Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Good for him... so... what's the relevance?

Seedy profession, and likely a mob connection.

I would consider that relevant if a guy bought a house next to mine, and erected a statue of a middle finger.

Eh... so?

Anyhoo... that ex has every right to file an injunction against him.

*shrug*

Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.

Seconded. Er what?

whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.

erm...wut? o.O

It was pointed out to right-wing Christians that arguing against SSM because it undermines the Christian principle of Marriage: they should also be completely against the idea of divorce as the Old Testament sets this out as a big no-no (And I think the new Testament affirms this as well iirc)

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.

Seconded. Er what?

whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.

erm...wut? o.O

It was pointed out to right-wing Christians that arguing against SSM because it undermines the Christian principle of Marriage: they should also be completely against the idea of divorce as the Old Testament sets this out as a big no-no (And I think the new Testament affirms this as well iirc)

Honestly... I haven't heard jack gak about that.

*shrugs*

Responding to the OP, the only non-religious arguments against SSM that make any sense are based on vested financial interests, such as medical insurance providers, who stand to lose money if SSM is institutionalized.

The bizarre and frequent argument that SSM should not be allowed in order to ensure the propagation of the species can be dismissed out of hand in that it (a) ignores the fact that the human species has had absolutely no problem propagating itself despite the presence of homosexuality, (b) assume that propogation of the species is "good" or "bad".

The heartsring "what about the poor kids of gay parents...won't they be abused?" argument is just an excuse to justify the bigotry of those people who choose to abuse children for something as trivial as their parents bedroom habits, and raise their children to do the same.

I for one count myself honored to live in a time when religious authority, over this and other issues, is literally in death throes.

And inasmuch as I'm able to feel such things, I do feel a certain sense of pride that Generation X has produced a generation of young people that, while they have an overblown and artificial sense of self esteem, seem at large to not be bothered one bit by trivialities such as sexual orientation, whether a person believes in god or not, etc.

It was pointed out to right-wing Christians that arguing against SSM because it undermines the Christian principle of Marriage: they should also be completely against the idea of divorce as the Old Testament sets this out as a big no-no (And I think the new Testament affirms this as well iirc)

Ok gotcha now.

 jasper76 wrote:
Responding to the OP, the only non-religious arguments against SSM that make any sense are based on vested financial interests, such as medical insurance providers, who stand to lose money if SSM is institutionalized.

Care to elaborate on that some more? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, and maybe we're just seeing things differently, but Im not really seeing how companies like major medical insurance stand to "lose" money over SSMs. If anything, and going off of Red Cross blood donation questionaires, they could still be in a higher category than their straight counterparts (at least when looking at men), based on their sexual activities (something about things going in bums creating a higher risk for certain types of hepatitis and whatnot)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Responding to the OP, the only non-religious arguments against SSM that make any sense are based on vested financial interests, such as medical insurance providers, who stand to lose money if SSM is institutionalized.

Care to elaborate on that some more? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, and maybe we're just seeing things differently, but Im not really seeing how companies like major medical insurance stand to "lose" money over SSMs. If anything, and going off of Red Cross blood donation questionaires, they could still be in a higher category than their straight counterparts (at least when looking at men), based on their sexual activities (something about things going in bums creating a higher risk for certain types of hepatitis and whatnot)

The only thing I mean by this is that medical insurance providers are inevitably going to be forced to extend coverage to homosexual spouses. That's a whole lot of new spouses to cover. I assume it will hit their profit margins, but I am no economist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Another thing for any last-ditchers to consider is that in the US, there is a clear pattern of the military leading the path on many Civil Rights issues. There's a reason for this.

At some point in your life, you have to ask yourself whether someone who is willing to VOLUNTEER TO DIE for your country shouldn't have access to the same benefits that you yourself enjoy as a citizen. It is indecent and cruel to answer that question in the negative, and I am unapologetic in saying so.

 jasper76 wrote:
At some point in your life, you have to ask yourself whether someone who is willing to VOLUNTEER TO DIE for your country shouldn't have access to the same benefits that you yourself enjoy as a citizen. It is indecent and cruel to answer that question in the negative, and I am unapologetic in saying so.

I know how much my countrymen love jingoism, but

1.) Firefighters, Police Officers, and Crab Fisherman all volunteer, of their own free will, to do really dangerous jobs for fairly low pay.

2.) Citizens already enjoy a great many benefits not afforded to servicemen; the most obvious being the general ability to quit our jobs at will and access to the civil justice system.

I agree with equal rights for all but that's a weird metric to use, is what I'm saying.

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
At some point in your life, you have to ask yourself whether someone who is willing to VOLUNTEER TO DIE for your country shouldn't have access to the same benefits that you yourself enjoy as a citizen. It is indecent and cruel to answer that question in the negative, and I am unapologetic in saying so.

I know how much my countrymen love jingoism, but

1.) Firefighters, Police Officers, and Crab Fisherman all volunteer, of their own free will, to do really dangerous jobs for fairly low pay.

2.) Citizens already enjoy a great many benefits not afforded to servicemen; the most obvious being the general ability to quit our jobs at will and access to the civil justice system.

I agree with equal rights for all but that's a weird metric to use, is what I'm saying.

Crab Fisherman are not relevant to the issue, precisely because they can quit their jobs. But people who are willing to trade in their citizenship benefits for military or civil service should have the same access to the same benefits as everyone else upon reentry into civilian life. It wasn't my intention to radiate jingoism; I am only mildly patriotic in truth. I think what I said could apply to any country.

 jasper76 wrote:
But people who are willing to trade in their citizenship benefits for military or civil service should have the same access to the same benefits as everyone else upon reentry into civilian life. It wasn't my intention to radiate jingoism; I am only mildly patriotic in truth. I think what I said could apply to any country.

Honestly man, in regards to this thread, I don't see why those who are in military or civil service should have to wait until they "reenter civilian life" to get married or receive the same benefits as a married couple does.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
But people who are willing to trade in their citizenship benefits for military or civil service should have the same access to the same benefits as everyone else upon reentry into civilian life. It wasn't my intention to radiate jingoism; I am only mildly patriotic in truth. I think what I said could apply to any country.

Honestly man, in regards to this thread, I don't see why those who are in military or civil service should have to wait until they "reenter civilian life" to get married or receive the same benefits as a married couple does.

No arguments here.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The correct answer here is not "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage" because that's not the question at all.

jesus...

The govenment shouldn't have the F*CKING right to regulate who anyone can marry. How hard is this concept to grasp?

to which you will respond... "But what about gays?"

to which I will respond..

The govenment shouldn't have the F*CKING right to regulate who anyone can marry.

to which you will respond...

But what about your own children? Can a father groom his daughter from her earliest years to become his bride on her 18th birthday? Because, you know, that kind of stuff happens.

dereksatkinson wrote:
And with that.. i'm done

And off you go, without ever bothering to explain your reasons for claiming that homosexuality is immoral. Shouldn't you take the fact that you're too embarrassed about your beliefs to state them in public as a sign that you're wrong?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
It creates a society where abuse is commonplace and often condoned (see Warren Jeffs and his Mormon pals). Because women become so highly valued as wives, and the number of wives often times is tied to status within the society, young boys are often neglected or forced out. It's also fairly common, because marriages being done so often, that girls are forced to marry too young (see also abuse). These issues (well, except for boys being banished/forced away) are also common among other religions where polygamy has been practiced (see the Middle East)

This only applies to religious polygamy, and the issue is the coercion and abuse, not the marriages between multiple people. Contrast this with secular polyamory, which has the same concept of marriages with more than two people but in a way that everyone involved is equal (or at least no less equal than the level of inequality in society as a whole) and all gender combinations are possible instead of just one high-status man with lots of wives. Limiting marriage to only two people is an ineffective attempt to solve the wrong problem. Religious cults that happen to include polygamy are still free to have religious marriages that have no legal status, and it does absolutely nothing at all to address the fundamental problem of having an isolated group with no tolerance for disobedience or independent thought.

 Peregrine wrote:


This only applies to religious polygamy, and the issue is the coercion and abuse, not the marriages between multiple people. Contrast this with secular polyamory, which has the same concept of marriages with more than two people but in a way that everyone involved is equal (or at least no less equal than the level of inequality in society as a whole) and all gender combinations are possible instead of just one high-status man with lots of wives.

I think the issue there is, where is the "central" point? I mean, in theory you could run into this situation: Suzie has 3 husbands, including Steve. Steve is married to Suzie, as well as Barbara, Hanna and Rachel. Now, let's say that things aren't working so well between Suzie and Steve and they want a divorce. Under our current system, the "norm" is half of assets and whatnot... but in this case, there are more parties in the equation, so would they have to legislate divorces differently? Especially if Suzie and Steve have biological kids together the issue of alimony and child support become a lot more convoluted, though I could see in this system a judge saying "you each have more income and support for children and thus were not supporting each other exclusively, ergo there will be no child support/alimony (or very minimal child support)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think the issue there is, where is the "central" point? I mean, in theory you could run into this situation: Suzie has 3 husbands, including Steve. Steve is married to Suzie, as well as Barbara, Hanna and Rachel. Now, let's say that things aren't working so well between Suzie and Steve and they want a divorce. Under our current system, the "norm" is half of assets and whatnot... but in this case, there are more parties in the equation, so would they have to legislate divorces differently? Especially if Suzie and Steve have biological kids together the issue of alimony and child support become a lot more convoluted, though I could see in this system a judge saying "you each have more income and support for children and thus were not supporting each other exclusively, ergo there will be no child support/alimony (or very minimal child support)

It's complicated, but that just means someone has to do the work of writing the laws. We're able to handle business partnerships between lots of people just fine, so I don't see any inherent problem that would make it impossible to do something similar for marriage.

 Peregrine wrote:
This only applies to religious polygamy, and the issue is the coercion and abuse, not the marriages between multiple people. Contrast this with secular polyamory, which has the same concept of marriages with more than two people but in a way that everyone involved is equal (or at least no less equal than the level of inequality in society as a whole) and all gender combinations are possible instead of just one high-status man with lots of wives. Limiting marriage to only two people is an ineffective attempt to solve the wrong problem.

A major problem with this line of argument is that religious polygamy is vastly more common than secular polyamory (thanks primarily to Muslims, not Mormons), to such an extreme that surveys of polyamorous relationships have found other forms of relationship to be "statistically non-significant." So before one talks about legalizing polyamorous marriages, one has to acknowledge the real consequences of such a change.

More importantly though, changing the law to allow for polyamorous marriages would require a massive overhaul of the entirety of establish family law. Family law is based on a dyadic relationships. While these are traditionally male-female relationships, they can be readily adapted with minimal change to deal with male-male and female-female relationships. In many states the laws have already been made gender neutral and require no adaptation at all. However, proceedings for the division of assets in a no-fault divorce (to use one example) assume two people are divorcing. Things become infinitely more complex when three people are divorcing, and there is no legal code for dealing with such events. Issues of child custody, inheritance, assumed debt, it goes on and on. Or what about benefits from employment? Social security benefits for widows?

Finally, when you start getting into triads and quartets, you get into very complicated relationships in which one size fits all laws simply won't work. A relationship between two straight men and a straight woman is going to be very different than a relationship between two bisexual men and a woman, or a bisexual man, a gay man and woman. Imagine two straight men in a marriage with a straight woman, and then she dies. Except one of the men is a millionaire and the other is struggling artist. Are they now automatically divorced, or does the millionaire have to sue for divorce, and can then artist then sue for alimony? Does the artist get to keep half the millionaire's money?

These are the kinds of relationships that really should be handle by lawyers and contracts, because they are exceptionally rare and born of particular circumstances.

 whembly wrote:

Anyhoo... that ex has every right to file an injunction against him.

No, she doesn't. Injunctions are court orders.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
So before one talks about legalizing polyamorous marriages, one has to acknowledge the real consequences of such a change.

What consequences? Are you suggesting that religious polygamous marriages don't already exist without legal recognition? How exactly is making them official going to change anything?

These are the kinds of relationships that really should be handle by lawyers and contracts, because they are exceptionally rare and born of particular circumstances.

Of course it's complicated, but that's what lawyers and politicians are for. "It's hard" should not be an excuse for why we shouldn't do the right thing.

Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
On a somewhat similar matter, could someone explain to me why there were ever laws against sodomy or other sexual acts?

"Eww, gross."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 marielle wrote:
As in essence marriage is religious sacrament like baptism, confirmation or the funeral service.

It really isn't. And funerals aren't religious either.

in which case why are heterosexual civil partnerships forbidden?

Because they aren't? Unless you're talking about cases where "civil partnership" is just a lesser version of marriage, and the only reason you'd ever have a civil partnership is because you're not allowed to have a marriage? But in that case it's a nonsense argument, like whining that you're forbidden to be paid $10 because you have to be paid $20 instead.

You are simply wrong.

Civil partnerships formalise what is commonly referred to as common law marriage, which has no legal basis. Cohabiting heterosexual couples do not have the protections offered to similar homosexual partnerships through civil partnership - pension rights, tenancy agreements, inheritance, child care etc. This is a gross injustice.

That you refer to such matters as a lesser form of marriage simply shows your ignorance.

But then you have already proven that by you claim that funerals are not a religious rite. You really should go and read a bit of history and law to the present legal position.

 focusedfire wrote:
I know, this seems a bit of a stretch to people for whom spirituality is not daily part of their lives or don't believe in any god but these people are guaranteed the same rights under the constitution as the rest of us.

When you understand their constitutional rights and learn the history of just how intertwined government and religion have been, you can understand how they can believe the term marriage is in their purview. Basically there is enough evidence there for them to make the case.

The religious get as much say in government, but no more than anyone else.

And there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that there was a ever a purely religious inspired version of marriage seperate from property laws and inheritance. None. That is fiction.

And even if there was such a thing at one time, we know that here, in this world, marriage is not a purely religious thing. You can go and get married without involving any church or spirituality at all. And not only is such a thing recognised by the state as a marriage, it's recognised as a marriage by religious people. The idea that religious people would say 'oh you're married per the law but it wasn't in a church I recognise so it isn't really a marriage and you're stealing my word' is laughable.

And that's what this whole argument about religion owning a word is, laughable.

There are other things that complicate the issue such as the Catholic church's long history of providing for the needy with religious based(tax exempt) services(food banks and medical care). Under current anti-discrimination laws, these charities would lose there protections and will likely fail if Gay marriage becomes US law....that is unless the Catholic church caves to secular pressure on a definite no-no in their holy book.

'definite no-no' makes a big assumption about how complex and prone to interpretation the bible is. There was a time, of course, when slavery was defended through a reading of the bible, while other christians argued against slavery with other verses of their own. Ultimately, when one side finally won that debate, the other side just slowly disappeared from view, and generations later it was bizarre to think that Christians could have ever argued that slavery was good and proper and Christian.

No reason to think this will be any different.

 Peregrine wrote:


Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.

A living will does this as well. And is cheaper.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Define "traditional". As long as there has been marriage, there has been the ability to nullify it.

Yes, nullify it. Just as you could could nullify a divorce before no fault laws, you just had to convince a court of law that there is a good legal reason.

What changed with no-fault divorce was that you didn't have to convince the court of anything.

The traditional marriage in certain parts of Africa, Europe, Asia and south america have been polygamist. In modern Western society, polygamy is illegal.

Which says a lot about the incomprehensibility of any effort to defend 'traditional marriage', and try and give ownership of that concept to churches.

Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society?

It would be a legal mess (especially regarding kids if the marriage should ever dissolve), and that while polyamory is theoretically non-sexist the reality of the world we live in means that polygamy would be far more common and that brings with it social issues.

None of those issues are insurmountable, but until they're resolved to a reasonable standard it's best we leave well enough alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not really sure how to make it "harder" to get divorced in modern times as it's really hard to support the idea of the *government* making decisions based on your relationship... but, if it did happen, in whatever form, two things happens:
1) Reinstates that Marriage is very important and not to be taken lightly.
2) Encourages the spouse to work on their marriage, as opposed to pressing the easy relationshipnal nuke button.

I'm not sure anyone goes in to a divorce thinking its going to be easy. It's hard enough negotiating the seperation of assets when the parties involved don't harbour feelings of resentment and betrayal.

Nor is 50% guaranteed, nor does it generally represent an improvement in one's material wealth. Think about a married couple, one of whom brought a house in to the relationship, one of whom did not. They live together ten years before the non-house owner wants a divroce. One the one hand, that's a net gain for the non-house owner, as they will have half the value of a house... but they gained that the second they got married. Consider instead the position before and after divorce, they were living in a house they owned in joint with their partner, and now after divorce they have either no house but cash worth half the house, or they have a house but a mortgage taken out to pay out the other party. Either way, they are materially worse off, and that's before you account for all the other costs (legal fees, moving fees, temporary accommodation etc...)


All that said, I do think marriage is important. I do like the idea of encouraging marriage counseling, even if it's just through providing free or heavily subsidised counseling for couples who might otherwise look for a divorce.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
@D-USA - Completely agree. It's a huge, petty, immature douche move. Doesn't make it a credible threat to her safety like others would contend.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think there has to be a credible threat to personal safety in order for it to be harassment. I think just setting a constant pattern of being annoying and disruptive would be enough.

Now, I'm not saying this instance is harassment (because I'm not a lawyer), and I suspect the best approach would be through local planning laws and not criminal courts... I'm just saying I don't think physical threat is always needed for it to be harassment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
jesus...

The govenment shouldn't have the right to regulate who anyone can marry. How hard is this concept to grasp?

Because it's very silly.

It just isn't practical to require government step back from one of the major institutions of our society.

It's also just completely bizarre to asset religion suddenly ought to own something they've never claimed sole province over before. As I've argued a few times now, five years ago if someone had claimed 'oh you've gone to the registrar and gotten a legal marriage but that isn't really a marriage because it wasn't in a house of God and religion really owns that word' people would have looked at you as though you were totally fething bonkers. But now, in the wake of the near collapse of the religious argument against gay marriage, that group has attempted this very silly fall back position and suddenly this insanity about religion owning the word marriage has been born.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 marielle wrote:
That you refer to such matters as a lesser form of marriage simply shows your ignorance.

When we buried my grandmother there wasn't a single word about God mentioned. It was still a funeral. I had religious family there who stated that they wished there was a mention of God, but they never for one second said it wasn't a funeral. Because that would have been fething bonkers.

Marriage is no different. It is commonly religious, but not always, and when it isn't, it's still a fething marriage and no-one claims otherwise. Until this madness started.

I was married by a lawyer in his office to my wife with 2 witnesses, not a bible or member of the clergy to be seen. I think my marriage counts as "real".

 marielle wrote:
Civil partnerships formalise what is commonly referred to as common law marriage, which has no legal basis. Cohabiting heterosexual couples do not have the protections offered to similar homosexual partnerships through civil partnership - pension rights, tenancy agreements, inheritance, child care etc. This is a gross injustice.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. All a civil partnership does is allow an unmarried couple to get some or all of the benefits of marriage. If you're a cohabiting heterosexual couple and want those protections then just get married.

That you refer to such matters as a lesser form of marriage simply shows your ignorance.

Err, no. Civil partnerships are a lesser form of marriage. Even ignoring the fact that you don't get the "marriage" title you don't get things like recognition for federal tax purposes. The only reason you would ever want a civil partnership is if you're not allowed to get married and have to take what you can get.

But then you have already proven that by you claim that funerals are not a religious rite.

I made that claim because it's indisputable fact. Funerals can be religious but they are not exclusively religious. When I, a devout atheist, die I will have some kind of funeral ceremony and it will have nothing to do with religion. You tried to claim that because a particular religion has rituals around marriage and funerals those things are owned by religion. And that is simply wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.

A living will does this as well. And is cheaper.

Except it doesn't. The people in question had a living will (or equivalent) and it was ignored.

 Peregrine wrote:

 friendlycommissar wrote:
So before one talks about legalizing polyamorous marriages, one has to acknowledge the real consequences of such a change.

What consequences? Are you suggesting that religious polygamous marriages don't already exist without legal recognition? How exactly is making them official going to change anything?

It would give those marriage standing in court and law obviously.

These are the kinds of relationships that really should be handle by lawyers and contracts, because they are exceptionally rare and born of particular circumstances.

Of course it's complicated, but that's what lawyers and politicians are for. "It's hard" should not be an excuse for why we shouldn't do the right thing.

It's not that its hard, it's quite likely to be impossible. And considering its a vastly complicated, thorny issue that serves a population so small they have no meaningful representation, and would mostly serve a population that shouldn't be encouraged (patriarchial polygamists), it's likely it will never happen.

Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.

Peregrine, the laws regarding marriage ALL assume a dyad. Two people. You cannot apply laws designed to deal with two people to three people. Lawyers will always have to be involved.

 whembly wrote:
I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.

 Manchu wrote:
LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.

 whembly wrote:
erm...wut? o.O

 Frazzled wrote:
Seconded. Er what?

And the usual suspects plead ignorance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marriage_Vow

http://whotv.com/2013/03/04/proposed-bill-making-divorce-harder/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58SUY_20bw0

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/04/14/republicans_against_no_fault_divorce_gop_politicians_push_for_waiting_periods.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/23/mcauliffes-claim-that-cuccinelli-wanted-to-make-it-harder-for-moms-to-get-divorces/

 Manchu wrote:
And the usual suspects plead ignorance

To be fair to Whembly, he's complained about no-fault divorce a fair few times before, going back a few years. I don't think his interest in the issue has anything to do with anything the Republican party is doing.

Are you seriously suggesting no connection between the MRA line whembly has characteristically taken on these boards and his political affiliation? Or perhaps that there is no connection between MRA, specifically the building attack on no-fault divorce, and the ever-rightward pull of GOP brinksmanship rhetoric? Or that the Republicans are not trying to soften their anti-gay reputation without losing credibility? Despite flying that Australian flag, you are generally pretty on the mark about the political temperature here in the States. But I think you're being a bit naive on this occasion. The novelty isn't right-wing antipathy toward divorce but rather that the issue is becoming a fall back position from the increasingly disastrous GOP stand against gay marriage.

 Manchu wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting no connection between the MRA line whembly has characteristically taken on these boards and his political affiliation?

Yep, because whembly was giving a similar opinion before the move in Republican position on the issue.

Or perhaps that there is no connection between MRA, specifically the building attack on no-fault divorce, and the ever-rightward pull of GOP brinksmanship rhetoric? Or that the Republicans are not trying to soften their anti-gay reputation without losing credibility? Despite flying that Australian flag, you are generally pretty on the mark about the political temperature here in the States. But I think you're being a bit naive on this occasion. The novelty isn't right-wing antipathy toward divorce but rather that the issue is becoming a fall back position from the increasingly disastrous GOP stand against gay marriage.

I don't disagree with any of that at all.

 sebster wrote:
Yep, because whembly was giving a similar opinion before the move in Republican position on the issue.

That assumes the GOP is quite a bit more monolithic than it really is. (Also, MRA did not come out of nowhere.) I can assure you that this is nothing new for Republicans. What is new, as I mentioned, is substituting a critique of no fault divorce for the increasingly unpopular and uncompelling critique of gay marriage. And even then, it's only new as a matter of crystallizing as actual policy proposals in state houses and gubernatorial campaigns. I first heard about this tactic hanging around conservative wonks-to-be about 5-6 years ago and lo and behold here it is.