The future of marriage

quote:

---

To make it more difficult for everyone to get a divorce because you have your knickers in a twist about the possibility that someone might get a divorce "on a whim" seems idiotic at best, IMHO.

---

Hey, isn't Catholic Scientist against gay marriage because of the possibility that someone might fake a gay marriage to get, I dunno, some sort of benefits?

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but your solution is to change the laws to force your wife to stay married to you? You really want to be married to a woman who does not want to live with you?Edited by Chiroptera, : Completely changed the content of the post.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

I am sorry about what happened to you. I know how painful it can be when you have unanswered questions like that, from personal experience. But there are some things that the legal system simply cannot adequately address.For what it's worth, I think you are entitled to some answers when a marriage ends. But a courtroom is not the place to seek them. Moreover, there are good reasons for no-fault divorce laws. Before no-fault, one had to prove grounds for divorce. These were often things like cruelty, abandonment, infidelity, etc. Thus, if one party contested the divorce, the issues at trial would include whether one or more grounds were proven.One of the problems with that system was fraud. If two parties wanted a divorce but there were no statutory grounds present, they'd simply lie. Judges knew people were lying. Attorneys knew people were lying. Eventually someone's dim bulb brightened up for a few seconds and they realized that all this lying was undermining the courts. And, if one party wanted out and the other didn't, it simply wasn't that difficult to set someone up.I don't claim that no-fault is perfect, but it's better than any other system I've ever come across.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Oh goody, another NJ anti gay marriage thread.You seem a little TOO interested in this subject, methinks.Any closets you want to escape from, NJ?

No, that is not even close to what I've been saying. Where did you get that from?First, and foremost, I would want to see the laws changed so that the person filing for divorce would need to give an actual reason. With "divorce on demand", no reason ever needs to be given. If such a law had been in effect, then at the very least my ex would have had to have given me the reason. As it stands, I was put through all that **** for no ****ing reason. What part of that do you still not understand?Second, I would much rather see a couple try to work their problems out instead of jumping at divorce as the first and only option. By requiring that some such attempt be made, including counselling, then that is a chance that divorce can be diverted. Or at the very least then both parties could come out of the divorce with some idea of why it happened.And if the "marriage protection" crowd ever pulls its collective head out and turns its attention away from the gay-marriage scapegoat and towards divorce and the divorce laws, then I'm sure that what I would ask for will seem extremely mild compared with what they would demand.

Knit one, purl two, There are enough gay-marriage threads around here to make a sweater...or, better yet, a shawl.”Hoot Mon

[quote]First, and foremost, I would want to see the laws changed so that the person filing for divorce [u]would need to give an actual reason. With "divorce on demand", no reason ever needs to be given. If such a law had been in effect, then at the very least my ex would have had to have given me the reason. As it stands, I was put through all that **** for no ****ing reason. What part of that do you still not understand?[/quote]The thing is, there was a reason.She didn't want to be married any more.Now, I completely understand that this is an utterly unsatisfying and unilluminating reason, but it it still a reason.Obviously, it bothers you greatly that you don't know why she didn't want to be married to you anymore.However, I see no reason to change the divorce laws for everyone because you, personally, don't feel that her reason was specific enough.

quote:

---

Second, I would much rather see a couple try to work their problems out instead of jumping at divorce as the first and only option.

---

Me too.But I do not support forcing anybody, by law, to stay married who doesn't want to be.Neither do I support forcing anybody who hasn't broken any laws to go to counselling.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Knit one, purl two, There are enough gay-marriage threads around here to make a sweater...or, better yet, a shawl.

---

Hoot Mon, we have a limited number of posts in each thread and a limited amount of bandwidth.Please do not waste either by posting unneeded comments like the above.

I'll be sure to tell my fiancée when I get home from work. She'll be just devestated.I mean... I thought I loved her, and wanted to spend the rest of my life with her, but apparently I feel kind of casual about it. Good thing NJ was here to tell me how I really feel.Strangely enough, I spent the weekend enjoying my fiancée's company, while NJ seems to have devoted large swaths of his Friday night and Saturday to making sure the internet knows just how bad black people and gay people are.

Yeah, she probably had a reason, but since no reason was ever given, then I went through all that for no reason. Period! Now everyone stop using that to draw this thread away from the topic!"The future of marriage". It was introduced by NJ in reaction against a new article that the percentage of women not living with a husband has increased to being the majority. It quickly turned into yet another fear-reaction against gay marriage. Of course, gay marriage poses no threat whatsoever to marriage, but divorce does. To properly deal with divorce would require addressing the root causes. While the "divorce on demand" laws are not one of the root causes, they do contribute to making divorce more prevalent by making divorce the easy first option, when instead other options need to be tried or at least considered.That divorce can be arbitrarily and unilaterally forced upon one for no reason is obviously a sore point for me. But instead on concentrating on my own personal hot button, why don't you all get back to the topic of the thread?

quote:

---

Yeah, she probably had a reason, but since no reason was ever given, then I went through all that for no reason. Period!

---

Huh?You did go through it for a reason. A more specific reason than "don't want to be married" was never provided to you, but just because it wasn't doesn't mean there wasn't one, it just means you don't know what it was.

quote:

---

While the "divorce on demand" laws are not one of the root causes, they do contribute to making divorce more prevalent by making divorce the easy first option,

---

Why do you keep saying this when subbie and others have pointed out to you that people generally do not get divorced "on a whim"?It is a big legal pain in the ass to get divorced even with no-fault divorce laws, as I am sure you know.

quote:

---

when instead other options need to be tried or at least considered.

---

People shouldn't be legally forced into counselling when they are not mentally ill and when they have not broken any laws.I think you are going about this from the wrong direction.Let's pass laws requiring all people to wait for 6 months or a year after becoming engaged before getting married.

Yeah, and it is remarkable how long-lasting all of those conservative republican's marriages are...Ronald Reagan - divorced, but apparently against his desire.
Bob Dole--divorced
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced.
Governor John Engler of Michigan - divorced.
Governor Pete Wilson of California - divorced.
George Will - divorced.
Senator Lauch Faircloth - divorced.
Rush Limbaugh - and his current wife, Marta, have six marriages and four divorces between them. Soon to divorce Marta, I think.
Senator Bob Barr of Georgia - not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. He had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr - WHICH marriage are you defending?!?)
Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced.
Senator John Warner of Virginia - divorced Elizabeth Taylor.
Governor George Allen of Virginia - divorced.
Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced.
Senator John McCain of Arizona - divorced.
Representative John Kasich of Ohio - divorced.
Representative Susan Molinari of New York (Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker) - divorced.
Nelson Rockefeller -- may have lost a presidential nomination because of his divorce.I especially delight in the irony of the many divorces of one of the drafters of the Defense of Marriage legislation, and also of Limbaugh.Are these people also viewing marriage casually, on wonders?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This is terribly misleading, Schraf. Shame on you.Gingrich not only divorced a woman on her deathbed, he also went on to remarry, divorce again, remarry a third time, and then cheat on his third wife.Let's try and examine all the facts before condemning a man, shall we?

OK, I see your point. Sorry, I'll try to do better. My remark should have been posed a brief observation: "Gay marriage" advocates seem to be out in force to influence any discussion on "the future of marriage."”Hoot Mon

Oh, Ralph. I thought we established that, if you take your hand off your johnson for two seconds, that annoying "fap fap fap" noise you hear in the background will stop.The first person to steer the discussion on "the future of marriage" towards gay marriage was nemesis_juggernaut. In his opening post.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert