Group wants to make divorce harder (freepers unhappy)

[varun]

Foundation Wants Stricter Rules for Splits
Freeper says:
To: mngran
Yeah... how about these busybodies mind their own families and stop dictating how others should live?

2 posted on 01/06/2007 10:31:45 AM PST by Lunatic Fringe (Say "NO" to the Trans-Texas Corridor)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401910_pf.html
By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 5, 2007; B03



RICHMOND, Jan. 4 -- After its victory in last year's fight over a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Virginia, the Family Foundation of Virginia announced Thursday that it will push to change the state's divorce laws to make it more difficult for parents to end their marriage.

The Family Foundation, which opposes abortion and promotes socially conservative values, said it will lobby the General Assembly this year to amend the state's long-standing no-fault divorce law, which essentially allows a husband or wife to terminate a marriage without cause.

The foundation is advocating "mutual consent divorce" for couples with children, which would require a husband and wife to agree to divorce before a marriage can be legally terminated, except in certain instances, such as abuse or cruelty. The proposed legislation would not affect childless couples.

[splat@14]

1. Great post! More good info on this at Pam's

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=376

[Momgonepostal]

2. "how about these busybodies mind their own families and...

stop dictating how others should live?"

WOW, major irony alert.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. No kidding!

:rofl:

[Nay]

13. Really!! Made me laugh!

:rofl:

[liberaldemocrat7]

27. Ummm that post came from a libertarian.

The libertarian wants the economicly challenged to fend for themselves but in order to get power to enact these tax cuts, reduction of regulation of companies the libertarian has to make a deal with the religious nuts to get power. The coalition of libertarians and religious nuts frays when the authoritarian religious nuts actually get some of their repressive laws passed.

Let the libertarians reap what they have sowed. I hope the Republiklan party falls apart for another 40 years.

[Momgonepostal]

34. OK, well that's consistent then

I don't know FR posters well enough to recognize them by name. Still, to see something like "Just let them live their lives" coming from FreeRepublic is going to raise some eyebrows, since normally, they spend a lot of time trying to tell other people what constitutes a valid family, etc.

[Libby2]

36. Boy, you got that right.

[Ian David]

3. We TOLD 'em so! We TRIED to warn them. But did they listen? Nooo...

Soon, they'll want to outlaw blowjobs.

[varun]

5. contraception will be illegal next

then, women will have to get out of work, and stay home...

I hope they start talking about this. Maybe some freepers will see the light then.

[No Exit]

6. They also need to pass bigger restrictions on sales of strychnine,

arsenic, and certain modern poisons.

It has always seemed to me that the "classic" poisoning cases seemed to come from the era when divorce was difficult, if not impossible, to get.

I hate divorce. I have sometimes longed for the days when it wasn't pretty much a way of life for most of the population. I can't stand to see its effects on the children who see their homes disintegrating. BUT it has its uses. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that in the not-too-distant past, divorce was much harder to get. Were people better off or happier? I don't know.

[Warpy]

9. It's only a way of life for half the population

because 50% of marriages inexplicably survive.

Marriage is a crapshoot. Nobody knows what's coming down the line in the way of substance abuse, gambling, addiction to kiddie porn, physical and mental abuse (with the latter nearly impossible to prove), abandonment, and the transmission of sometimes fatal STDs from affairs.

When a woman wants to end her marriage, there's usually a damned good reason. When a man wants to end his, there is either a younger woman or a damned good reason.

In any case, it's none of the religious community's business unless the couple is part of its church. It's certainly not the government's business to interfere except as a referee to insure property is distributed fairly and children cared for.

If these busybodies want to strengthen marriage, I suggest they abandon the party of the rich and work toward economic justice for working people. That will strengthen marriage more than any nanny state law ever will.

[No Exit]

30. You make some good points.

There is only one with which I would strongly disagree, and that is your statement that marriage is a crapshoot.

In any human endeavor, certainly chance plays a part. So when we make an endeavor, it behooves us to investigate and prepare before making the move. That is, we can at least reduce the part that chance will play.

Probably the best thing that can be done by people who plan to get married is WAIT. I don't mean they should wait forever, nor even for a long time. But there are people out there who think waiting for 6 months is simply unendurable. It's that sort of thinking that causes many people to make marriages which fail. I mean, am I going to be reduced to quoting Percy Sledge's old song "Take the Time to Know Her"?

There is no easy solution to the problem as a whole, but I think there is sometimes an easy solution to an individual couple's dilemma of "to marry, or not to marry".

As a corollary to your point "It's certainly not the government's business to interfere except as a referee to insure property is distributed fairly and children cared for", I keep in mind that government sanctioned marriage has not been in existence for anywhere near the length of time that the pairing off into couples has been in existence. There are other ways to do this besides government sanctioned marriage.

Your cleverest point was, I think: "When a woman wants to end her marriage, there's usually a damned good reason. When a man wants to end his, there is either a younger woman or a damned good reason."

[Warpy]

32. Waiting doesn't work

Marriage is a crapshoot simply because we have no way to see the future, which may hold any or all of the ills I listed to make my point. The nicest guy/gal in the world with whom we're totally compatible may fall prey to all sorts of unanticipated life disasters.

As for other referees besides the government, the traditional one was the church which invariably sided with the male. Until the government started to interfere, a discarded wife had no right to property or to her children.

The snarky point I made that you appreciated was based on a long lifetime of keen observation.

[Mizmoon]

7. Also in the article

"The foundation also wants libraries to be required to install Internet filters to block pornography and obscene material from children's view."

This always annoys me too. Why is the library the babysitter? Libraries should not be in the censorship business. Parents are in charge of what images their children see, not an outside entity like the library.

I believe that they will go after birth control eventually and that there is a racist agenda behind it. They think that the only people who use birth control are whites, whose numbers are dwindling. Therefore restricting birth control will mostly increase the white population, something that is very important to them.

[Neurotica]

21. Last year the filtering bills they promoted lasted til the last day of the session

Legislators are often afraid of being painted as "pro-pornography" if they oppose filters -- it's easy for the other side to score sound bites on this issue.

This year should be a repeat.

We need help on this one.

If there are any VA residents who would like more information, please let me know.

The policy we have in our county, as a result of a court decision that struck down mandatory filters as unconstitutional, makes filters available but allows adults to decide for themselves and parents to decide for their children whether or not filters should be used.

A reasonable solution.

[sandnsea]

23. Children go to libraries alone

Particularly to get books for school projects. If they know there's porn on the computers, they'll go there a lot more often. Call it an attractive nuisance, like a swimming pool. You have to put up a fence to keep the 3 year old from drowning in it. Same thing with the library and internet porn. I honestly cannot understand why people don't care if little kids see porn. If an adult shows children porn in their home, it's abuse and it's a crime.

[Neurotica]

25. Your implication is that people who oppose censorship are pro-pornography.

I am a mother of two young children and I very much care about what they see on the Internet. At the same time, I would not want to limit someone's ability to perform research in the library. That's why our library system has an excellent solution -- filters are available and adults decide for themselves and parents decide for their minor children when they sign up for a library card whether or not the filters are automatically turned on (it's connected to your library card number).

Please note that filters block a lot of perfectly legitimate information while at the same time letting some of the bad stuff through.

And you can't use the presence of minors to justify imposing content-based restrictions on access to Internet speech. Judge Leonie Brinkema in Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library Board of Trustees said that "...defendants may not, in the interest of protecting children, limit the speech available to adults to what is fit for juveniles.”

What's more, the use of filtering software means that private firms are controlling citizens' access to information. The firms that develop filtering software will not reveal what they block (claiming proprietary information). And many of these firms have religious or political biases and/or connections to organizations whose goal is to censor information with which they disagree.

Here are some excerpts from various articles and studies:

The June 2005 edition of Consumer Reports stated that "...our evaluation of 11 products, including the filters built into online services AOL and MSN, found that…the best blockers today tended to block many sites they shouldn’t…"

The March 2001 edition of Consumer Reports also addressed censorship: “In some cases, filters block harmless sites merely because their software does not consider the context in which a word or phrase is used. Far more troubling is when a filter appears to block legitimate sites based on moral or political value judgments…Our results cast doubt on the appropriateness of some companies’ judgments…”

Ellen Edwards of the Washington Post reported on December 11, 2002, that “software meant to protect young people from the seamier side of the Internet may also be blocking important health information on issues ranging from diabetes and sexually transmitted diseases to depression and suicide, according to a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation study released yesterday…"

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) has excellent resources and links as well.

[sandnsea]

26. "censorship business"

I responded to a very specific statement about libraries and censorship.

"Libraries should not be in the censorship business. Parents are in charge of what images their children see, not an outside entity like the library."

You might be surprised to know that your very rational solution to pornography on library computers would be objected to by some on DU. Some people on DU really are pro-pornography, which is fine by me. But some also object to ANY kind of censorship and I think there should be some mechanism for children to use the library without having access to porn, as your solution provides.

[Mizmoon]

31. I am not pro porn

in fact I'm one of the few around here who thinks that porn is damaging to people who make it and see it. That's an argument for another day and one I don't care to have right now.

I do think that parents are in charge of their children, not librarians. In school the school is in loco parentis (or however you spell it) but the library is a public place where you should watch your children.

[sandnsea]

33. The library is a public building

Children are welcome without their parents, like a public park. It would be terrible if children were required to be accompanied by parents. The library creates programs specifically to attract children, from pre-school to high school. Are you suggesting the library ban unaccompanied 10 or 14 year olds? How are kids whose single mom works 2 jobs ever supposed to get out of the house??

[Mizmoon]

37. I am a librarian, not a babysitter

I have never worked in a public library but there was a story in the NYT in the last few days that reiterates what I've heard from friends who have. People think the library is a playground and a babysitter. People literally dump their kids there in good conscience because it's an academic place. It's causing real problems and, yes, teenagers get banned during certain hours in some places.

Having the library filter online content plays into this whole idea that we are going to care for children and keep the library at a child's level. We are not. It is the parent's job to filter what content they want their kids to have, not ours. And trust me librarians have gone to bat over this many times against parents that want to have books removed from the public library because they think they are not good for kids. We will not censor for conservatives. We will not censor for liberals. We will not censor for the government. And we will not censor for children.

Edited to add link to article I mentioned: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/nyregion/02library.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[sandnsea]

39. Librarians serve children too

Most people believe public libraries actually are for children first. In any event, I didn't say anything about the library not being able to set rules or ban any disruptive individual. Although I suspect if libraries began banning disruptive homeless people, the same DUers who object to children would become outraged. Libraries have responded to the problem of adult material by keeping it out of the children's section, duh. The poster above presented a perfectly rational solution to computers and porn, program filter activation in a swipe card. No big deal.

Kids filling up libraries, omg, the horror! :eyes:

Maybe, like with schools, the solution is more money for more library aides, not complaining about kids being in the exact place we want them to be.

[ljm2002]

8. Ha, ha, ha ha ha!

Reap what you sow, assholes. You allied yourselves with these people, now try and separate yourselves and your political identity from their religious fundamentalist bullshit. And, oh, "Bad luck with that!"

har de har har har

ho de ho ho ho

hee haw

[ThoughtCriminal]

10. Arizona Republicans pushed for this a few years ago

As I recall, one of the main sponsors had been married five times (one of her husbands died - the others were divorce).

[seabeyond]

11. at least they are being consistant and not being hypocrits. i think i will back them

go all out on those that get divorce. pisses me off. fucks with the children, certainly not responsible behavior. and i am in a tight and secure marriage so why the fuck should i care about anyone else, as i watch the attacks on me the smoker cause the majority deems it is for the good of fellowman. yup yup..... this might be a fun battle

now normally i would be all for standing up for peoples right to make their own choices in life, but i have just seen too many parents take marriage lightly and it screws up the kids who inevitably take it out on my kids and society with all their anger

boy, feels totally different being on the other side of non judgment. i might get used to this flexing of the muscle. who should i go after next. fat people? we dont have that in our family. oh oh oh and those that do risky things like ride motorcycles, boating, skiing, (all those to wonderland in denver being taken down, shame on them for wanting to play and risking their lives), mountain climbing. just a world of things i dont do that i can go after.

contraceptives. i see a post on that. another excellent one. to deny the use. after all tis murder if a sperm is wasted. being old and already done producing a family, i can jump on the back of that camel too.

[lukasahero]

18. If it wasn't for no-fault divorce laws,

I would likely still be married to my abusive ex-husband. I would not have had the courage, nor likely the evidence, to prove abuse.

This is a horrible, horrible thing to do to women.

[seabeyond]

20. horrible thing to do ... of course it is, just as it is horrible denying smokers

health care.

or making a female have a baby

or judging gays to be unfit parents

or denying fat people health care


i can stand up for a persons right to make their own choices in life. and if they break one of our many laws we have had for a long long time because they make a mistake, or die from their mistake, then so be it. but i do not need to make all kinds of new laws today to prevent the "possible" of what might happen

it could be said that you made a poor choice from day one in marrying this man. that in so doing you allowed an atmosphere that was a negative for your children..... i personally chose to see that we all make our unique choices for our reasons and experiences in life from the uniqueness that we are as individual and not a chance in hell i can judge another on these matters. who i am as a person would not allow me to marry an abusive partner. i cannot insist that all people be me. how boring a world, and non perfect in my own way

but... i am pissed we have our own little pet peeves in our party we want to "law" citizens into and not be willing to stand up for me, yet expect me to stand up for you in issues we "believe" in. makes us the same kinda hypocrits that we laugh at on this very thread

deny the gay the right to marriage, and now make strident laws to end divorce. oh lets point the finger and laugh at the morons, as we be exactly that hypocrit.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. This fits in well with the initiative I'm sponsoring in Washington

(Follow the link in my sig for details.)

Since marriage exists for the purpose of having and raising children, divorce when there is offspring should be very difficult to get. How nice to see the Talibangelicals pursuing the results of their own rhetoric and not leaving it to us political satirists to do it for them.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Next after they get this one: imprisonment of adulterers. n/t

[seabeyond]

16. i am never going to fuck around on my mate. ya.... good one. i say go for it

lets. ................

[varun]

17. fornicators next

sex before marriage punishable by minimum 10 years behind bars!!!

[JohnnyLib2]

15. Prosecute Carter!

Lust in the heart.....it's on record

[MazeRat7]

19. Hummm... maybe the sheeple are starting to understand marriage is a property contract...

and should be handled like any other contract. Those with the best clauses can expect the more a favorable outcome...

MZr7

[uppityperson]

22. THey keep focusing on the wrong end of things.

Make it more difficult to get pregnant and/or get married.

This is a bunch of crap, keeping people together who don't want to be "for the sake of the children", so they can grow up in an unhappy disfunctional home also. Cripes, if people want to get divorced, let them. Focus on preparation before forming a union, a partnership, a marriage, or getting pregnant. That would be my preference, though I do not know how it could be done. bunch of distracting bs for the fundies to feel-good over.

[Orsino]

24. As if it weren't hard enough already.

Well, seriously, I know what they want, but I don't think that crumbling marriages will be helped by a sense of being trapped. The idea of making it easier for couples to survive economically is quite beyond the bluenoses, who can't stand the thought of anyone who isn't already rich getting anything for free.

[Porcupine]

28. I would advocate a variant of this............

First, I absolutely support the right of people to get divorced for whatever reason. "He uses cinnamon toothpaste....." whatever,fine.

Within an hour of a party filing divorce or seperation paperwork the hammer should come down. Both parties should be hauled in front of a children's advocate or community advocates and the relevant laws should be explained to them; in detail. They should have to pass a test to get out of the building.

If there are kids the kids needs come FIRST. The kids lawyer trumps the parents lawyer and is entirely seperate and paid from parents payroll. Don't want to pay the kids lawyer? Get your shit together. If there are no kids property is seperated ASAP by an impartial panel and restraining orders issued to both parties.

Then both parties should have to take (seperate) weekly classes for several months like they do for drunk drivers or domestic violence. The amicably divorced would have to go too and explain it to the rest of us. They screwed up their marraiges also.

Yeah divorce should be harder; harder than probation. I'm sick of vulture lawyers and courts that wait for disaster before paying attention. It's not the seperation of families but the bitter, drawn out fighting that follows that drains the nation and hammers children.

:rant:

[KatyaR]

29. I love the fact that this would be only for couples with children.

I guess those who decide not to procreate have no value at all to society and to Jeeb-sus.

These idiots need to pull their noses out of other peoples' lives and stick to their own.

[dsc]

40. that isn't the reasoning at all

It is that in the case of a childless couple there are no people with an investment in the marriage but the people who are married. In the case of a marriage with kids, there are children who have an investment. It is perfectly reasonable to differentiate between a marriage with children and one without in regards to ending the marriage.

[KatyaR]

41. See, to me, a marriage is a marriage, whether you have children or not.

It's hard for me to see that one has more value than another, but I see where you're coming from.

[frogcycle]

35. Prediction...

if they were to succeed with this:

fewer marriages, more out-of-wedlock children

[GrantDem]

38. For Some Reason....

We told you so comes to mind.