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

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Loads of divorces are mutual. Divorce is a sign that the pair is wrong, not that either or both individuals are.

And when you have a mutual settlement, I have no problem with it.

This is only an argument when one party wants a divorce and the other doesn't (I'm overusing "party" because it's delightfully gender-neutral, incidentally). But for the state to take every request for divorce and say, "Eh, you're both wrong" is like the teacher who sees a bully beating up a nerd and throws them both in detention for fighting. We have a justice system to judge such things and determine which party, if any, is at fault.

I'm coming to this discussion with a heavy bit of personal experience her, namely my mom, who was screwed over by fault-neutral divorce laws. Yeah, the emotional issues were horrible, and we've all resolved that my dad was an awful person. That doesn't come anywhere near sufficiently compensating my mom for my dad's breaking an arrangement where she took care of us for 15 years, giving up the equivalent of net millions in earning potential, and getting away with the same division and alimony as anyone else. You can't ignore finances when you talk about law, because the end result of American civil law is always money. Marriage is supposed to protect people's interests in that situation, and your preferred law doesn't do that--which is why I find it far more inhumane than the cold contract calculus in my preferred code.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think this is a problem. Obviously, your experience informs upon your point of view. I just fail to see how forcing the issue and making all those who initiate divorce pay through the nose for the privilege would make it better. You might avoid this particular issue, but you'd be punishing hundreds more people. I don't think it balances out, either. I think it still need to be determined on a case-by-case level with no inherent assumption of divorcing party = wrong party.

And I didn't advocate any blame, dude. I didn't say "pat the bully and the bullied alike," I said don't assume you now who the bully is. Which is what you're suggesting you do know because someone initiating divorce = the bully. You don't actually disagree with me procedurally where it comes to abuse/infidelity, but your bias against the divorcing party damns all divorcing parties. Are some divorcers scumbags? Yeah, obviously, and you've got the personal history to prove it. I just doubt very much whether punishing them with divorce would in any way fix marriage. It would, undoubtedly, diminish, not improve, marriage.