Conservatives aren’t just fighting same-sex marriage. They’re also trying to stop divorce.
By Scott Keyes, Published: April 11 E-mail the writer
Scott Keyes writes for ThinkProgress at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For years, social conservatives have been fighting to prevent certain people from getting married. But they’re waging a parallel battle, too: Trying to keep married couples together.

In cooperation with the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, socially conservative politicians have been quietly trying to make it harder for couples to get divorced. In recent years, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced bills imposing longer waiting periods before a divorce is granted, mandating counseling courses or limiting the reasons a couple can formally split. States such as Arizona, Louisiana and Utah have already passed such laws, while others such as Oklahoma and Alabama are moving to do so.

If divorces are tougher to obtain, social conservatives argue, fewer marriages will end. And having more married couples is not just desirable in its own right but is a social good, they say. During his presidential campaign, former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) emphasized finishing high school and getting married as cures for poverty. “If you do those two things, you will be successful economically,” he declared at a 2011 event in Iowa.

A legislative movement against divorce may seem like a non-starter in a country where half of married couples avail themselves of this right, but as with legal challenges to Obamacare and the rise of the tea party movement, today’s fringe idea can quickly become tomorrow’s mainstream conservatism.

Divorce has long been a cultural touchstone in America. Social conservatives regularly advocate a return to a more traditional system of divorce — namely that it be extraordinarily difficult to get. For example, the only way an Alabamian could get a divorce under the state’s original 1819 constitution: “No decree for such divorce shall have effect until the same shall be sanctioned by two thirds of both Houses of the General Assembly.” Even a battered wife — who, of course, couldn’t vote — would have to petition her all-male state legislature and get supermajority approval before being freed from matrimony.

For most of American history, to obtain a divorce, one party had to prove to a judge that the other party was at fault, meaning he or she had committed certain grievous acts that irreparably harmed the marriage, such as adultery or being convicted of a felony. Emotional or physical abuse wasn’t always enough; even adultery or abandonment could be insufficient if a spouse reluctant to get divorced convinced a judge that his or her partner was similarly culpable. And as historian Glenda Riley showed in her 1991 book “Divorce: An American Tradition,” loveless couples often found creative ways to persuade judges to end their marriages: As recently as the 1950s, some couples would stage a bust, complete with hotel room, “mistress,” photographer and private detective who would testify in court about the husband’s (or wife’s) supposed illicit deeds.

This system began to crumble during the 1960s. In 1969, California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorces — permitting divorce without requiring proof of wrongdoing such as adultery — in the Family Law Act, signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan. Within a decade, 45 other states had joined California. By 1985, 49 states had legalized no-fault divorce; New York did just four years ago .

No-fault divorce has been a success. A 2003 Stanford University study detailed the benefits in states that had legalized such divorces: Domestic violence dropped by a third in just 10 years, the number of husbands convicted of murdering their wives fell by 10 percent, and the number of women committing suicide declined between 11 and 19 percent. A recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress found that only 28 percent of divorced women said they wished they’d stayed married.

Yet the conservative push for “divorce reform” is finding sympathetic ears in statehouses, where Republican lawmakers have regularly introduced bills to restrict the practice. Their rationales range from the biblical (God bemoans divorce in Malachi 2:14-16) to the social (divorce reduces worker productivity) to the financial (two households are more expensive to maintain than one). Leading conservatives such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also argued that marriage is a solution to poverty.

The cause earned national support in 2011 when three Republican presidential candidates — Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Santorum — signed a pledge from the Family Leader, a conservative organization in Iowa, that urged “ ‘cooling-off’ periods” for people seeking what it called a “quickie divorce.” Last year, seven GOP lawmakers in Iowa introduced HF 338, which would have prohibited no-fault divorces for couples who have children under 18. Under the bill, parents could divorce only in cases of adultery, imprisonment due to a felony, abuse, abandonment or if the couple has been separated at least two years. The lead sponsor, Rep. Tedd Gassman, argued that this bill would “ensure that divorce is not the first option for married couples with children.”

While some studies show that children of divorced parents do experience worse life outcomes — including diminished math and social skills, a higher chance of dropping out of school, poorer health, and a greater likelihood of divorce themselves — Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld points out that there is no way to test definitively whether children of divorced parents were already more likely to experience such outcomes. And as Stephanie Coontz, a historian and the author of “Marriage, a History,” explains, what’s most critical is the high-conflict environment that kids grew up in before their parents separated.

Ultimately, HF 338 failed last year not because of its content but because of bizarre public comments Gassman made. The lawmaker argued that with divorced parents, teenage girls would be “more promiscuous.” He also linked divorce and the shootings in Newtown, Conn., blaming the shooter’s mind-set on “family problems.” Wary of controversy, GOP leaders dropped the bill.

At least a dozen other states since 2011 have tried to make divorce more difficult. Along with Iowa, New Hampshire and Oklahoma have tried to eliminate no-fault divorce for parents. In Oklahoma, lawmakers are also considering a bill that would virtually prohibit no-fault divorce but preserve divorce as an option in cases of “impotency.” Other states are pushing legislation to lengthen the waiting period before a judge can grant a divorce, including up to two years in North Carolina. Currently, most states have a two- or three-month waiting period before a divorce is finalized, though it is longer in a handful of mostly Southern states, including Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

Such waiting periods are “fairer to the spouse who is being left,” the Family Research Council contends in a brochure titled “Deterring Divorce.” But inherent in that argument is an unfortunate and unavoidable reality: Making divorce less accessible harms women most. The right to divorce was a victory women fought for in the culture wars of the 1970s, and women today are twice as likely as men to ask for a divorce, according to Rosenfeld.

For more than a decade, three states have tested the appeal of more-restrictive divorces. Louisiana was the first, in 1997, to pass a “covenant marriage” law, which allows marrying couples to choose between a standard license (allowing no-fault divorce) and a covenant license (heavily restricting the reasons a couple may divorce). Arizona and Arkansas soon followed. If social conservatives were looking to show that no-fault divorce was unpopular, they could not have picked better testing grounds than these three deep-red states.

But the experiment has proved disastrous for their cause. Between 2000 and 2010, there were 3,964 covenant marriages in Louisiana — roughly 1 percent of the 373,068 marriages performed in the state. The rates were even lower in Arizona and Arkansas. Nevertheless, state legislators are undeterred: Since 2011, lawmakers in Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas have tried to enact covenant marriage.

Would making divorce less accessible encourage partners to stay together, as conservatives hope? Probably not. Waiting periods and mandatory classes “add a new frustration to already frustrated lives,” Rosenfeld notes. In other words, a cooling-off period isn’t cooling anybody off.

More problematic, these roadblocks “could easily exacerbate the situation and harm kids,” Coontz says, noting that divorcees are “more likely to parent amicably if they haven’t been locked into a long separation process.”

The push to restrict divorce is a form of paternalism — expanding government in pursuit of socially conservative ends. Marriage is a conservative institution, the thinking goes, and married straight couples provide a backstop against the creep of government. Any public policy that encourages the creation and persistence of married straight couples therefore merits support; any policy that deviates, including same-sex marriage or no-fault divorce, is hostile to the institution.

The Family Research Council sees no contradiction in the state playing an active role in such private decisions. “As the grantor of both marriage licenses and divorce decrees, the state has already established the right to regulate the disbursement of each,” argues Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the council.

But if new divorce restrictions fail to pass, it may be for a self-interested reason: Republicans get divorces, too. Two of the five states with the highest percentages of divorced residents are red states. In Oklahoma, the state with the largest share of women who have been married three or more times, Republican lawmakers killed a 2010 bill making divorce more difficult to obtain. “How far do I want government to come into my home and your home about private personal matters?” asked GOP Rep. Leslie Osborn.

And if conservatives actually believe that divorcing couples might have a change of heart, there’s another solution besides longer waiting periods: remarriage. However, only about 6 percent of divorcees ultimately remarry each other. Reconciliation certainly happens; divorce doesn’t have to be forever. But it’s impossible to pass legislation that stops spouses from lying or cheating.



Alabama: A bill under consideration would mandate a four-hour class for divorcing parents with children younger than 16.


Arizona: A law passed in 2011 enables one party in a divorce to extend the process by up to four months.


Georgia: A bill under consideration would mandate classes for parents seeking to divorce.


Iowa: A bill that failed last year would have prohibited no-fault divorces in most cases for couples with children under 18.


Kansas: A bill under consideration would effectively eliminate no-fault divorce.


Louisiana: A law that went into effect in 2007 extended the waiting period for parents from six months to one year.


New Hampshire: A bill voted down in February would have gotten rid of no-fault divorce for parents of minor children.


North Carolina: A bill under consideration would double the waiting period to two years and require couples to receive conflict-resolution counseling, as well as additional counseling if they have children.


Oklahoma: Bills under consideration would eliminate no-fault divorce ; get rid of no-fault divorce for parents of minor children, for couples married more than 10 years and in contested divorces; and double the waiting period from three to six months.


Utah: In 2012, the state restored a 90-day waiting period . Starting in July, parents with children under 18 must take a class before a court may grant custody or financial orders.


Washington: A bill under consideration would quadruple the waiting period from 90 days to one year.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
We are talking about Divorce in my Social Science class, and im fighting the teacher all through it. He said that even if the parents hate eatchother, they should stay together for the kids because it damages the kids. I said that would be alot worse for the kids.

 Seaward wrote:

That said, I believe in forcing people to do next to nothing, so I don't like this kind of stuff.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Grante, findiing exactly how much is has is difficult

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ummmm, you do realize the divorce has declined over the past two decades right? with 1980s being peak?
Grante, findiing exactly how much is has is difficult

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just always facepalming at the amount of people that don't know anything about each other who decide that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together. I guess the sex must be very good right now, but it's still just stupid in my opinion. I think that requiring mandatory waiting periods before issuing a marriage license would have a bigger effect on divorces than requiring mandatory waiting periods before granting a divorce. Almost every marriage I know that has gotten married without people really knowing each other for at least a year has ended in divorce.

But if you can't get married then you can't feth (allegedly), which probably brings me to the biggest reason for why we marry way to quick (and IMO get divorced so much): religion and societal standards. In this hick state we spend more time covering "God doesn't want you to have sex outside of marriage" instead of "this is how you put on a condom. always wear one, let me know if you need them, be safe and protect yourselves, make sure you love/trust the guy/gal". We spend money and get married just so we can feth without being ashamed of it and to make sure that grandma doesn't call you a slut because you moved in with a guy instead of marrying him. It's like our society (at least in Oklahoma) only accepts the following two relationships: be friends, be married. No dating/living together, that's just slutty and God will judge you.

Make sure you know that the good of the relationship outweighs the bad, which requires sticking around long enough before getting married to find out all the good and the bad, and you will have improved divorce rates.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
**Reads the states listed**
Is anyone surprised by those states taking those steps? Forcing people to be together doesn't always work

 Frazzled wrote:
I wouldn't say a class or a cooling off period is a bad thing though.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I wouldn't say a class or a cooling off period is a bad thing though.

Don't most States have a cooling off period anyway? Maybe because I'm used to a system were you have to be separated for two years before you can file for divorce

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just always facepalming at the amount of people that don't know anything about each other who decide that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together. I guess the sex must be very good right now, but it's still just stupid in my opinion. I think that requiring mandatory waiting periods before issuing a marriage license would have a bigger effect on divorces than requiring mandatory waiting periods before granting a divorce. Almost every marriage I know that has gotten married without people really knowing each other for at least a year has ended in divorce.

But if you can't get married then you can't feth (allegedly), which probably brings me to the biggest reason for why we marry way to quick (and IMO get divorced so much): religion and societal standards. In this hick state we spend more time covering "God doesn't want you to have sex outside of marriage" instead of "this is how you put on a condom. always wear one, let me know if you need them, be safe and protect yourselves, make sure you love/trust the guy/gal". We spend money and get married just so we can feth without being ashamed of it and to make sure that grandma doesn't call you a slut because you moved in with a guy instead of marrying him. It's like our society (at least in Oklahoma) only accepts the following two relationships: be friends, be married. No dating/living together, that's just slutty and God will judge you.

Make sure you know that the good of the relationship outweighs the bad, which requires sticking around long enough before getting married to find out all the good and the bad, and you will have improved divorce rates.

My wife and I joke that we got married on the fifth date Although we did have the waiting period of Homeland Security paperwork so I could move over. Nothing says "I love you" quite like spending innumerable hours filling out paperwork, being poked and prodded by a doctor, and being interviewed before getting married

 kronk wrote:
Really? Mine was granted 60 days after I filed and had no requirement that we be separated (though we were).

Is that for custody stuff?

 Frazzled wrote:
I told the guy with the weird priest's collar the next day that I had met my wife.

 d-usa wrote:
Living in Oklahoma for the past 17 years I can tell you why divorces are high. Here is the typical progression in this redneck state (I don't know if other states are similar):

Day 1: Go out on a date.
Day 7: Oh my God, I love you so much, where have you been all my life?
1 Month: Will you marry me?
3 Months: Wedding.
6 Months: Oh my God, I married an idiot.
18 Months later: Divorce is final.

In the words of a recent Disney movie:



I'm just always facepalming at the amount of people that don't know anything about each other who decide that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together. I guess the sex must be very good right now, but it's still just stupid in my opinion. I think that requiring mandatory waiting periods before issuing a marriage license would have a bigger effect on divorces than requiring mandatory waiting periods before granting a divorce. Almost every marriage I know that has gotten married without people really knowing each other for at least a year has ended in divorce.

But if you can't get married then you can't feth (allegedly), which probably brings me to the biggest reason for why we marry way to quick (and IMO get divorced so much): religion and societal standards. In this hick state we spend more time covering "God doesn't want you to have sex outside of marriage" instead of "this is how you put on a condom. always wear one, let me know if you need them, be safe and protect yourselves, make sure you love/trust the guy/gal". We spend money and get married just so we can feth without being ashamed of it and to make sure that grandma doesn't call you a slut because you moved in with a guy instead of marrying him. It's like our society (at least in Oklahoma) only accepts the following two relationships: be friends, be married. No dating/living together, that's just slutty and God will judge you.

 Seaward wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ummmm, you do realize the divorce has declined over the past two decades right? with 1980s being peak?
Grante, findiing exactly how much is has is difficult

It's still hugely above what it was in the '60s. That's fifty years and massive societal change that nobody seems to be able to explain.

 d-usa wrote:
But if you can't get married then you can't feth (allegedly), which probably brings me to the biggest reason for why we marry way to quick (and IMO get divorced so much): religion and societal standards. In this hick state we spend more time covering "God doesn't want you to have sex outside of marriage" instead of "this is how you put on a condom. always wear one, let me know if you need them, be safe and protect yourselves, make sure you love/trust the guy/gal". We spend money and get married just so we can feth without being ashamed of it and to make sure that grandma doesn't call you a slut because you moved in with a guy instead of marrying him. It's like our society (at least in Oklahoma) only accepts the following two relationships: be friends, be married. No dating/living together, that's just slutty and God will judge you.

 Seaward wrote:
That's fifty years and massive societal change that nobody seems to be able to explain.

 Palindrome wrote:
I suspect that a significant reason for the drop in divorces since the 80's is that shotgun weddings are very rare these days.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If you stick to “No sex before marriage” here in France, you will be singled out as a weirdo, and likely as a religious extremist too. I can testify first-hand, one of my friend was in this case. Yet we still have quite high divorce rates. According to Wikipedia, divorce/marriage ration a 55% in France, 53% in the U.S. A.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It is almost as if different cultures produce different results

 Easy E wrote:
Can someone briefly outline the biblical arguments for why Divorce is sinful? I'm not familiar with the argument.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... waiting period, forced counseling, etc... are BS.

However, I'm a huge proponent in getting rid of "no-fault" divorces.

The divorce system tends to award wives custody of the children, substantial child support, the marital home, half the couple’s assets, and, often, heavy alimony payments.

So... abolish no-fault divorce

When the law relieves husbands and wives of the obligation to give a damned good reason to leave their partners, it was a race to the exits when folks don't want to work on their marriage... Yeah, some individual divorce parties will suffer without the easy out of no-fault. But the suffering of the few need to be weighed against the betterment of the whole... and right now, it's the men's custody and his wallet that is getting plundered in this current environment.

You cheat on your spouse... you don't get fething half...

You beat your spouse... you don't get fething half...

I'm a divorcee with two kids, I've journeyed through this valley of death.

I know 2 guys who went through divorce that didn't do anything wrong... one simply disappeared because he couldn't afford alimony. The other almost committed suicide because his ex convinced the judge to only grant him supervised custody of his son and massive child support/alimony... he did not deserve that at all... it was an ugly split.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah, sorry for mentioning how it happens in other places of the world when really, only the U.S. matters !

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... waiting period, forced counseling, etc... are BS.

However, I'm a huge proponent in getting rid of "no-fault" divorces.

The divorce system tends to award wives custody of the children, substantial child support, the marital home, half the couple’s assets, and, often, heavy alimony payments.

So... abolish no-fault divorce

When the law relieves husbands and wives of the obligation to give a damned good reason to leave their partners, it was a race to the exits when folks don't want to work on their marriage... Yeah, some individual divorce parties will suffer without the easy out of no-fault. But the suffering of the few need to be weighed against the betterment of the whole... and right now, it's the men's custody and his wallet that is getting plundered in this current environment.

You cheat on your spouse... you don't get fething half...

You beat your spouse... you don't get fething half...

I'm a divorcee with two kids, I've journeyed through this valley of death.

I know 2 guys who went through divorce that didn't do anything wrong... one simply disappeared because he couldn't afford alimony. The other almost committed suicide because his ex convinced the judge to only grant him supervised custody of his son and massive child support/alimony... he did not deserve that at all... it was an ugly split.

Don't you have pre-nuptial agreements to take care of those things? We certainly do.

 Da Boss wrote:
children against the happiness of the parents? It's a damn sticky question, but I think the answer lies in shifting attitudes, not ham fisted legislation.

 easysauce wrote:

But seriously, Im always shocked at how accepted "some" alternative lifestyles are (being gay, trans, ect) but you are damned by the religious nuts and non religious nuts alike if your sexuality happens to be "I enjoy being with more then one, or a selection of people one at a time, throughout my life"

 easysauce wrote:
Once men are liberated from the matriarchy that forces them into monogamous life long relationships against their natural instincts, then the divorce rate will drop, because no one will be pressured to marry in the first place.

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
children against the happiness of the parents? It's a damn sticky question, but I think the answer lies in shifting attitudes, not ham fisted legislation.

That's an easy answer... provided that either parent isn't incapable of raising childrens, it should be a hard default to push for joint custody and equal share of the cost of raising the kids.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
children against the happiness of the parents? It's a damn sticky question, but I think the answer lies in shifting attitudes, not ham fisted legislation.

That's an easy answer... provided that either parent isn't incapable of raising childrens, it should be a hard default to push for joint custody and equal share of the cost of raising the kids.

It is in many jurisdictions, including Texas.

 Easy E wrote:
Many thanks.

Question, in the section from Matthew is it Big J speaking?

Most of what Paul wrote is just like.... his opinion man.

<insert The Dude here>

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'd rather that you were sorry for that strawman you seem to be building.

 n0t_u wrote:
So basically it's this.

No-fault divorce has been a success. A 2003 Stanford University study detailed the benefits in states that had legalized such divorces: Domestic violence dropped by a third in just 10 years, the number of husbands convicted of murdering their wives fell by 10 percent, and the number of women committing suicide declined between 11 and 19 percent. A recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress found that only 28 percent of divorced women said they wished they’d stayed married.

VS

"God said you should feel bad"...


This takes longer than 5 minutes to figure out?

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
children against the happiness of the parents? It's a damn sticky question, but I think the answer lies in shifting attitudes, not ham fisted legislation.

That's an easy answer... provided that either parent isn't incapable of raising childrens, it should be a hard default to push for joint custody and equal share of the cost of raising the kids.

It is in many jurisdictions, including Texas.

The distinction here is whether or not the wife/mother want's more than "half" of everything. It's too easy now to get more.

I had to threaten my ex to get full-custody of my boys because she asked for alimony... she backed down. I got lucky according to my attorney, it was a bluff that judges would laugh at my face. If I lived in a state where "no-fault divorce" isn't the law... she wouldn't get gak, except for joint custody of the kids.

 Seaward wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
So basically it's this.

No-fault divorce has been a success. A 2003 Stanford University study detailed the benefits in states that had legalized such divorces: Domestic violence dropped by a third in just 10 years, the number of husbands convicted of murdering their wives fell by 10 percent, and the number of women committing suicide declined between 11 and 19 percent. A recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress found that only 28 percent of divorced women said they wished they’d stayed married.

VS

"God said you should feel bad"...


This takes longer than 5 minutes to figure out?

It's also versus the horrible effect divorce has on children. Something like 78% of black children in America grow up without a father. You think that might have something to do with comparative achievement and success?

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
children against the happiness of the parents? It's a damn sticky question, but I think the answer lies in shifting attitudes, not ham fisted legislation.

That's an easy answer... provided that either parent isn't incapable of raising childrens, it should be a hard default to push for joint custody and equal share of the cost of raising the kids.

It is in many jurisdictions, including Texas.

The distinction here is whether or not the wife/mother want's more than "half" of everything. It's too easy now to get more.

I had to threaten my ex to get full-custody of my boys because she asked for alimony... she backed down. I got lucky according to my attorney, it was a bluff that judges would laugh at my face. If I lived in a state where "no-fault divorce" isn't the law... she wouldn't get gak, except for joint custody of the kids.

Lets not go there. I survived 47 lawsuits and 3/4 a$mil in legal fees fighting the opposite.

 Seaward wrote:

It's also versus the horrible effect divorce has on children. Something like 78% of black children in America grow up without a father. You think that might have something to do with comparative achievement and success?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just always facepalming at the amount of people that don't know anything about each other who decide that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together. I guess the sex must be very good right now, but it's still just stupid in my opinion. I think that requiring mandatory waiting periods before issuing a marriage license would have a bigger effect on divorces than requiring mandatory waiting periods before granting a divorce.

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just always facepalming at the amount of people that don't know anything about each other who decide that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together. I guess the sex must be very good right now, but it's still just stupid in my opinion. I think that requiring mandatory waiting periods before issuing a marriage license would have a bigger effect on divorces than requiring mandatory waiting periods before granting a divorce.

My sentiments exactly... I also facepalm with both hands simultaneously when I see how much people spend on wedding ceremonies (only to get divorced six/eighteen months later). While it is their choice, it is also symptomatic of the world we seem to live in, where people are wasteful, inconsiderate, irresponsible, selfish, and treat everything like it is disposable.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant. Sorry, that can happen sometime. So, what you actually meant ?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just always facepalming at the amount of people that don't know anything about each other who decide that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together. I guess the sex must be very good right now, but it's still just stupid in my opinion. I think that requiring mandatory waiting periods before issuing a marriage license would have a bigger effect on divorces than requiring mandatory waiting periods before granting a divorce.

My sentiments exactly... I also facepalm with both hands simultaneously when I see how much people spend on wedding ceremonies (only to get divorced six/eighteen months later). While it is their choice, it is also symptomatic of the world we seem to live in, where people are wasteful, inconsiderate, irresponsible, selfish, and treat everything like it is disposable.

I blame all of our sappy romantic comedies.

 d-usa wrote:
That has to be the best example of "find some random statistic and use it to make some sort of point that has nothing to do with it" that I have seen on Dakka yet

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think government should be legislating morality and forcing moral ideology on anyone.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't see how having to take a class or a moderate stand still period is an "attack by conservatives." Lots of jurisdictions already have time wait periods. A class, really? This is a life changing event for all parties and the children. How is a class going to hurt?

Seriously?

 Seaward wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
So basically it's this.

No-fault divorce has been a success. A 2003 Stanford University study detailed the benefits in states that had legalized such divorces: Domestic violence dropped by a third in just 10 years, the number of husbands convicted of murdering their wives fell by 10 percent, and the number of women committing suicide declined between 11 and 19 percent. A recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress found that only 28 percent of divorced women said they wished they’d stayed married.

VS

"God said you should feel bad"...


This takes longer than 5 minutes to figure out?

It's also versus the horrible effect divorce has on children. Something like 78% of black children in America grow up without a father. You think that might have something to do with comparative achievement and success?

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't see how having to take a class or a moderate stand still period is an "attack by conservatives." Lots of jurisdictions already have time wait periods. A class, really? This is a life changing event for all parties and the children. How is a class going to hurt?

Seriously?

the bigger question is "how is it going to help?"

Is it going to accomplish anything? Or does it just cost couples money?

I read somewhere that in most break ups, the party that wants to end things had wanted out for quite a while. Divorce isn't exaclty spur of the moment.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Are you sure that is the fault of divorce though?

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think government should be legislating morality and forcing moral ideology on anyone.

 Seaward wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Are you sure that is the fault of divorce though?

No, it's undoubtedly the interplay of a variety of factors. Divorce has quite a bit to do with it, though.

There's not a study out there that suggests divorce is a good thing for kids, and more than a few that outright say it's even worse than Mom and Dad sticking it out together despite wanting to kill each other. Plenty of kids survive divorce just fine, but plenty don't.

Not, again, that I think we should be in the business of having the government force parents to stay together for the benefit of the kids. We can't cut off the stripper supply.

PhantomViper wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Once men are liberated from the matriarchy that forces them into monogamous life long relationships against their natural instincts, then the divorce rate will drop, because no one will be pressured to marry in the first place.

That is probably one of most chauvinistic things that I've read in my entire life... Especially if you take into consideration that women are the ones that are still looked down on if they either don't marry or have multiple sex partners during their lives...

Maybe this is the 21 year old in me, but what about the parents right to happiness?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Maybe this is the 21 year old in me, but what about the parents right to happiness?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So once you have kids, You have to be a miserable sod? If I was forced to stay together with someone I hated for my kids, I would probably end up being resentful

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So once you have kids, You have to be a miserable sod? If I was forced to stay together with someone I hated for my kids, I would probably end up being resentful

You're irrelevant. Its whats in the best interest of the kid that matters. You're happiness is your own problem.
Married, single, only met this person once, doesn't matter a whit.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
See, this is why I dont want kids. That and they vomit alot and wipe their nose on everything. IDK, MAybe I will change one day.

 d-usa wrote:
Happy parents can make happy kids.

I think that divorced parents could still be healthy for the kids, if both parents had the emotional maturity to realize that their kids are still their kids and that the divorce (for whatever reason) had nothing to do with the kids. But people use kids as ammo, people use kids as the emotional dumping ground for their anger, people quit being a parent when they are no longer "parents" together.

Two single parents, happier in their own life and dedicated to being full and participating parents in the lives of their children, can raise children that are happier than two miserable parents that are still married. But when you can't keep the emotions you have for each other from spilling over to the kids, then there will be damage.

You can't legislate emotional maturity though.

 easysauce wrote:

Unfortunatly our sociaty puts an immense amount of pressure on both sexes to conform and get married ASAP.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
what about those who go into a marriage expecting to "Change" their spouse? That surely must count for smething

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Happy parents can make happy kids.

I think that divorced parents could still be healthy for the kids, if both parents had the emotional maturity to realize that their kids are still their kids and that the divorce (for whatever reason) had nothing to do with the kids. But people use kids as ammo, people use kids as the emotional dumping ground for their anger, people quit being a parent when they are no longer "parents" together.

Two single parents, happier in their own life and dedicated to being full and participating parents in the lives of their children, can raise children that are happier than two miserable parents that are still married. But when you can't keep the emotions you have for each other from spilling over to the kids, then there will be damage.

You can't legislate emotional maturity though.

Maybe we should just gather a Best Hits collection for you (and sell it for $5 )

 d-usa wrote:


Every now and then I post some gems.

Other times it's just lots of garbage

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
what about those who go into a marriage expecting to "Change" their spouse? That surely must count for smething

Haha. You SHOULD change as a result of your spouse if you've picked a good one.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Maybe this is the 21 year old in me, but what about the parents right to happiness?

 cincydooley wrote:
Additionally, I'm baffled by people that get married before they've lived together. My wife is really catholic and we lived together for 4 years first.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
what about those who go into a marriage expecting to "Change" their spouse? That surely must count for smething

Haha. You SHOULD change as a result of your spouse if you've picked a good one.

I mean, Like Change them, Change who they are at their core. What is the old saying "People dont Change" Like when my cousin got married to some sports fan girl, but he was a major geek. She tried to change him completly. Got rid of all his geek stuff and tried to make him a sports guys/

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont get it either. You want to spend the rest of your life with this person. But you dont know whether of not they lift up the seat of possibly snore in bed.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont get it either. You want to spend the rest of your life with this person. But you dont know whether of not they lift up the seat of possibly snore in bed.

Haha. Not exactly the "crazy" I'm talking about, but sure.

We need to get you in a relationship and out of a university environment, my man, so we can blast away some of that youthful naïveté.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well. If I get Into the school I want, berkely, I might not have a choice


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well. If I get Into the school I want, berkely, I might not have a choice

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Maybe this is the 21 year old in me, but what about the parents right to happiness?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
If you have kids, well, life sucks and is unfair.

Life sucks and is unfair without children too

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
See, this is why I dont want kids. That and they vomit alot and wipe their nose on everything. IDK,

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you talking about kids or your college roommates?

 agnosto wrote:
A new frat party-competition. How many so-hoes can you marry and divorce in the same semester?

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
A new frat party-competition. How many so-hoes can you marry and divorce in the same semester?

My roomate my last year in college would have won that. The number of times I walked in on that fething guy with a new chick...

 whembly wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well. If I get Into the school I want, berkely, I might not have a choice


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well. If I get Into the school I want, berkely, I might not have a choice

Sure you do... be "different"... NO! Be the "REBEL" there!

It's chick magnet too!

 easysauce wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Once men are liberated from the matriarchy that forces them into monogamous life long relationships against their natural instincts, then the divorce rate will drop, because no one will be pressured to marry in the first place.

That is probably one of most chauvinistic things that I've read in my entire life... Especially if you take into consideration that women are the ones that are still looked down on if they either don't marry or have multiple sex partners during their lives...

I love how you take the paragraph so seriously and call me a chauvanist...

OBS your outrage overboiled preventing you from reading the "but seriously" that immediately followed an obviously tounge in cheek statement.

Also, basically no one cares if women dont get married or have more then one partner, the people who do are the vast minority, and generally are the same people against gay marrage, any pre marital sex, and so on.

So you can stop white knighting whilst tilting at windmills. (you can also stop insulting me in direct violation of the Dakka forum rules)

 chromedog wrote:
I've known my wife for over 20 years.
We've been married 8 this year.
I moved in with her 3 weeks before we got married (prior to this, I travelling up for weekends and back for work. It's a 2.5-3hr trip EACH way) but we were 'together' for about 5 years before this. 5 years of weekends and holidays. Our parent's marriages only ended when one of them died (natural causes).

My wife is catholic. She wanted a catholic wedding.
We had to do pre-counselling. It was a couples thing. 3 other couples and us. Both get given questionnaires and they match up where you match and where you need to discuss stuff. We couldn't have a catholic service unless we "passed". We did.

We were the ONLY couple in that group to have talked about ANY of the issues covered - talked and resolved them.

The priest didn't even care that I wasn't catholic or even a practising christian.

We both went into this with eyes open, knowing the work it would need.

Contrast to a friend who is on her third marriage - she has separation and abandonment issues stemming from her parents divorce as a kid. Rather than run the risk of her man leaving her, she does the running.