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

[jilinn.livejournal.com]

As a divorcee with a child from that marriage, I agree. Just because a child is involved does not mean that the parents should stay together. Sometimes it's not only worse for the spouse, but for the child as well as they can suffer abuse as well. I also agree on the couples not having kids casually. Birth Control, should be cheaper and more readily available, also Sex Ed should be a required course in all High Schools.

[graydown.livejournal.com]

This is why we need to fight them at every turn -- at city, state, and federal levels. They're not just after homosexuals; they want to take away everyone's civil rights, so they can force us into their idea of a moral lifestyle.

[shaenon.livejournal.com]

For the entire time these anti-gay-marriage bills and amendments have been passing, people like Dan Savage have been warning that this isn't just about keeping gays down: it's about legislating morality for everyone and returning to a version of the family as a patriarchal hierarchy in which straight men call all the shots. Wives are much more likely than husbands to file for divorce, so the biggest effect of this law would be to trap women in marriages they want to leave. And, yes, it would almost certainly make it harder for people to leave abusive marriages, something that many abused spouses find difficult already.

I'm all for educating people about the responsibilities of marriage (and, for heaven's sake, childrearing) before they get hitched, but not trapping people in unhappy marriages. No, not even if you shriek, "Think of the CHILDREN!" at me. (And groups like the Family Foundation of Virginia would almost certainly oppose legislation making it more difficult to get married, or even programs to discourage ill-advised marriage, since fewer marriages would mean--gasp!--more premarital sex and cohabitation. No, they're all about getting people wedded and keeping them there at any cost.)

In a way, though, I'm delighted that they're pushing for this law. Hopefully, as these folks tip their hand and reveal that they're just as eager to force their morality on straights as on gays, the straight folks will wise up and stop voting for this crap.

[harliquinnraver.livejournal.com]

i really couldnt have said it better myself. bravo.

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

The only part of your commentary here that i take issue with (and only because of the phrasing) is this part...

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.

While statistically men are more likely to physically abuse, there are many women out there who emotionally abuse and degrade their husbands... and I think the type of guy who marries someone like that is not likely to speak up about it, but suffer in silence. So my dissagreement is more one of, "abusive spouses," not just "abusive husbands."

[silveradept]

This follows the same logic as a Mind Trap solution I recall:

The British Army had issued new helmets. Head injuries were on the rise since then. So naturally, the colonels wanted to return to the previous era. What was omitted, though, was that the number of fatalities went down, because the people who would have normally been killed now had a splitting headache, but were otherwise alive.

This legislation looks to be of the same grade as going back to the old helmets - possibly with similar results.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Ah, yeah that's true. *nods* You hear more about wife beating than about the reverse, I think because the physical abuse is easier to spot than the mental and emotional kind.

And that's more subjective too. I had a boyfriend who still, to this day, insists I was abusive towards him. We were /very/ incompatible, but I didn't think I was being abusive. To him it was though. *shrugs*

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

I've seen those "mommy dearest" types who are horrible to their husbands and their kids, and honestly, when the husband finally gets the guts to do what's best for everyone, this would make it really hard.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

They want to ban no-fault divorce without consent?

Excuse me a moment *runs around screaming*

Right, this is just crazy. Complete, batshit, crazy. It's for the kids? Really? Because I think legally forcing mummy or daddy to stay with someone they despise is not conductive to a healthy family life. REALLY it isn't.

And the proof element is sickening - 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 and you will have more unpleasant spouses refusing consent and forcing the abused to prove that they are suffering


I agree with you on the kids thing - I wish we could make it harder for people to have kids (with marriage I tend to think people can screw up tgheir own lives as much as they want - it's the kids I worry over) but this stupid stupid STUPID law will only hurt people.

[kainhighwind-dr.livejournal.com]

In thinking of alternative solutions, I have to agree with the idea of making it harder to get married or have kids in the first place. Some creativity is needed to take preventative action.

I need to point out though that the relationship needn't be abusive or otherwise violent to have repercussions for the children. The stress and tension caused by two dedicated and loving parents who otherwise lose their love for one another can be damaging to the children as well. In my parents' case, it was probably a little of both.

So yeah, only having an 'out' for those brave enough to come forward about abuse is hardly going to be a miracle solution to the problem. Makes me glad I live in Canada, and for that matter, have no real intentions of venturing into marriage (certainly not without an awful lot of thought first).

[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