Colorado's proposed 'Dr. Laura Bill'

Does anyone support this? Why?

(not the band but I wish they would do a reunion tour)

Let CO pass their bill. KS can then set divorce requirements of residency of say 3 days and fee of 500 bucks. People who want a divorce could just spend a long weekend in KS and be done with it.

BTW You have to live in Las Vegas NV for SIX MONTHS to get a divorce.
[sarcasm] Actually this bill dosen’t go farr enough. What about counseling for High School couples before they break up? We must protect our children! [/sarcasm]

One of the things that offends me so much about this bill (and it’s compromise) is the assumption that the parents are unaware of the potential effects of divorce on their children and need the government to order them to get this information.

As for who’s for it. well, there’s the specific person who authored the bill, but on a more general basis, if you were a legislator, would **you ** like to be called “pro-divorce” or “voted against a bill to strengthen marriages”?

As long as the voting public relies on partisan information and 10 second sound bites for their information, we’ll have such things as this.

And, as for this

I agree with you Jodi.

*Originally posted by Zebra *
**(not the band but I wish they would do a reunion tour)

Let CO pass their bill. KS can then set divorce requirements of residency of say 3 days and fee of 500 bucks. People who want a divorce could just spend a long weekend in KS and be done with it.

BTW You have to live in Las Vegas NV for SIX MONTHS to get a divorce.
Hmmm…not a bad idea, but it would never happen here in the Great Sunflower State. KS is still pretty socially conservative. Certain words are only whispered in shocked tones, with appropriate horrified emphasis, never spoken aloud. You know, “He’s getting divorced. She has cancer.

Hell, we only just got our science standards back to normal after the “no evolution” brouhaha. Much as I think it sounds like a riot, I think you’ll have to look elsewhere for a divorce-express state.

Y’know, Jodi, I’m really glad to hear that this drives some Repubs nuts too. Most of the ones I know apparently think it’s a grand way to do things. It’s good to know that there are a few sane Republicans. :wink:

I believe I heard on the radio this morning that the original Colorado bill, requiring a year of counseling, was just struck down in the Colorado legislature and would not be put to a vote.

Oops! I hope that didn’t double post or do anything weird.

I’m not sure what happened - it’s apparently been sitting here on my computer since I typed it earlier & just now posted when I came in and started clicking through windows.

Beats me - you’ll have to ask Bill Gates.


It’s really nice to know there are so few condescending, sarcastic Dems. :rolleyes: I’d bet you a beer that you know a lot more Republicans than you realize, and that most of them consider this to be whopping-bad idea. Most of us just don’t go on and on about it.

and did you have any relevant thoughts on the OP at all or were you just looking through 4 day old threads for something to rail against?

By the way, in the OP, I stated

So, while the subject was an a piece of legislation proposed by a particular person involved in the Republican Party, this thread was not designed to be yet another ‘your party sucks reptile eggs’ thread. Some commented on the irony of this intrusionary legislation being proposed by a member of the ‘we want smaller government’ party, and one of those was a noted Republican. Go figure.

I, for one, would support this whole-heartedly! I would even go so far as to say 18 months before!

Maybe you should. If you did, maybe the morons who keep wasting our time and money (at the local, state and federal levels) passing useless bullshit laws like this wouldn’t get elected anymore.

Yeah, maybe you’re right. I usually file these kinds of legistation under ‘Looney nutter’ and forget about it. I figure most people can recognize a truly stupid idea, and that It’ll not be passed.

However, in light of recent events, I’m starting to get more involved, as it has become enourmously clear that we’ve let the Pols get away with too much, and that a significant minority of them appear to have taken leave of their senses.

This is one of the links in my thread that talks about the Colorado proposal. It’s my understanding that mandatory counseling would be required unless the spouse has been abusive, unfaithful, or has abandoned the marriage.

I’m am soooo against this. I think I should be allowed to get married and divorced as many times as I damn well please and the government shouldn’t have any say in it. I also don’t think pre-marital counseling should be mandatory and I don’t agree with a waiting period of more than 3 days for a marriage license. If I meet someone and 2 weeks later we decide to get married, we should be able to get married within 3 days of applying for our marriage license. People are going to marry whomever they want to marry, regardless of whether or not they’ve had counseling and regardless of how long they have to wait for a marriage license.

I’m sure someone is going to say, “if you know you want to get married and spend your life with this person what difference does it make if you have to wait 3 days or 3 months or a year before you can do it?” The difference is that it’s not my choice to wait. I’m being forced to wait because it’s what the government thinks is best. Screw that. I’m free to live my life and do what I want and I will be responsible for any mistakes I may make and I will suffer the consequences… no one but me. I’ll be damned if the government is going to try to tell me how to live my life any more than they already do.

Dammit, Phil, you beat me to it. For my part, I’ll believe that people like Jodi and Tranquilis speak for a significant number of Republicans when the GOP stops pushing this sort of stuff.

Meanwhile, I remember what happened to John McCain’s campaign last year after he spoke out against the fundie leaders.

What about this…?

Say that you are with your significant other (this rant varies between states, but this will apply for my state) and are considered common lawed married through no intent to do so (which is easy in Texas if you do not know the law for such). Now, by law, you are considered married, and a divorce will have to apply to be legally separated from each other. Not only did you think that you were in a normal boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, with someone just being cute by signing on a legally binding document Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but now you have to apply for a divorce and risk losing half your propery.

Now, would this proposed law apply to this situation? That would just be insult to injury that not only do you want to break up and move on, but now you risk losing half your property and you also have to go to counseling for a year, and pay for that, for a marriage that you did not even want. That is pretty @%#*ed if you ever ask me.

Hmmm, just saw this thread pop up again & looked in. Whadya know, I’m in trouble again. I must not be eating the proper breakfast cereal or something.

  1. I know a LOT of Republicans. They are in the majority here. For example, I think that the last Democratic presidential candidate our electoral votes went to was FDR. I live in an extremely conservative area, both politically and socially.

  2. Please note the use of the phrases “most”, “the ones that I know” and “apparently”. For discerning readers, this would indicate that I was restricting my comments to my own circle of experience - an area in which my level of knowledge is much higher than yours.

I have not discussed these issues in depth with all of my Republican acquaintances, but I have discussed them in depth with quite a few of them. I have also noted these tendencies in many more Republicans while engaged in casual conversation. If someone makes comments during the course of discussing current events, and said comments repeatedly indicate that they agree with government policies that invade private lives in order to force compliance with commenter’s personal, socially-conservative preferences, while other comments by the same person decry “Big Government”, “Government Interference with Individuals”, etc., I can fairly safely guess that the individual in question does indeed suffer from the cognitive dissonance mentioned here.

  1. As others have said, I’ll believe that “most Republicans […] consider this to be a whopping-bad idea” when most Republicans start opposing this sort of thing (or at least cease supporting them). I certainly do not deny that some Republicans meet these criteria and indeed practice what they preach.

  2. For your future reference, the winky-face (;)) generally indicates the jocular and or humorous nature of the comment in question. Glad to see you also support the often-heard perception that Republicans have no senses of humor.


I was required by a local standing court order to participate in a “children cope with divorce” program of some sort, but my attorney got me out of it. (We argued that my training and service as a guardian ad litem was worth at least as much as some two-evening counseling program.)

In general I am opposed to barriers like these. They serve no useful purpose except to subsidize social service agencies (which make a lot of money off of court-ordered evaluations and counseling) and create barriers for the poor.

The idea that some woman should be forced to sit through a year’s counseling with the man who has, for the past five years, beat her on a daily basis is absurd – and yet that is exactly what this sort of proposal would require.

Guilty as charged.

Not that it excuses me, but I’d just stepped out of one of the Election Threads, and was feeling a bit grouchy. :o