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

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Marriages may be "based on" division of labor, but that's not a contract, that's an agreement. Jethrien and I don't have a contract, written or verbal, regarding our marriage. New Jersey required only that we be in our right minds, not related, and not married to anyone else. The Roman Catholic Church only required we swear to love, honor and cherish each other. At no point did any authoritative body give us a list of fiscal/economic requirements--we don't have to live together, share funds, or file taxes together, we simply have the option of doing so.

If you chose to make yourself economically dependant on someone else, you open yourself to certain risks. In marriage, like in many other circumstances, you can attempt to formalize this contract to reduce those risks (say, by pre-nuptial agreement) or not. That, in turn, is typically a matter of trust. If I loan you a video game, I trust that you'll give it back, I don't make you sign anything. If I take on breadwinner duties while Jethrien raises children, she trusts that I will make good on my side of the bargain. She's taking a risk, but she feels, through knowledge of my character, that that risk is worthwhile.

But there's a big difference between a "betrayal of trust" and a legal "breach of contract"--the former can easily arise purely from misunderstanding, for instance, because no one bothered to spell out the exact terms of agreement and assumptions were made. (Legal systems cannot function with that kind of ambiguity, that's why contracts run hundreds of pages.)

Maybe we do need a system of consistantly-updated marriage contracts that define financial roles and expectations, along with child care and the like. I'm sure that would keep a lot of lawyers in business. But absent that, I think we have to accept that some people will put too much trust in the wrong person, and they'll get hurt because of it, and that's just what happens.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Jethrien and I don't have a contract, written or verbal, regarding our marriage. New Jersey required only that we be in our right minds, not related, and not married to anyone else. The Roman Catholic Church only required we swear to love, honor and cherish each other. At no point did any authoritative body give us a list of fiscal/economic requirements--we don't have to live together, share funds, or file taxes together, we simply have the option of doing so.

But should you get divorced, New Jersey will happily determine that you in fact did create a whole bunch of financial obligations, and will impose alimony in accordance with the standard of living enjoyed during marriage. So when you write,

If I take on breadwinner duties while Jethrien raises children, she trusts that I will make good on my side of the bargain.

Under current law, she'd be supported by more than mere "trust"; family law would require you to continue to make good on your side of the bargain after a divorce--regardless of the reasons for the divorce. That's my problem with the status quo; it imposes only the financial responsibilities of marriage and does so in a way that bears no relation to the other responsibilities of marriage. I'd prefer a system that either recognized that all of the responsibilities matter, or one that doesn't enforce any of them and leaves it up to private parties (say, a marriage licensing/registration system that only exists to determine those government benefits and privileges that come with the relationship).

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing that there aren't serious problems with the current family court system--there are. I'm just saying that approaching marriage as if there were a firm and defined contract (when there is none) doesn't improve anything. Do I think that alimony laws are often archaic and child custody cases are often badly handled? Yes. Do I think that making divorce more difficult will solve them and many other related issues? No.

I think "a marriage licensing/registration system that only exists to determine those government benefits and privileges that come with the relationship" would be great for married couples (of any combination of genders) without children; I'd love to see it. I think you'd still have the custody/child support issues; but I think that's a much larger issue that I'd rather not delve into now.