GOP Legislator Puts In Bill To Make Divorce More Difficult - What Next Illegal

[TheMastersNemesis]

to divorce? The GOP hates divorce, contraception, abortion, women's choice, women's right to vote even, women's support programs, legislation against violence of women, etc. So much for small government.

It is the vagina enslavement party. I can't wait for their making divorce illegal legislation.

And the idea that divorce makes young women "sluts" but they won't use the word is absurd.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Which legislator? Which state? How would divorce be more difficult?

More info would be helpful, please.

[TheMastersNemesis]

4. On Huff Post And The State Is Iowa

[Mnemosyne]

2. Getting married needs to be harder and divorce easier. Tougher to get married = less divorce. nt

[sadbear]

3. I think this primarily has to do with women's rights.

Republican men love them some divorce, contraception, and abortion when it's convenient for them or gets them out of trouble.

[socialindependocrat]

5. They should make Republican't courts and Dem courts....

So, the Dems follow the rules set up by the Dems and
the Repubs can go to Republican't court.

How long do you think it will take before the Repuke courts can't
make enough money from court fees to remain in existence.

Then, we'll have a problem where the Repukes will try to sneak into
the Democratic court because some of the laws that exist for the Repukes
don't exist for the Dems.

Let each side make their own beds and suffer the consequences.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. They should require counseling.

[Skidmore]

8. Sometimes counseling isn't the answer and a marriage should not

be saved and it should always be the choice of the people involved.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. That's true. I wish I'd had counseling BEFORE I married two jerks.

Neither of them wanted to make the marriage work. I couldn't do anything about it but get the hell out.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Found a link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/iowa-divorce_n_2808001.html

Bill would outlaw "no-fault" divorce when couples have minor children because when parents get divorced it makes teenaged girls promiscuous.

[thetonka]

9. Abolish "Marriage"

At least remove it from the legal system. Allow the legal system to deal with the contractual parts of a personal union. This eliminates the whole "Protect Marriage" BS.

Let the religions have "Marriage" back and make the legal side of it all civil unions with all the rights and privileges currently afforded "Marriage" under the law.

[Kber]

10. I think the party of small government should butt the hell out of my personal business

But I'll be sure to thank this Congressman for his concern about the well being my me and my family.

[AnotherWyoDemocrat]

11. Intrusive, big-government Republicans

Oh how the Republicans claim to fight for a smaller, less-intrusive government!! Yet, they want to control every aspect of our lives!!

[dsc]

12. I am not sure I am against this

Now the teenage promiscuity stuff is non sense. But divorce does cause economic hardship to the children and frankly there should be a better reason than I just said so for a divorce to happen. The children have a stake in that relationship and under current law that stake isn't considered at all. I don't think being made to wait two years which is the last cause listed as getting the divorce is all that big a problem.

[KamaAina]

13. How very magnanimous of you

to grant those children an additional two years of living in a home with two people who, in some cases, can't stand each other.

[dsc]

14. actually they would be living apart those two years

not together. The grounds listed included living apart two years. Again, I don't think making a couple live apart for two years before getting the divorce, if the couple has children, is out of line.

[LancetChick]

16. Are you serious?

People, I suppose, don't understand the gravity of raising children and parenting, let alone marriage, so the government should relieve them of the responsibility of managing their marriage. Great idea. In the meantime, there are all sorts of legal (and social) complications that can foul things up when you're separated, but still officially married. In California, six months and one day is bad enough; two years is ridiculous.

[dsc]

17. many don't

there are way too many people who don't understand the concept that the children come first. If you choose to have children, then you choose to have the child come first in your life when the child is a minor. That includes if you decide for no good reason that you no longer want to be married. I think an amount of time to be sure you can economically support two households and not have your children wanting for stuff is not unreasonable for the state to ask before granting a divorce that people decide they want for no good reason. Is two years too long, maybe. I sure don't think one year is.

[liberalhistorian]

28. Who the hell are you to decide for people

that their decision to divorce is for "no good reason"? Who the hell are you to tell people who don't want to be married anymore that YOU think they should stay married for at least another two years, even though YOU aren't the one who has to live that life? How easy for you to sit back in your armchair and comfortably pass judgment. And just what makes you think marriage automatically means lack of financial and economic hardship, or that just because people are married that everything is then hunky-dory for them and their children? Forcing people to remain married when they don't want to is not, in any way, good for children at all.

And what, in your oh-so-sanctimonious mind constitutes "no good reason"? The personal lives of people are so NOT YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

And I speak as the child of divorce who hated having to grow up being shuffled between two houses with two entirely different ways of thinking, treating children, and sets of rules and procedures and who envied her cousins who didn't have to deal with that (my dad was the only one of his sibs who ever divorced), and who lived near our grandparents, unlike me. HOWEVER. It would have been ten times worse growing up with both parents together. They were so different and clashed so much in everything that I can't imagine how they stayed together for the few years that they did in the first place; but it was the early sixties and social and family pressure practically forced them into marriage right after college. To have forced them to remain together would have been a far greater travesty, and far more damaging to me and to my future relationships, than to allow them to divorce for what I'm sure YOU would have thought of as "no good reason."

That's not to say that I don't take marriage deadly seriously and that I don't personally and privately tear my hair out over people who seem to frivolously divorce and cause their children pain and damage. But PRIVATELY is the operative word. It is so NOT up to me or anyone else to stick my nose in people's personal relationships and demand they remain together and not part "for no good reason". We don't know what really goes on in a marriage, despite what its outer appearance may present. The only two people who DO know are the two involved in it, and they are the only ones who have the right to decide its fate.

[TheOther95Percent]

29. Amen

I could not agree more. What's more is I don't expect people who want to divorce to have to stand up in open court - like it was in my own state of NY until recently - and detail the reason(s) (physical abuse, cruelty, infidelity) they should be granted a divorce judgment. It really is no one's business.

That's not to say that I don't take marriage deadly seriously and that I don't personally and privately tear my hair out over people who seem to frivolously divorce and cause their children pain and damage. But PRIVATELY is the operative word. It is so NOT up to me or anyone else to stick my nose in people's personal relationships and demand they remain together and not part "for no good reason". We don't know what really goes on in a marriage, despite what its outer appearance may present. The only two people who DO know are the two involved in it, and they are the only ones who have the right to decide its fate.

[dsc]

30. I don't think Newt Gingrich or John Walsh had good reasons to divorce

I won't apologize for thinking that, nor for favoring laws that would help their wives make them not get away with their piggish behavior. The fact is neither of those men could have gone for years without paying child support if their wives could have forbidden them from remarrying. We have let men become selfish pigs who make other people raise their kids because they want younger models.

[Marrah_G]

19. That two years can be hell in cases of domestic abuse.

[dsc]

20. which is why one of the grounds for divorce is abuse

it is listed right in the link you couldn't be bothered to go to.

[Marrah_G]

21. You know, I wasn't nasty to you

Why the nasty tone back at me? Seriously.... all you had to say was that abuse was a exemption and that I could find it at the link.

Anyway, thank you for letting me know.

[dsc]

22. sorry you're right

[Marrah_G]

25. .

[liberal_at_heart]

23. I'd say that counseling would be much better

See if counseling can save your marriage. If it can't then get counseling to see if you can at least coparent. If you can reconcile your marriage or at least agree to coparent if you divorce then the kids will be just fine. If neither of those options works then no amount of trying to make divorce more difficult is going to save anybody any grief. But even counseling should not be mandatory. Use public health campaigns to encourage people to get counseling. Just making divorce more difficult by writing some law won't work. You can't force anybody to have a good relationship. Religion has been trying to do that for centruries and it does not work.

[thecrow]

15. He brought his GRANDDAUGHTER into this?

He sorta weirdly defames her morality as an example???

<<< Speaking about his granddaughter, whose parents recently divorced, Gassman said, "There's a 16-year-old girl in this whole mix now. Guess what? What are the possibilities of her being more promiscuous? What are the possibilities of all these other things surrounding her life that a 16-year-old girl, with hormones raging, can get herself into?" >>>



Geez. OMG GOP WTF
Sometimes there are no words.

[jsr]

18. The bill is DOA

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/03/05/after-controversial-comments-bill-eliminating-no-fault-divorce-will-not-advance-in-iowa-house/article?gcheck=1

After controversial comments, bill eliminating no-fault divorce will not advance in Iowa House
12:25 PM, Mar 5, 2013 | by Jason Noble

[liberal_at_heart]

24. thank goodness!

what a horrible idea.

[llmart]

26. I believe some Repuke woman in Michigan tried this once....

and it was an epic failure too. Even Repuke women don't want to be forced to stay with some loser husband.

[bluestate10]

31. Republicans claim to love freedom. But they pull every trick in the book to eliminate

people's freedom of choice.

[Tikki]

32. But of course their divorces are different, along with their extra-marital affairs, their...

girlfriends' abortions, their drunk driving and their bankruptcies. All totally understandable, considering, and
definitely different from any mere Democratic voter.


Tikki