NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic was in the news recently:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&Id=183

"Marriage Savers" Lobbies for Repeal of No-Fault Divorce

Picture yourself an 11-year-old boy witnessing a drunken argument between your parents, invites Pastor Bob Dailey of Bedford, Indiana. Words fly and so do objects, an ashtray narrowly missing your mother’s head. When you grow up and attempt to put this traumatic lesson to good purpose, do you work on domestic violence initiatives that will make women feel safer both in their marriages, or in leaving them if necessary? Or do you use the story to illustrate a new divorce reform movement that re-labels the liberalized “no-fault” divorce standards adopted in the 1970s as “unilateral divorce” inflicted on one spouse without the other’s consent?

If you chose answer B, ding-ding.
The short version is that there's a growing movement to remove the option for no-fault divorce in the US.

This baffles me. I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could possibly be a good idea. But maybe I'm missing something. So I pose the question, naturally, to NSG, Wisest Of All Forum Communities.

What do you think of no-fault divorce?

This topic was in the news recently:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&Id=183

The short version is that there's a growing movement to remove the option for no-fault divorce in the US.

This baffles me. I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could possibly be a good idea. But maybe I'm missing something. So I pose the question, naturally, to NSG, Wisest Of All Forum Communities.

What do you think of no-fault divorce?

I think it is a good idea.
Why shouldn't two people who have discovered that they are incompatible be able to get a divorce based upon that?

Why would divorce ever need to be the fault of one spouse over the other?

This topic was in the news recently:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&Id=183

The short version is that there's a growing movement to remove the option for no-fault divorce in the US.

This baffles me. I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could possibly be a good idea. But maybe I'm missing something. So I pose the question, naturally, to NSG, Wisest Of All Forum Communities.

What do you think of no-fault divorce?
In Georgia, no-fault really just means uncontested. If two people can work out the end of their marriage in a way that is satisfactory to both, why shouldn't we allow that?

Why would divorce ever need to be the fault of one spouse over the other?

Very good question...

Wow...this has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I support No-Fault divorce because abuse and neglect isn't always physical. It can also be emotional and psychological. If two people are just incompatiable then they should be able to get the divorce.

Sometimes, two people just don't belong together.

Why would divorce ever need to be the fault of one spouse over the other?

Because people are vincitive (I'm not on my own computer so I know that's spelled wrong, be quiet) and want to make the other person "pay". It's human nature.

Makes things less dragged out and messy. Lawyers do not like this.

Because people are vindictive (I'm not on my own computer so I know that's spelled wrong, be quiet) and want to make the other person "pay". It's human nature.

Fixed :D

Wow...this has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I support No-Fault divorce because abuse and neglect isn't always physical. It can also be emotional and psychological. If two people are just incompatiable then they should be able to get the divorce.

Sometimes, two people just don't belong together.
That's very true. But the time to discover incompatibility is BEFORE you get married. I would make pre-marriage counseling a requirement for any license. Just like the blood test --- If you don't get a sign off from a shrink or a minister, you can't get married.

That's very true. But the time to discover incompatibility is BEFORE you get married. I would make pre-marriage counseling a requirement for any license. Just like the blood test --- If you don't get a sign off from a shrink or a minister, you can't get married.

so I would require the approval of somone else to tell me that I should be with my spouse?

What an absolutly horrendous idea.

so I would require the approval of somone else to tell me that I should be with my spouse?

What an absolutly horrendous idea.

Maybe not. I don't know. But with the divorce rates as high as they are, it doesn't appear that there is much thought about compatibility going into the marriage. We did a church thing with some other couples and it was enlightening.

I don't know if approval is the way I'd put it. Complete the class, get the certificate -- it doesn't matter what the outcome was, only that you get the piece of paper.

That's very true. But the time to discover incompatibility is BEFORE you get married. I would make pre-marriage counseling a requirement for any license. Just like the blood test --- If you don't get a sign off from a shrink or a minister, you can't get married.

I dont like this idea. It requires A) That I spend money on something Im perfectly capable of doing myself and B) it implies that I, as an adult, somehow need the approval of someone who isnt me to be with my spouse.

Your reasoning for wanting this are good, just the practical implications are not.

No-Fault divorce is perfectly all right. I did not find it shocking that the person quoted in this article is a pastor. Me thinks that this movement probably started with and is more strongly supported by religious groups who think that "till death do us part" should be taken literally.

Having gone through my parents divorced, id say that i dont think people should get married unless they are ready to give up other people, and are willing to stay with said person for the rest of their lives...

No matter the fault its not good for everyone involved, divorce is a bitch, but the marriage that facilitated it was a ****...;)

I dont like this idea. It requires A) That I spend money on something Im perfectly capable of doing myself and B) it implies that I, as an adult, somehow need the approval of someone who isnt me to be with my spouse.

Your reasoning for wanting this are good, just the practical implications are not.

No-Fault divorce is perfectly all right. I did not find it shocking that the person quoted in this article is a pastor. Me thinks that this movement probably started with and is more strongly supported by religious groups who think that "till death do us part" should be taken literally.
Like I said, it's not so much that someone is approving your marriage, it's that you and your fiancee have explored your compatibility.

Personally, I like the 'til death do us part' condition. Being able to have a fiftieth anniversary party is something that takes some commitment to the process. Hell, even having your twentieth demonstrates a lot of commitment, especially when you compare that to some of our celebrities that can't even make it to the first year...

I think the idea of repealing no-fault divorce laws is ludicrously silly - as is the idea of "unilateral divorce" itself. The article points out that in a majority of cases, one partner didn't want the divorce, but stops short of actually saying "so they should be allowed to force the other person to stay with them against their will," even though that's the obvious and idiotic implication. I do think many people hop into and out of marriages too casually, but frankly, that's their business, not mine, and certainly not the law's.

What is forcing people to continue on in an unhealthy marriage supposed to do, exactly?

Is this really an area in which we want to stress quantity over quality?

Like I said, it's not so much that someone is approving your marriage, it's that you and your fiancee have explored your compatibility.

Personally, I like the 'til death do us part' condition. Being able to have a fiftieth anniversary party is something that takes some commitment to the process. Hell, even having your twentieth demonstrates a lot of commitment, especially when you compare that to some of our celebrities that can't even make it to the first year...

I'm with KoL on this...

Like I said, it's not so much that someone is approving your marriage, it's that you and your fiancee have explored your compatibility.


But what about paying for it? We nonreligious folk arent going to go to a Church, and that kind of stuff is pricey.


Now, if I could convince the pastor with leaving God out of it, Id consider going. But that IMO would be unfair to the pastor.

I'm with KoL on this...

Psh, you almost always are ;)

What is forcing people to continue on in an unhealthy marriage supposed to do, exactly?
But the vows say "Until death do us part... :rolleyes:
Is this really an area in which we want to stress quantity over quality?
Apparently :rolleyes:
I think the idea of repealing no-fault divorce laws is ludicrously silly - as is the idea of "unilateral divorce" itself. The article points out that in a majority of cases, one partner didn't want the divorce, but stops short of actually saying "so they should be allowed to force the other person to stay with them against their will," even though that's the obvious and idiotic implication. I do think many people hop into and out of marriages too casually, but frankly, that's their business, not mine, and certainly not the law's.

QFT

Psh, you almost always are ;)

Yeah we usually do agree...

:fluffle::fluffle:

But what about paying for it? We nonreligious folk arent going to go to a Church, and that kind of stuff is pricey.
Oh come on. We just make it another entitlement and raise taxes again. We give every household two counseling vouchers, just like for we do for digital TV converters. Or even make it part of what's covered when we nationalize health care...

It's that simple. We make it "free".

Oh come on. We just make it another entitlement and raise taxes again. We give every household two counseling vouchers, just like for we do for digital TV converters. Or even make it part of what's covered when we nationalize health care...

It's that simple. We make it "free".

:eek:


Who are you and what did you do with Myrmidonisia?


I guess thats one solution.


I dont know, Im more partial to the idea that the government shouldnt concern itself with marriages and marriage rates. Its not like they pay for the divource.

:eek:


Who are you and what did you do with Myrmidonisia?


I guess thats one solution.

A better solution would be to not make it a rule in the first place.



Although I do agree that people definitely should be finding out that they are incompatible before they get married.

But the vows say "Until death do us part... :rolleyes:

Not all of them. =)

Besides, the vows also include a lot of promises, with the implied (if not expressly stated) premise that breaking those promises can lead to a dissolution of the union.

Not all of them. =)
I know, mine didn't.
Besides, the vows also include a lot of promises, with the implied (if not expressly stated) premise that breaking those promises can lead to a dissolution of the union.
Exactly

Although I do agree that people definitely should be finding out that they are incompatible before they get married.

It's another one of those crazy things that I think people should do, but I wouldn't legislate.

Competent adults should know whether or not they are compatible before getting married. They shouldn't make that decision based on it being a "next step" or on a lark. They should be able to work through many of the problems that lead to divorce and shouldn't get divorced at the very first sign of conflict.

But I'm not going to advocate legislation that they have to act that way.

:eek:


Who are you and what did you do with Myrmidonisia?


I guess thats one solution.


I dont know, Im more partial to the idea that the government shouldnt concern itself with marriages and marriage rates. Its not like they pay for the divource.
I can't make sarcasm survive the transition into bits and bytes and back into words again.

In the end, it's better that the government stay away from marriage. This is the same government that can't seem to do anything right that's more complicated than delivering mail. And even then, commercial companies do it better.

It's another one of those crazy things that I think people should do, but I wouldn't legislate.

Competent adults should know whether or not they are compatible before getting married. They shouldn't make that decision based on it being a "next step" or on a lark. They should be able to work through many of the problems that lead to divorce and shouldn't get divorced at the very first sign of conflict.

But I'm not going to advocate legislation that they have to act that way.

My thoughts exactly.

I live in a country without divorce. 'Nuff said. :D

I live in a country without divorce. 'Nuff said. :D

Not really, it says absolutely nothing about your opinion on the matter.

One wonders what exactly a marital counselor is going to do with a situation where the couple is manifestly unsuited for each other or for marriage, but is going through with it anyway (shotgun marriage due to drunken one-night stand, for instance). One almost wonders whether the conservative is truly suggesting the state have veto power over a couple's decision to marry. . .

But that's neither here nor there. What Bottle and most of the others are missing is the rhetorical move the pastor asks us to make. He's asking us to look through the eyes of a child trying to make sense of a brawl between parents, and suggests that the lesson we would take away from said parents divorcing later is that we should walk away if things get too rough for us. In laying it out like this, we can see the problem: it's a combination of sleight of hand, strawman, and to coin a new kind of rhetorical fallacy (or better put to point out one that isn't usually mentioned in fallacious terms), the "If they are a child, then they are a retard" assumption inherent in the argument.

Because really, if I were that child, what I'd hope that I'd take away from the situation is that my mother has some sense of self-worth ensuring she doesn't feel taking an ashtray thrown at her now and again is the price she pays for marital bliss, and that my father is a douchebag. That, however, is a lesson that is not incompatible with the couple divorcing, and therefore is not and cannot be the suggested interpretation, right though it may be. There's the real offense: the assumption that being a man or woman implies staying in a degrading and dangerous situation.

The idea that the only way you're getting out of a bad marriage is to hope your spouse cheats on you, beats you or does something else terrible...is idiotic. Staying with someone less heinous yet still incompatible because you have no way out is inflicting a freaking nightmare on people.

Although I do agree that people definitely should be finding out that they are incompatible before they get married.

People change.

People change.

True, that does not change the truthfullness of my statement though.

True, that does not change the truthfullness of my statement though.

Um...it shows that the situation in your statement can happen and still end up being irrelevant. Just because you're 'compatible' (whatever that means) when you get married, doesn't mean you'll stay that way. And just because you're incompatible (whatever that means) when you get married, it doesn't mean you'll stay that way. So how useful is compatibility as an indicator anyway?

The only truthfulness to 'change' by the way would be in that not actually being your opinion, for which I find no evidence to assert.

Um...it shows that the situation in your statement can happen and still end up being irrelevant. Just because you're 'compatible' (whatever that means) when you get married, doesn't mean you'll stay that way. And just because you're incompatible (whatever that means) when you get married, it doesn't mean you'll stay that way. So how useful is compatibility as an indicator anyway?

It was more a comment on Hollywood marriages.
If your marriage falls apart/is falling apart before your first anniversary it is a fairly safe assumption that you weren't 'compatible' to begin with.

It was more a comment on Hollywood marriages.
If your marriage falls apart/is falling apart before your first anniversary it is a fairly safe assumption that you weren't 'compatible' to begin with.

I want a list of compatibility factors, on my desk at 8:00am tomorrow morning.

I want a list of compatibility factors, on my desk at 8:00am tomorrow morning.

lol

Like I said, it's not so much that someone is approving your marriage, it's that you and your fiancee have explored your compatibility.

Personally, I like the 'til death do us part' condition. Being able to have a fiftieth anniversary party is something that takes some commitment to the process. Hell, even having your twentieth demonstrates a lot of commitment, especially when you compare that to some of our celebrities that can't even make it to the first year...

You haven't answered the relevant question. Why is it in the public insterest to force you toward that event?

Frankly, I don't care if people I don't know get marrie 50 times. It's not significantly different to me than if they dated 50 people. It doesn't matter at all.

I'd love it everyone in the country was fit, but I'm not going to require them all to meet with a personal trainer.

I want a list of compatibility factors, on my desk at 8:00am tomorrow morning.

That creepy squirrel-toucher that advertise "eHarmony" claims to know all the important factors for "deep compatibility".

You give him your credit card and ask him...

You haven't answered the relevant question. Why is it in the public insterest to force you toward that event?

Frankly, I don't care if people I don't know get marrie 50 times. It's not significantly different to me than if they dated 50 people. It doesn't matter at all.

I'd love it everyone in the country was fit, but I'm not going to require them all to meet with a personal trainer.

But every time somebody gets a divorce, there is a solid 1/43 chance of their child becoming a rapist.

So, lessee...1- (42/43)^50 is....uh...four?

This topic was in the news recently:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&Id=183

The short version is that there's a growing movement to remove the option for no-fault divorce in the US.

This baffles me. I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could possibly be a good idea. But maybe I'm missing something. So I pose the question, naturally, to NSG, Wisest Of All Forum Communities.

What do you think of no-fault divorce?
I think that removing it would be ridiculously stupid. There are plenty of ways a marriage can end that has no real fault, per se. It's a just plain useful tool, really, and I see no reason to remove it.

I think that removing it would be ridiculously stupid. There are plenty of ways a marriage can end that has no real fault, per se. It's a just plain useful tool, really, and I see no reason to remove it.

I'm telling you, its the babies. The babies suffer, horrifically.

The only way to ensure strong, nurturing, responsible families is to force unhappy people to stay together.

The babies.

I'm telling you, its the babies. The babies suffer, horrifically.

The only way to ensure strong, nurturing, responsible families is to force unhappy people to stay together.

The babies.

Think of teh babiez!! Think!

The idea that the only way you're getting out of a bad marriage is to hope your spouse cheats on you, beats you or does something else terrible...is idiotic. Staying with someone less heinous yet still incompatible because you have no way out is inflicting a freaking nightmare on people.

For once, I agree with Neesika.

*waits for the end of times to begin*

My divorce was no-fault. But I suppose we could have done it the old fashioned way and have him sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery. And then I'd have to see if him being a crashing bore would do for a countersuit.

One wonders what exactly a marital counselor is going to do with a situation where the couple is manifestly unsuited for each other or for marriage, but is going through with it anyway (shotgun marriage due to drunken one-night stand, for instance). One almost wonders whether the conservative is truly suggesting the state have veto power over a couple's decision to marry. . .

But that's neither here nor there. What Bottle and most of the others are missing is the rhetorical move the pastor asks us to make. He's asking us to look through the eyes of a child trying to make sense of a brawl between parents, and suggests that the lesson we would take away from said parents divorcing later is that we should walk away if things get too rough for us. In laying it out like this, we can see the problem: it's a combination of sleight of hand, strawman, and to coin a new kind of rhetorical fallacy (or better put to point out one that isn't usually mentioned in fallacious terms), the "If they are a child, then they are a retard" assumption inherent in the argument.

Because really, if I were that child, what I'd hope that I'd take away from the situation is that my mother has some sense of self-worth ensuring she doesn't feel taking an ashtray thrown at her now and again is the price she pays for marital bliss, and that my father is a douchebag. That, however, is a lesson that is not incompatible with the couple divorcing, and therefore is not and cannot be the suggested interpretation, right though it may be. There's the real offense: the assumption that being a man or woman implies staying in a degrading and dangerous situation.



QFT.

But see, this is the problem with the Church being against divorce. It likes to pretend that if your husband beats you, you still somehow have some sort of magical obligation towards them, even if theyre douchebags. I know I know, its shocking when the Church is misogynistic, but it happens now and again.

I dont think the pastor is saying "kids are retards" as much as hes saying "Ladies need to submit to their husbands beatings" and playing the "think of the children!" card.

Besides, I would say your spouse throwing something at you is a sign of a deeper problem inherant in the relationship. Its not giving up when it gets tough at tht point.

QFT.

But see, this is the problem with the Church being against marriages. It likes to pretend that if your spouse beats you, you still somehow have some sort of magical obligation towards them, even if theyre douchebags.

I dont think the pastor is saying "kids are retards" as much as hes saying "Ladies need to submit to their husbands beatings" and playing the "think of the children!" card.

Besides, I would say your spouse throwing something at you is a sign of a deeper problem inherant in the relationship. Its not giving up when it gets tough at tht point.

Don't you mean "this is the problem with the Church being against divorces"?

Don't you mean "this is the problem with the Church being against divorces"?

Good call :p

I support no-fault divorce.

I also support the complete abolition of alimony (but not child support, that's a different story)

Good call :p

Kinda sucks when someone actually reads your post and you've made a stupid error doesn't it?
:p

I support no-fault divorce.

I also support the complete abolition of alimony (but not child support, that's a different story)

Why?

Kinda sucks when someone actually reads your post and you've made a stupid error doesn't it?
:p

Meh, Im just happy when someone reads my post :p

Don't you mean "this is the problem with the Church being against divorces"?

Check this brain trust:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/divorce_not_ok.htm

Meh, Im just happy when someone reads my post :p
:D
Check this brain trust:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/divorce_not_ok.htm

LOL
Carefully notice that the woman in the above letter failed to mention even one negative thing about herself. Oh, she must be an angel. It is sinful pride that causes all divorces. Divorce is a sin. America is a feminist nation, and women are twice as likely to file for divorce than men. Look at World Divorce Rates and see how the evils of feminism have destroyed America's families.

Interestingly, and sadly, all we see on the internet and in society today is talk about domestic violence; but NEVER do we hear anything about statistics on wives who refuse to obey their husbands. It is evil. It is just as sinful for a wife to frustrate her husband through insubordination and disobedience as it is for a man to commit domestic violence. I am not lessening the sin of domestic violence, I am emphasizing the sin of wives who rebel against their husbands by not being obedient. I realize this is ancient mentality to feminists today; but it is 100% Biblical doctrine. A wife is expected by God to obey her husband. Feminists are eagerly willing to crucify abusive husbands; BUT they won't even address the issue of wives who disobey, mistreat, and frustrate their husbands. It takes two to tango.

Check this brain trust:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/divorce_not_ok.htm

I had to stop reading 3 paragraphs in. I literally started to see red.


Christians, why cant you cull these idiots in your communities yourself? You know how much better youd all look if you just beat these idots with a lead pipe yourself?


Send me $50 and pay for my traveling fees and Ill do it for you. I wll come to your community with a lead pipe, and beat the local fundie making you all look bad to within an inch of his life.

Imma gonna start me a new business.

Why?

Adults should be able to hold their own. It's not fair for someone to be able to sit on their ass all day and do nothing at the ex-spouse's expense. Once again, I do believe in child support but that should be more tightly regulated to make sure it actually is being spent on the children.

Adults should be able to hold their own. It's not fair for someone to be able to sit on their ass all day and do nothing at the ex-spouse's expense.

Not sure I agree with you, but I see where you're coming from.

I had to stop reading 3 paragraphs in. I literally started to see red.


Christians, why cant you cull these idiots in your communities yourself? You know how much better youd all look if you just beat these idots with a lead pipe yourself?


Send me $50 and pay for my traveling fees and Ill do it for you. I wll come to your community with a lead pipe, and beat the local fundie making you all look bad to within an inch of his life.

Imma gonna start me a new business.

The dude has whole pages of that stuff...thank Jebus he's not representative of any major Christian group I'm aware of...

Adults should be able to hold their own. It's not fair for someone to be able to sit on their ass all day and do nothing at the ex-spouse's expense. Once again, I do believe in child support but that should be more tightly regulated to make sure it actually is being spent on the children.

Certainly. However, what happens when my wife and I agree that I'll finish school while she works, rather than her finishing her schooling, and then she stays home with our children and cares for our home while I build a career. She works to benefit me that we both reap the rewards. Then I cheat on her and we end up divorced? We had an agreement that I violated and that agreement included the monetary support I was giving her.

Certainly. However, what happens when my wife and I agree that I'll finish school while she works, rather than her finishing her schooling, and then she stays home with our children and cares for our home while I build a career. She works to benefit me that we both reap the rewards. Then I cheat on her and we end up divorced? We had an agreement that I violated and that agreement included the monetary support I was giving her.

You waited until you finished your degree before you admitted anything, right?

Seriously, though, I prefer limited alimony (child support being another matter). Perhaps, five years or so, depending on circumstances, to give time to the spouse that left the marriage on weaker financial footing.

This movement is definitely the oddest thing I've heard of this week. I can't conceive of how adding legal obstacles to divorce is going to encourage people to make their marriages work if all of the other ties that bind (kids, habit, fear of loneliness, sharing all your material posessions,) aren't enough to convince people to try and work it out.

I can't believe I'm saying this and all but...

Both options here suck ass. No-faunt is worthless, as is the crap people want to go about. They both have their merits, they both have huge problems.

For once I'm going to say the Muslims, when it works the way it says in the Qur'an, have a far far better divorce system then the US.

My parents got a divorce in July 1988, when I was 8.

They argued, but did not yell.

They disagreed, but they did not throw dishes.

They got divorced, but did not feel either of them were responsible.

Neither parents felt threatened, and neither parent even considered violence.

They were simply incompatible, and remain friends to this day.

If the concept of no-fault marriages gets banned, then I hereby declare that the idiot who got the concept banned is now at fault.

I can't believe I'm saying this and all but...

Both options here suck ass. No-faunt is worthless, as is the crap people want to go about. They both have their merits, they both have huge problems.

For once I'm going to say the Muslims, when it works the way it says in the Qur'an, have a far far better divorce system then the US.

Why is no-fault worthless?

My parents got a divorce in July 1988, when I was 8.

They argued, but did not yell.

They disagreed, but they did not throw dishes.

They got divorced, but did not feel either of them were responsible.

Neither parents felt threatened, and neither parent even considered violence.

They were simply incompatible, and remain friends to this day.

If the concept of no-fault marriages gets banned, then I hereby declare that the idiot who got the concept banned is now at fault.

:D

Why is no-fault worthless?

From what I read, it's waaay too easily exploited for personal gain by either side. There are serious kinks in the system one can exploit to basicly end up living a life of luxury for doing nothing but being married for a short time. Male or female. And people seem to not want to openly discuss the idea of putting limits to it, so as far as I'm concerned it's worthless.

Now the concept of heavily limited divorce like before, is just as worthless. That's been covered here already so I shouldn;t have to. And the concept of no divorce? Let's just say I'd have to think hard to find ideas less stupid.

Does option 'D' include civil unions as marriage?

On a personal note, I must know at least four couples who have gone through no-fault divorce in the past two years (and I don't really know a whole lot of people). Seems to coincide with the kids leaving home.

The dude has whole pages of that stuff...thank Jebus he's not representative of any major Christian group I'm aware of...

'Tank you Bejeezus' indeed.

Let's just abolish marriage and be done with it.

Why would divorce ever need to be the fault of one spouse over the other?

placing blame is fun, then when your friends break up you know which one not to talk to anymore.

seriously though, I don't care why people get divorced, it's hardly any of my business, it wasn't working, they quit, the end.

I have this to say: Fuck the anti-"no fault divorce" people. The article sites the fact that this agenda is being pursued by a number of anti-divorce groups who have no intention of doing anything good for anyone. Not only that, but the fact they keep demonizing "no fault divorce" using the word "liberal" proves that this is a load of crap that you shouldn't listen to. Any group who is anti something because it is "liberal" has no interest in doing what is best for society. Anti-teen sex? Don't teach kids about sex. Anti-pre-marital sex? Attempts to stop the distribution of condoms and birth control. Anti-abortion? All of the above and then some.

This topic was in the news recently:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&Id=183

The short version is that there's a growing movement to remove the option for no-fault divorce in the US.

This baffles me. I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could possibly be a good idea. But maybe I'm missing something. So I pose the question, naturally, to NSG, Wisest Of All Forum Communities.

What do you think of no-fault divorce?

Because the government has no business deciding who must remain married any more than it has any business deciding who must get married?

It absolutely baffles me that anyone would have the arrogance to claim that they had the wisdom and duty to decide for another couple what the state of their relationship is.

It is entirely possible for people to decide to end a marriage without any major issues. Sometimes things just don't work out as well as hoped. So, I really cannot see any good that would be brought about through abolishing 'no-fault divorces'.

That being said, I don't think divorce should be taken lightly, especially if there were oaths exchanged and such. Oaths are oaths, but in the modern world one's word seems less and less valuable.

Maybe we could just ask God.

From what I read, it's waaay too easily exploited for personal gain by either side. There are serious kinks in the system one can exploit to basicly end up living a life of luxury for doing nothing but being married for a short time.

That's why we invented prenups.

The one annoyance with Mike Huckabee dropping out of the race is that his site no longer has an issues section. I kind of need it for this post because there's a term I can't quite remember.

Anyway, reversing 'no-fault divorce' is just a tiny step towards getting rid of divorce altogether. Certain states, and I'm going to have to say Arkansas is one, signed into law something called [I cannot remember the name - I might go find it].

This law allows couples to sign up to a legally binding contract that places the most stringent restrictions on being able to divorce. I really need to find the name so it can be better outlined.

This is the thing, it starts so innocently in terms of 'hey, let's relook at no-fault divorce' and if they can manage that - and I doubt they will - then they move onto the next step until no one can get divorced.

What's the rationale?

Well marriage is sacred and divorce is a sin.

Ah, it's called Covenant Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage) - linked to Wiki

One woman's story (http://marriage.about.com/cs/covenantmarriage/a/covenant_2.htm) from which...

"The law is so ambigious that most courts will not even HEAR any cases concerning covenant marriages WITHOUT a two year separation AND counseling. Even though the law states you have 3 "outs" (abuse, adultery, and felony conviction resulting in JAIL TIME, it is NOT the case."

"If one member of the marriage does NOT want "out", the court does not even have to hear the case. That is how scary the covenant marriage is, especially when faced with what I was faced with."

"Abuse has to be proven, and it seems only physical abuse is acceptable AND only IF the spouse is beating you up in court. Adultery, the courts will just mandate counseling for two years, and even after the counseling, if one spouse doesn't want a divorce...guess what? You must stay married."

It's nothing but stupid, really.
People are free in their decision to live with any other person or not, no freaking matter the reasons!
What kind of joke is that?!

When you grow up and attempt to put this traumatic lesson to good purpose, do you work on domestic violence initiatives that will make women feel safer both in their marriages, or in leaving them if necessary?

That's pretty damn sexist.

Abolish the divorce altogether, I say!
Along with the marriage.
If a couple wants to exchange oaths of eternal love in a religious ceremony, no problem.
If a couple wants to enter a legal contract outlining their rights, duties and ways to end the contract, they either go to the lawyer and pay for consultation or pick from the internet a ready form that fits their views on what their union should look like from the legal point of view.

This topic was in the news recently:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&Id=183

The short version is that there's a growing movement to remove the option for no-fault divorce in the US.

This baffles me. I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could possibly be a good idea. But maybe I'm missing something. So I pose the question, naturally, to NSG, Wisest Of All Forum Communities.

What do you think of no-fault divorce?

Seems fair enough, if you both just fall out of love, the why should blame be attributed to anybody?

If they want to get rid of the no-fault divorce, I suggest they start by introducing the fault-marriage...

I wish some of the people who picked "no" in the poll would post their reasons. I'm still baffled.

I want a list of compatibility factors, on my desk at 8:00am tomorrow morning.
It's easy. Kids. Money. Housework. Money. Work. Money. Relatives.

I wish some of the people who picked "no" in the poll would post their reasons. I'm still baffled.

There is only one reason and you already know what it is.

New York does not have no-fault divorce. The most humane way for a mature couple who decides to end their marriage without drama here is to have a legal separate for a year (iirc) and then convert the separation into a divorce. However, that is very costly and serves no one but the legal system. Seriously, if you can get married by simply going to a justice of the peace and signing on the dotted line, you really ought to be able to go to a mediator (with an agreement on how any joint assets or custodial issues will be divided or shared) who ensures that neither party is getting taken advantage of or left destitute and end it as simply as it began.

It's frankly just easier to go your separate ways if you're both of a mindset to be decent about it. If someone wants to get remarried, then do the legal crap, but honestly, it's all a sham and has nothing to do with morals.

This topic was in the news recently:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&Id=183

The short version is that there's a growing movement to remove the option for no-fault divorce in the US.

This baffles me. I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could possibly be a good idea. But maybe I'm missing something. So I pose the question, naturally, to NSG, Wisest Of All Forum Communities.

What do you think of no-fault divorce?

I am forced to agree with Bottle on this one.

Having a form of no-fault divorce places the decision making power on the people directly affected, rather than seek permission from the Government to dissolve a union that, in any context other than marriage, could be dissovled at will if both parties agreed to do so.

Check this brain trust:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/divorce_not_ok.htm

Have you seen the other stuff on his site??

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/feminism_is_evil.htm

Feminism is Evil!
Beware of the feminists, many are lesbians!

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

A feminist refuses to be "controlled." She has an ATTITUDE (resentment) towards the entire concept of a woman OBEYING a man. To the feminist, submission is demeaning, and obedience to a husband a form of slavery. The godly virtuous woman is wise and rises well above such immature carnal thinking.


And that's just the stuff on feminism! Part of me thinks this has got to be a joke! If I were going to write a hilarious bigotted, ignorant, appalling set of religioNazi hypocritic views as a parody, it would be that!

I sincerely hope this guy isn't married.



This bit makes me sick:

This website created in Jesus' name!

The one annoyance with Mike Huckabee dropping out of the race is that his site no longer has an issues section. I kind of need it for this post because there's a term I can't quite remember.

Anyway, reversing 'no-fault divorce' is just a tiny step towards getting rid of divorce altogether. Certain states, and I'm going to have to say Arkansas is one, signed into law something called [I cannot remember the name - I might go find it].

This law allows couples to sign up to a legally binding contract that places the most stringent restrictions on being able to divorce. I really need to find the name so it can be better outlined.

This is the thing, it starts so innocently in terms of 'hey, let's relook at no-fault divorce' and if they can manage that - and I doubt they will - then they move onto the next step until no one can get divorced.

What's the rationale?

Well marriage is sacred and divorce is a sin.

Ah, it's called Covenant Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage) - linked to Wiki

One woman's story (http://marriage.about.com/cs/covenantmarriage/a/covenant_2.htm) from which...

It seems to worry so many fanatic Christians that the divorce rate is so high that they have to come up with these ridiculous Covenant Marriage ideas, which is essentially like locking yourself in a room and throwing away the key, saying "I want to stay here forever regardless of how I might feel differently in the future."

Being a Christian it doesn't bother me that the divorce rate is so high. It's people's free choice to get married and to get divorced, and if two people love each other and want to make the marriage work, then that is what will affect whether their marriage lasts or not. People don't get divorced because "everyone's doing it", people get divorced because they want to get divorced. Whatever the divorce rate is outside your home it doesn't affect the divorce rate inside your home.

And I have heard the argument that divorce should be made harder to obtain as then it will force people to give more value to marriage and not jump into it without thinking, but if that's your motive then you're starting at the wrong end! Twenty years down the line when someone is finding it harder to get divorced, they can't exactly go back in time, and it's not going to affect young couples who feel in love and genuinely believe they will stay together forever, even if they, in reality, won't. If they want people to revalue the sacrament of marriage then they have to start at the marriage end, not the divorce end.

Check this brain trust:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/divorce_not_ok.htm

Wow......So, they admit that the man is wrong for beating his wife, but apparently she caused it for not being "obedient" towards their husband. Yes, how DARE women say they want to be equals, how DARE that a modern couple decide that no one "submit" to no one but that both sides are equal in a relationship and they are to be treated as equals. Personally I stopped reading after the first Paragraph. I mean to actually contribute a beating of a woman to her not being "submissive" to an abusive asshole?! Well Hells Bells, I wouldn't submit to a woman that was abusive either, and I as sure as Hell would make sure I'd get away from her as far and as soon as possible!

Did you see this bit?

Exposing The Homosexual/Pedophile Link

Homosexuals seldom openly admit that they want to sexually assault children, but their literature and their actions tell another story.

Parents are correct to be concerned about homosexuals sexually assaulting their children. The Boy Scouts of America, for example, is right to prohibit homosexuals from membership or leadership positions. It is evident from the statistical evidence and news reports of child molestation cases, that homosexuals pose a clear and present danger to children. Our laws and social policies should protect children, not cater to the whims and sexual desires of sexual predators. We must oppose homosexual activism “for the children’s sake.”

I wonder how many bricks this guy has had thrown through his window.

This is the cherry on the cake:

I am saddened by the malicious hatred that some professed "Christians" have for the unsaved. It is tragic. I have received dozens of letters over the past month from professed "Christians" who are angry at me for my article God Loves People.

There's nothing "sound" about hating sinners. It's basic Christianity 101 that God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Tragically, the internet is overflowing with heresy from immature believers and unsaved people butchering the Word of God. This is wicked!

This is the cherry on the cake:

Noticed he never mentions that maybe it's the other article, you know about how abuse are women's fault, homosexuals are responsible for AIDs, and that Feminist are lesbians, that are pissing off the other Christian.

Personally I think the only fan this guy has is Jack Chick and Fred Phelps.

Personally I think the only fan this guy has is Jack Chick and Fred Phelps.
Nah, they hate him. He's a competitor.

Nah, they hate him. He's a competitor.

"They're MY narrow-minded, over-zealous, hypocritical, religious bigots!"

"No they're MY narrow-minded, over-zealous, hypocritical, religious bigots!"

Nah, they hate him. He's a competitor.

Hmm true, I guess you can't even expect narrow-minded over-zealous evangelicals to sit around a camp fire and sing kum-by-ya.

"They're MY narrow-minded, over-zealous, hypocritical, religious bigots!"

"No they're MY narrow-minded, over-zealous, hypocritical, religious bigots!"

LOL! 10 for that post.

That's very true. But the time to discover incompatibility is BEFORE you get married. I would make pre-marriage counseling a requirement for any license. Just like the blood test --- If you don't get a sign off from a shrink or a minister, you can't get married.

How is a minister qualified?

It absolutely baffles me that anyone would have the arrogance to claim that they had the wisdom and duty to decide for another couple what the state of their relationship is.
What really baffles me is how these folks think removing no-fault divorce will save the institution of marriage. I would expect that if "covenant marriages" were mandated by law, then we would see an even more dramatic drop in the number of people who get married in the first place. Heaven knows I never would.

The people who want covenant marriages are the same people who bitch about out-of-wedlock births and extramarital sex, but their plan seems like the best possible way to ensure that most people decline to EVER get hitched.

their plan seems like the best possible way to ensure that most people decline to EVER get hitched.
That's just step one, the logical step two is to make extramarital sex illegal. Or perhaps it's just a case of wishful thinking.

amen

How is a minister qualified?
By virtue of years of study. Ministers do go to school to learn a lot of practical things besides theology. They are very capable of counseling folks on marriage.