals and libertarians.

A nice quote from the article: "It's always interesting that the people who champion less government are the ones who want these things that get right into your life."

And the article itself a pain in the ass registration, but I'll LINK (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/121004dntexwant.3c0f7.html) it anyways.

The aim (in conjunction with a ban on gay civil unions) is to make marriage "more protected and more special," says Kelly Shackleford, president of the Free Market Foundation.

At least they're being consistent, going after divorce. But I expect the opposition to this will be slightly higher, seeing as how only 10% of the population is gay, but around 50% of all married couples divorce.

If you're going to make a commitment like marriage, you should try your damndest to make it work. That said, if you want a divorce, it's not the government's place to tell you that you can't have one when you want it.

Ok...someone feels the government should get involved in our private marital lives...

...but hasn't given an argument why.

2 people now.

Goddammit that's what I get for rushing.

*Makes mental note to self: "Always use public polls"*

Anways, ya gotta admire those lawmakers...finally being consistent when they talk about "defending the sanctity of marriage". I'm serious about that, I admire their consistency. I admire the fact that they're not bullshitting about their intentions anymore. They're coming clean out in favor of an authoritarian moralizing government across the board.

It is my (wavering) faith in America that once we see them for what they are, fascists stuck in some idealized version of 1950s America, we will soundly reject them and go back to at least debatable arguments, such as welfare, taxes, free trade, etc.

Faith? I think I had some of that once. Misplaced it years ago, haven't been able to find it since.

The waiting period and counseling should come before the Marriage, not the divorce.

Do away with marriage altogether, it causes too many problems. No Marraige = no gay marraige, no divorce, no divorce attorneys......

Yes, let's make women who have been beaten by their husbands stay with him a little longer, just in case he's not really that bad of a guy. Not to mention I don't want my tax dollars paying for some drunk dude's Vegas fling.

*bump*

I see the reason in this, and think it may be a good idea for the government to recommend it, but it certainly shouldn't be mandatory. And I'm pretty liberal.

Nice idea on paper, but as many people here point out, not too practical. I won't call this "onee step away from banning divorce", but let's be honest, we really don't need this. We need to educate people a hell of a lot better than we have been.

Another thing I have heard (I forget the source, but I read it on MSN's website) is that a lot more divorces are turning out friendlier, without people at each other's throats. So maybe a waiting period isn't really going to hurt matters, especially if people are less bitter coming out of divorces now.

Yes...but mandatory government regulated waiting periods AND counseling??

Sorry, I just get nervous when the government thinks it can control our love lives.

Sorry, I just get nervous when the government thinks it can control our love lives.
Ever read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? So yeah, it can be scarey. Though there are hedonistic advantages to pangamy...

As for the waiting period point, in New Zealand you must be separated for two years before you can have your marriage dissolved.

Note that this means, you aren't stuck living with the person for two years before the a dissolution order will be made. Nor is it even an issue with regard to interference in private lives here. I fail to see how the government is being controlling here.

As for the waiting period point, in New Zealand you must be separated for two years before you can have your marriage dissolved.

Note that this means, you aren't stuck living with the person for two years before the a dissolution order will be made. Nor is it even an issue with regard to interference in private lives here. I fail to see how the government is being controlling here.
Why? What's the point of the waiting period? If people want to get divorced, they should be able to! I fail to see what that "separated but still married" period accomplishes.

Ever read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?
Yeah, a very good read. Dystopia novels (including 1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc) should be used in Literature classes...seeing as where we're going as a nation right now.

When will people learn: Social authoritarianism is dangerous!

When will people learn: Social authoritarianism is dangerous!
It is. It's very dangerous. But people are afraid that people are going to do things they consider "icky", and we can't allow that!

I'll agree with the posters who admitted (as reluctantly as I do) that you must admire their antihypocritical stance on the *sanctity* of the institution of marriage.
As a libertarian, I was appalled at the hypocrisy of the wacko fundies who blamed a small minority for the troubled state of their sacred cow, the family unit. These same Christian extremists pointing fingers at splinters forgot to remove the planks from their own eyes. How many *sinful* divorcees voted against gay marriage to preserve a tradition they singlehandedly trampled?
It's like blaming the Jews 'cause your family is in debt.
This point seems to be missed by some of the *faithful* unable to face the facts: Marriage is in trouble because half of the hitched ditch their vows when faced with the worst instead of the better as long as they both shall live.
I'd agree that sometimes that's just a bad idea. As the saying goes, promises are meant to be broken. The bible tells me so, and asks that I don't make them.

But to stay on topic, at least they're being up front about and to their convictions. This is exactly what America needs to see; Their agenda laid out in full.
Perhaps some of the 50% whose failed marriages serve as a reminder will feel the burden of their own responsibilities to the institution and make changes to their hypocritical attitudes or at least shut up about it.

Guess that silenced the opposition?

It's like blaming the Jews 'cause your family is in debt.
Damn Jews!

if anything, mandatory councelling and waiting periods for marriage...

how many people get married when they're not ready only to divorce shortly after?

making people wait to get divorced is just stupid.

bah it doesnt go far enough.then again its too damned easy to get married in the US.
my view of marriage means not even death gets to part you.of course,i dont believe that marriage should be something done in haste solely to reproduce.marriage to me is a desision to not be two people,but one.

if anything, mandatory councelling and waiting periods for marriage...

how many people get married when they're not ready only to divorce shortly after?

making people wait to get divorced is just stupid.

Making people go through waiting periods for marriage is a stupid idea, too.

When will people learn: Social authoritarianism is dangerous!

Most religions are rooted in social authoritarianism.

Most religions are rooted in social authoritarianism.
Your point?

Your point?

They will never accept that it is dangerous. It requires a keen foresight to understand the dangerous nature of social authoritarianism and with the bias instilled into people of religion, it is doubtful that they will recognize it.

If they accept in their own personal lives, there is nothing to stop them from accepting it in the government.

divorce?? :confused:
what ever happemd to death due us part :fluffle:
way i see it you want to get rid of em you need to GET RID of em :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

They will never accept that it is dangerous. It requires a keen foresight to understand the dangerous nature of social authoritarianism and with the bias instilled into people of religion, it is doubtful that they will recognize it.

If they accept in their own personal lives, there is nothing to stop them from accepting it in the government.
Coming from me, I hate to say this...
But your discrimination against the religious is bordering on brotherhood with those you oppose.

They will never accept that it is dangerous. It requires a keen foresight to understand the dangerous nature of social authoritarianism and with the bias instilled into people of religion, it is doubtful that they will recognize it.

If they accept in their own personal lives, there is nothing to stop them from accepting it in the government.
There is a wide range of religious thought...some more authoritarian than others...but certainly the monotheistic religions rank as some of the most morally authoritarian.

You are correct though, if people are willing to accept moral authoritarianism in their spiritual lives, they are probably much more open to social authoritarianism in government.

They don't have to approve of it, but at the very least I'm trying to make them at least understand that they have no business regulating/banning it.

Coming from me, I hate to say this...
But your discrimination against the religious is bordering on brotherhood with those you oppose.

Why?

note to self: Take over texas after alabama and set their asses straight, then use combined power to take over redneck tennessee and ship them to siberia..

Anways, ya gotta admire those lawmakers...finally being consistent when they talk about "defending the sanctity of marriage". I'm serious about that, I admire their consistency. I admire the fact that they're not bullshitting about their intentions anymore. They're coming clean out in favor of an authoritarian moralizing government across the board.

Meh, I'll humbly disagree. If they're going to screw things up, I'd prefer that they limit their agenda to a few things rather than implement it across the board. In this case, I'm all for inconsistency. ;)

Upon my father entering his fourth marraige, his current wife (who also broke up his previous marraige to my mother) wrote a letter to my mother saying that she "will do everything in [her] power to make sure this marriage ends as unhappily as the last." Within eight weeks of the marraige, they separated in spectacular enough a fashion that her firstborn son was comitted to a sanitarium for at least three years. Ain't heard anything from him since. Current theory is 50/50 between "suicide" and "afraid it'll trigger a relapse if he thinks about it." Anyway...

Yet, the state of North Carolina, in all it's wisdom, decreed that they could not get an annullment, and thus must go through the process of divorce. He was legally married for a full year after that. Never saw eachother again after those eight weeks, and aside from my mother making some things up, never heard anything until I found she had framed The Letter because she hates my father more than tongue can tell.

So... When I was ten years old, at least, they had mandatory waiting periods in NC. My one experience with it is rather horrific, as it involves the three of my father's wives that I've met, two of whom are the most evil people I've ever met, and the third of whom gets honorable mention for naming her children "Forest" and "Cebrook."

bump

Good idea, rotten to have the government involved in it, or to make it mandatory, though.