Crazies!

[bladespark]

The crazies are at it again, this time with an amendment that would make it impossible for a married couple with children to get a divorce unless both parents agree to it.

Now coming from a conservative background, I can see how that kind of thing might have a certain attraction. Divorce is way too common, and sometimes it seems way too easy for a parent to just walk out and abandon his or her kids.

But let's look at this again. Firstly, you have a situation where one partner can legally force another to stay in a marriage, against that other's will.

Is there anything good going to come from such a situation? I say no. An unhappy parent, trapped into parenting when he or she doesn't want to isn't going to give children nurturing, love, or support. Oh no! (If you can think of any situation where a legal ban on divorce after having kids would be a good thing, let me know. I really can't come up with one.)

And although they say that the one exception will be in cases of abuse, that means that a battered spouse is going to have to prove an abusive situation before being free of it! It's already hard enough for those folks, mostly women, who are stuck in abusive marriages. Sometimes it's all they can do to get out of them as it is. Now add the legal burden of having to prove that its abusive before they can escape. Will any of them? I think very few.

I'm all for family values. I'm for having couples get counseling before a divorce, so that salvageable marriages can be saved. I'm frankly for making it harder to get married, and I WISH we could make it harder to have kids too, so people wouldn't do it so casually! That's what I'm for. I'm for trying to convince parents to parent already rather than try and fob it off on anybody and everybody else.

But there's no way on earth I'm going to support legally forcing people to stay in a marriage that they don't want to be a part of. That's not supporting family values, that's supporting abusive husbands.

Comments

[thetommydodd.livejournal.com]

"if fault is necessary for a divorce then that DOES mean fault will have to be proven - because you WILL have spouses making stuff up just to be free of a loveless marriage"

Will, do and did. Prior to reforms in the 60s English law required one or other partner to be "at fault" for a divorce to be granted. This led to the rather sordid and depressing practice of "giving grounds". Generally speaking, the partner looking to get out would give grounds by arranging to be caught committing adultery. This would involve a witness (generally a member of the other partner's legal team) arranging to 'surprise' 1st partner in bed with somebody, typically a prostitute at a seaside B&B (An easy day's work for them, not even requiring clothes to come off). Neither edifying or dignified, the practice still managed to make a mockery of the law in question. And people WANT to go back to the "good old days"?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

precisely, in fact, I saw 3 cases where a man hired a prostitute (and then politely slept on the sofa) because his wife was cheating and wanted a divorce and it was more socially acceptable for a man to be catting around than a woman.

It was ridiculous and a farce - but I think these loonies would rather have the PERCEPTION of their rather regressive morality even if the actuality and the consequences are far different