People: If the GOP really meant what they say about same sex unions and the "sanctity" of marriage, they would be trying to outlaw divorce. Iowa GOP: fair enough, let's do that. People: */facepalm/*

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: People: If the GOP really meant what they say about same sex unions and the

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    Bill would forbid parents from getting no-fault divorce

     

    State Representative Tedd Gassman (R) spoke emotionally about the legislation — which would require all parents of children under 18 to prove their spouse had committed a crime, abandoned the family, or committed adultery — saying that it related to the real-life scenario of his daughter’s divorce. That situation, he said, was at risk of turning his daughter into a hormonal trollop:



    Didn't Iowa go for Obama in 2012?

    Gassman what an unfortunate or maybe fitting name for a bloviating fool.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: People: If the GOP really meant what they say about same sex unions and the

    They should be prepared for the inevitable spike in domestic violence.

     

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: People: If the GOP really meant what they say about same sex unions and the

    "That situation, he said, was at risk of turning his daughter into a hormonal trollop:"


    Airborne, you are a sick fool.

    Reform of no-fault divorce laws is not "outlawing divorce".

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765589896/Reforming-Divorce-Changing-laws-to-preserve-families.html?pg=all

    "Initially hailed as a progressive step toward greater individual rights and increased freedom for women, many scholars and marriage advocates now argue that unilateral no-fault divorce has made ending marriages too easy and too one-sided, with children most affected.

    These advocates now hope to lower divorce rates through laws that slow the process — with some exceptions — and encourage couples who are waiting to use opportunities to improve communication and relational skills and hopefully reconsider.

    Divorce-reform advocates are battling a cultural bias created by 40 years of legal precedent, concerns about increasing governmental involvement in private lives and the cost of seeking help. But they say this needs to be discussed to avoid more unnecessary pain.

    There's hardly any social problem that the government is involved in and spending a lot of money on that isn't heavily affected by marriages not forming and marriages breaking up," says Bill Doherty, professor and director of the Minnesota Couples on the Brink Project at the University of Minnesota.

    A 2008 study on the costs of divorce and unwed childbearing estimated that family fragmentation costs taxpayers $112 billion annually for things like food stamps, housing assistance, child welfare services and the justice system.

    In a 2005 article in "The Future of Children," University of Pennsylvania sociologist Paul Amato explained that if children were to grow up in stable two-parent families at the same level as 1960 before the massive increase in divorce, it would mean 1.2 million fewer children suspended from school, 538,000 fewer acts of delinquency and 71,400 fewer suicide attempts.

    Requiring that parents wait eight months to a year before a divorce would be final (except in cases of abuse) is the first element of divorce reform proposals.

    "Anything that's done quickly is generally not well thought out," said Ken Altshuler, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "When people got married they committed for life; I don't think waiting a year is a hardship."

    In Maine, where Altshuler practices, the waiting period for a divorce is 60 days. Including the District of Columbia, 10 states have zero waiting periods, 29 states are less than six months, seven states are six months and five states have a waiting period of one year or longer, according to data gathered by John Crouch, former director of Americans for Divorce Reform and now a board member of the CDR.

    Crouch also found that nine of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates required no waiting. Of the ten states with the lowest divorce rates, five required waiting.

    Along with waiting, these proposals also would require divorce education, most often provided through courts — what to expect, the effects on children, the value of mediation and the reconciliation potential.

    Reconciliation is a crucial yet underdiscussed topic, says Doherty, whose research shows 30 percent of divorcing individuals still express interest in patching things up. "There is this myth that anyone who files for divorce has had two decades of misery and that divorce is a necessary amputation … in order to save the patient," he said. "The research (shows) that's not the majority of cases."

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: People: If the GOP really meant what they say about same sex unions and the

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    They should be prepared for the inevitable spike in domestic violence.

     



    Abuse is a fault ground for divorce; the very notion of "no fault" divorce means there is no one at fault.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: People: If the GOP really meant what they say about same sex unions and the

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    They should be prepared for the inevitable spike in domestic violence.

     



    Abuse is a fault ground for divorce; the very notion of "no fault" divorce means there is no one at fault.

     



    Except that any such abuse needs to be reported, investigated and prosecuted.  That's difficult even now without no-fault divorce laws.

    Thankfully, VAWA was finally re-authorized and offers a semblance more protection.  But it's still up to the locals to prosecute.

     

     

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: People: If the GOP really meant what they say about same sex unions and the

    It's a G.O.P. gambit to increase it's voting strength.  Being stuck in a miserable marriage will surely increase the ranks of angry white men that are essential to the Republican brand.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: People: If the GOP really meant what they say about same sex unions and the

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    It's a G.O.P. gambit to increase it's voting strength.  Being stuck in a miserable marriage will surely increase the ranks of angry white men that are essential to the Republican brand.


    No fault divorce seems more like a Democratic gambit; the Party of Government encourages  family fragmentation; after all,  it feeds the public sector to the tune of $112 billion annually for things like food stamps, housing assistance, child welfare services and the justice system.  

    When lobbying for gay marriage, the progressives get teary-eyed emphasizing how important the family unit is to success and happiness.
     
    Otherwise, they prefer the no fault divorce laws, which make breaking up families easy and convenient. No big deal, get it done fast.
    Kids? Less important than one party's immediate happiness.

     

Share