Yeah, no shit people don't approve of this

[trinityvixen]

So this woman is out to save marriage from divorce in Oklahoma. This may be an unpopular thing to say, but I applaud her for at least having the courage of her convictions and going full-on with the crazy and not being a hypocrite. See, she really does think gays are a threat to marriage. And she sat a good long time and thought, "Gee, you know what else is a threat to marriage?"

Et voila, she has something she wants done about divorce. Not that she intends to be any less batshit, rights-denying, human-hating about this than she is about gay marriage. This woman wants you married, goddamnit, and you will stay that way, so help her GOD...

Her rules would basically make it impossible for all but childless couples and those who get married at Vegas chapels on drunken binges (are you listening, Britney Spears?) to get divorced. You couldn't divorce for "incompatibility" if you'd been married for ten years or more (because every thing that might happen to you to change your personality has only a ten-year window in which to happen which opens right after you get married and nothing good/bad/major will ever happen to you or your spouse after that window is closed). You also can't divorce for "incompatibility" if you have minor children, which means that unless you were living in sin with the partner with whom you had children until those children were 6-7-8 years of age, HA HA NO DIVORCE FOR YOU. I suppose that's one way to keep an eye on those people of ill repute who would dare to birth bastards in this day and age. (That's probably her next suggestion: finding a way to declare certain kinds of children legally illegitimate in a country with no royalty.)

You also can't object to a divorce on "incompatibility" grounds if the other person objects. Would love to be in that Divorce Court. ("Your Honor, we're clearly incompatible! He wants a divorce and I don't! Er, wait...") It's the kind of logical conundrum that would kill off our Robot Overlords.

The non-funny side to this is that a person who is not outright abusive or unfaithful could trap you in a marriage basically forever by refusing to divorce you. Two things about that: 1) No one should ever have that power over you again, which is why divorce exists at all. 2) If this whole thing were to pass, that person could hold you until such time as you hit the big Tin/Aluminium Anniversary and became ineligible. (Ooh, did this Rep. know that the traditional presents for that anniversary are so...tarnishable?) ::shudders at the thought::

No fault divorce! The three best words in the English language!

Comments

[saikogrrl.livejournal.com]

While I don't think two people who are obviously miserable together should be forced to stay married, I do find it odd situations like a friend of my cousins got divorced six months after getting married (after many had flown out to englad for the wedding). I know I don't know any of the inner workings of that relationship, but it does seem weird that without infidelity/abuse as a reason, a relationship couldn't have been given a longer try than that. But of course I wasn't in the situation so I don't know what happened.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

It really does depend, doesn't it? I mean, all that has to happen is, well, anything. A new job. Losing your job. A death in the family. A birth in the family. Money loss. Money gain. Changing your name after getting married. Not changing your name.

It looks bad when couples split soon after getting married, but unless I do know that there is something truly airheaded or selfish about the people involved, I don't generally judge the people getting divorced one way or another. I can be irate about spending money on their wedding, though. That's fair. But my or your irritation is just part of the shit they have to accept if they can't make it work. Divorce is not about getting out of marriage scott free, you know?

[saikogrrl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and though not having had a long term relationship, I can't really claim to be an expert, it does seem weird to me that they couldn't try for say, a year. Why it was so bad they had to dissolve it after six months. But I'll never know any of the particulars, so I guess I shouldn't speculate.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to chide you or anything. Must learn to watch that. I certainly make snap judgments like everybody else. However, I know I'm a fussy person to get along with and so I just try to avoid criticizing aloud where I cannot really speak to truth. Because I wouldn't want it done about me either.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

One of my other LJ friends got divorced after only a year. Basically, there are things that you think are okay, that you think you can deal with, that it turns out you can't. And sometimes it takes the old college try before you realize that.

[saikogrrl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I understand - and I think giving it a go for a year makes sense, it's when it's such a shorter time like six months that it seems odd to me.

[equustel.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's this type of thing that bums me out. As often as incompatibility is a legitimate reason for divorce, I think it's just as often an excuse. I mean, no two people are perfectly compatible - marriage constitutes (or IMO, should constitute) an agreement to work past your differences with the other person on a daily basis, because you love them willfully more than you do just emotionally. You choose to accomodate their quirks and they choose to accomodate yours. In this situation, it doesn't matter when/if the other person "changes" - because you leave yourself room to work with the change. Marriage runs on the engine of mutual self-sacrifice.

I don't see that reflected in a lot of people's reasons for getting married in the first place, which is where the real problem lies with the divorce rate. IMHO. If people aren't up for the work marriage entails, why make the promise in the first place? Why not just date forever?

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem with "incompatibility" is the way that word means nothing to people who haven't become so miserable that they can't stand their spouse. A lot of the sneering at divorce for incompatibility reasons stems from the meaner aspects of human nature--for example, jealousy that some people "have it easy" and get to escape their problems (which is just untrue and unfair but a terribly hard thought to shake). We all do it--we see someone else being suddenly happy (or happier) and we resent it a bit, especially if we've been through what we think is worse and stuck with it. That particular scenario also appeals to the ugly impulse of feeling superior to those who can't make their relationships work, which contributes to this low opinion of incompatibility divorces.

(Please note, I'm not accusing you personally, just taking notes on human nature here.)

Marriage is also hard. Some people are just never going to put the work into it they should. Those people fuel the suspicion and sneering at divorce because weak people are going to be weak, and lazy people are going to make an already negative impression of divorce worse. They rightfully deserve some censure, if only socially. But I would say they're in the minority. I would wager not even half the people who get married are totally ready and/or ready for the challenge. I cannot fault people who want to marry and fail at it. It doesn't have to be a character fault like the previous examples. Some times, there is just no helping square pegs into round holes.

As for "Why make the promise in the first place?" if they can't hack it? Besides the reason I mentioned about mistaken ideas about marriage? Why? Because of a lot of things. Marriage is touted as a holy union to the religious and secular alike. It saves you from countless social and legal hassles before even getting into the partnership and personal fulfillment angles. We consciously imbue wedded partners with expectations, yes, but also rights and privileges and respect we don't hand out as readily to anyone else, no matter how demonstrably angelic they may be. It's the thought behind why we make it hard for single people, committed but not married, or cohabitating people to get things--mortgages, adoptions, you name it.

Get married, and suddenly things change. Your insurance carriers treat you differently because married people are in a different statistical class. It's easier to buy a house. People trust you more. (This last was proven recently in an article where women found married men more attractive as mates because marriage proved that they were good catches in a way that just dating, even seriously, did not.) Marriage stops comments that are annoying and tiring about, hey, when are you getting married? Forestalls looks and hem-hems of disapproval when you do anything we typically only forgive in marriage--sex, having children--outside of it. Then there's also the misinformation campaign of the people with financial or religious interest in furthering marriage such that people are made to feel bad if they don't get married...

This will change, I know, as more people avoid marriage unless they are the serious or traditional type. For now, however, marriage remains an appealing way to gain a lot of new privileges and approval and even a sense of happiness (even if that's illusory). I can easily see the appeal over dating.

[equustel.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem with "incompatibility" is the way that word means nothing to people who haven't become so miserable that they can't stand their spouse.

But that's just the thing - people in strong marriages do have days when they are so miserable they can't stand their spouse. That's the way it is with family - you can't stand them at all some days, but you still love them, and you still put up with them, and you work through it because... they're family.

Sure, if the reason you're miserable is because your spouse isn't pulling their weight in the relationship, and that continues after you've brought to them and they still show no signs of even trying to fix things... won't accept counseling... just full-on throw up their hands and say "whatever" to your face: that's when I think a marriage starts to fall apart. But otherwise? It's just life. You have your good days and your crappy days.

For now, however, marriage remains an appealing way to gain a lot of new privileges and approval and even a sense of happiness (even if that's illusory). I can easily see the appeal over dating.

Oh yeah, I realize there are plenty of reasons that people get married that aren't in line with the sort of personal commitment I'm talking about. Therein lies the bummer, because I don't think it works very well when you're in it for those reasons. I don't want to generalize too much, because I've known people who got married for pretty stupid reasons, but when they ran into roadblocks they decided to work it out instead of giving up - and they're strong, happy couples now. I just wish more folks believed that it's worth the effort. Because sometimes, making that effort to care about the other person - even when you're feeling miserable because of them - makes the other person feel valued enough to respond in turn, and that chain reaction can be pretty amazing. It can lead to a marriage being completely reconstructed (stronger than it was before) rather than falling apart into divorce.

In the end, it's just the same old story of people: most of the time we are stupid, and selfish, and petty. We have to account for these things, but it'd be nice if we didn't let them completely rule us all the time. ;)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Look, I don't want to harsh on your optimism, but let's be honest: so long as people are imperfect, there will be marriages that will never, short of lobotomies or personality transplants ever ever work. Many of these will be obvious, and we can tut-tut over them, but a large plurality won't be. They'll look perfect, they'll seem perfect, and they'll go completely tits up through no fault (or through lots of fault) of either or both spouse (or their jobs or kids or family or country). Saying that one needs to put effort into marriage and it's worth it because it'll work out if you try hard enough is a major source of stress and shame for those who can't work out what it is they need to make a marriage work. In these cases, they need not to be told "Work at it! It's worth it!" Because, clearly, it's not.

It's nice that you have success stories. Your idea of a chain reaction of happiness is just as true in the other direction, though. To me, successful marriages are definitely about work, but they're also, frankly, about luck, good or bad. And being a marriage booster is a fine outlook on life (yay optimism) so long as one doesn't let oneself get carried away.

As for reasons to marry other than deep personal connection? Oddly, I don't really care. If people want to marry for the money or the perks, that's their business. I pity them, but I don't live their life for them. And I'm not at all interested in changing marriage/divorce law to discourage them if it has even a 1% of affecting someone who went into a marriage ready to take it until death and for whatever reason failed. Better to let the lazy or mendacious go free than to make people who did right but ended wrong pay.

[equustel.livejournal.com]

Look, I don't want to harsh on your optimism, but let's be honest: so long as people are imperfect, there will be marriages that will never, short of lobotomies or personality transplants ever ever work.

Of course; I'm not contesting that. I'm merely lamenting the fact that some people throw in the towel at the first sign of conflict, without sticking around to find out if their promise could actually mean something.

Saying that one needs to put effort into marriage and it's worth it because it'll work out if you try hard enough is a major source of stress and shame for those who can't work out what it is they need to make a marriage work.

By "effort" I don't mean some vague strain at living up to an impossible ideal. I mean getting help, diagnosing the problem, talking it out, counseling, the whole nine yards. If all of that's been tried and failed, then by all means, divorce is the sanest option.

But I'm not talking about those couples who have fought for their relationship and failed. I'm talking about those who give up before even trying, or without seeking help. Unrealized potential is what I'm mourning here, I guess, and I mourn it in more than just marriages. Friendships, family relationships - you name it, people find it easier to isolate themselves and give up than push through a conflict with another person. Yet conflict is the only way you grow.

When we were first dating, Luke's sister told him that since we hadn't fought yet, we couldn't really be sure how we felt about each other. I laughed, and he laughed – but she was right. I wouldn't be nearly as close to him now if we hadn't gone through some pretty spectacular miseries together. And it's not like that's news to anyone, but the fact remains, some people say "for better or for worse" without accepting the risk and hurt that are practically guarantees in that sort of commitment. But without biting the bullet, how can they expect the relationship to really take root beyond "you make me happy most days"?

To me, successful marriages are definitely about work, but they're also, frankly, about luck, good or bad.

Yeah, I don't think I can agree there. Luck is the last thing I would attribute to any successful marriage. It's all about choice, and that starts very early on – with who you choose to trust with yourself, and how you decide to approach and develop the relationship. It's about being picky early on, so you don't regret the loss of that luxury later.

(For the record, at no point during this discussion am I remotely condoning this lady's batshit idea of making divorce harder legally. Just want to make that clear.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Of course; I'm not contesting that. I'm merely lamenting the fact that some people throw in the towel at the first sign of conflict, without sticking around to find out if their promise could actually mean something.

Yeah, some do. I just don't think it's a problem, you know? So long as they're not hurting anyone, let 'em get married and divorced. It doesn't really prove anything to anyone or hurt anyone's marriage. Honestly, the thing that hurts marriage is not people making a mockery of it but people building it up as the be-all, end-all of mature adulthood. I sounded accusatory there, and I apologize. I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying it now since I've got the opening.

So to me, I have a more cynical response to "work at it" than you do, is all, because I see such suggestions made frivolously at least as often as I see marriages made the same way. It's not that you're wrong--obviously, you're entirely correct that hard times and misery in marriage really are good for it--just that I have a default skepticism where it comes to platitudes about marriage as part-and-parcel of my skepticism about marriage in general. Forgive me, I bring my own neuroses to this discussion.

Yeah, I don't think I can agree there. Luck is the last thing I would attribute to any successful marriage. It's all about choice, and that starts very early on – with who you choose to trust with yourself, and how you decide to approach and develop the relationship. It's about being picky early on, so you don't regret the loss of that luxury later.

I can't disagree with your point here, but I still think there's more luck than you realize in a lot of marriages. There are just some things you can't plan for. Yes, smart, informed choices will help, but I fully believe that there are just things that no matter how well you've prepared will take you by surprise and can break even the strongest bonds. It's sad, but true.

(For the record, at no point during this discussion am I remotely condoning this lady's batshit idea of making divorce harder legally. Just want to make that clear.)

Wasn't even worried about it. This has just morphed, as so many discussions do, from the central topic. It's hard to avoid bloviating on marriage (I certainly didn't avoid it) when the subject of divorce comes up. It would be like talking about abortion without discussing sex...oh, wait...