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

[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...