Let's outlaw divorce!

Great Debates
1

Since the concern of the religious right has been to protect the sanctity of marriage by keeping it between one man and one woman, I fully support the passing of laws, nay, an amendment to the state constitutions of our fine country, that divorce is a slap in the face to the holy institution of marriage.

According to www.divorceform.org, between 43-50% of all marriages (for the year 2002) will end in divorce. Surely this leads to broken families, hurt children, and is an abomination before God!

By outlawing divorce the bonds of matrimony will be made only stronger. We can be rid of lawyers and pre-nups as they will no longer play a role in this institution. Couples will be more selective in choosing their mate, perhaps waiting until an older age to wed because once you do it, you’re in the contract ‘til death do you part’. The best part is that family reunions will be so much less awkard; no more quiet whispers behind an aunt’s back about Uncle Fred leaving her for some little filly in Omaha.

To top it off, we need to enforce the marriage institution with strict laws, punishing spouses found being unfaitful with harsh fines, or perhaps prison time. You chose your one partner for life, you swore before God that you would remain forever theirs and you broke said contract so you must clearly pay for it.

(sorry for going off there, but seriously, why shouldn’t divorce be outlawed if people are so high and mighty about this whole marriage thing?)

2

From this article about the new wording of the definition for Texas textbooks:

*After hearing the debate Thursday, one publisher, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, agreed to include a definition of marriage as a ``**lifelong union ** between a husband and a wife.’’ The definition, which was added to middle school textbooks, already was in Holt’s high school editions, Holt spokesman Rick Blake said. *

But I agree, I doubt they are going to legislate against divorce any time soon…

3

Because many of those high and mighty types are on their second marriages (or later). And I’d be willing to bet that a fair majority of politicians (on both sides) are sleeping around. You don’t want to enact laws that come back to bite you in the ass later.

4

I see where you’re coming from, though.

Frankly, Britney Spears and Nicky Hilton have done more to demean the institution of marriage than any gay couple I know!

But let’s face it- nothing’s going to change anytime soon.

5

If it were up to me, I would back the amendment proposed by TommyTutone.

6

This thread is not as amusing as you might think.

The Collation for the American Family, or what ever Gary Bower’s outfit is called, had been lobbing state legislatures for measures to make it more difficult to end marriage. The latest brainstorm was a proposal that actually got through the Iowa House judicial committee on a straight party line vote (as I recall) that would set up two kinds of marriage – ordinary old marriages that could be dissolved under the state’s ordinary no-fault divorce procedures and a new creature called “Convenient Marriages” that were not to be ended save by death or dissolved on clear and convincing proof of physical (not mental or emotional) abuse, un-condoned adultery (which would eliminate Bill and Hilary since continuing to live together after knowledge would be condoning the adultery) desertion for one year or more and a couple of other grounds.

The couple would declare when they got their license whether they wanted an ordinary licence or a “Convenient Marriage” licence. If they opted for a “Convenient Marriage” they would have to go to special pre-marriage classes. Can’t you just see the prospective groom asking for a second class marriage license. That would probably prevent more marriages than divorces.

It failed to pass but it was a little scary for a while.
As a practical matter the most important factor that facilitates divorce is not the example set by President and Mrs. Clinton, or Brittany Spears of what ever of the Hilton girls is skanking around this week or the specter of homosexual marriage in New England. It is the fact that over the last 40 years the economic status of women has changed enough that a single woman, even one with dependent children, has a reasonable chance of earning a living. Society has changed and the axiom that “pregnant in summer and barefoot in winter keeps a good woman at home” is less applicable than it use to be. If Mr. Bowers and the boys want to restore the patriarchal family (their apparent intent) the first thing they have to do is exclude women from higher education and professional education. Of course the very reason we want to see our daughters receive a decent education is to make sure that they are not trapped in an unhappy marriage with no means of escape because of economic dependency.

7

I think perhaps that they are called “Covenant Marriages.” Such marriages do not sound all that convenient! :slight_smile:

8

What are people going to write Country-Western songs about?

9

I back the idea, if only for the fun of seeing hypocritical homophobic right-wingers break new speed records in the Political Backpedal™… :smiley:

10

Ah, but, you see, that’s why even before the latest round of SSM debates, they had already set up the “convenient” ruse of “Covenant” Marriage, which looks suspiciously like the state officializing a civil marriage that will play by church rules. They already can pretend to advocate putting their money where their mouths are (of course, as long as it means Protestant evangelical church rules, they’ll obviously stop well short of Catholic rules).

11

Personally, I prefer the idea of marriages where you can openly check out sexy babes without repercussions.

I call 'em “Covet Marriages”.

12

I would be against it. While it’s true that many people have made a mockery out of marriage, there are other things to think about.

For someone trapped in an abusive marriage, it can be the only way out. What you propose would sentence a person to a lifetime shackled to an abuser. For someone stuck with a wife beater / child beater / potential wife killer / potential child killer, there are only a few options - divorce, criminal charges, extreme violence, and killing in self defense. If you outlaw divorce, you open the door to more aggravated assault and homicide. Divorce is preferrable.

13

That happens when you are in a hurry and trust Spell Check.

14

Can we also outlaw adultery? That would prevent a lot of divorce.

15

And the problem would be… ?

Actually, I think that it would be a great idea if couples were required to go though some pre-marital counseling, if only from seeing several friends get into marriages where they knew nothing of their partner’s money habits or debt status. Even better if it was a voluntary requirement (oxymoronic as that may sound).

Most of the recent SSM threads seem to agree that the best thing for marriage is to separate religous from secular marriage. This seems like a good first step- if conservatives are allowed to make up a whole new kind of marriage, there is a chance they will eventually leave “regular” marriage to the State, which will then be free to include SSM.

The main complaint on these boards against Christians getting involved in politics is that “they are forcing their morals on everyone.” This Covenant Marriage is totally voluntary, allays Christian fears about the moral degradation of marriage, and takes the conservative Christians focus off regular marriage- I don’t see the harm.

16

While situations like this are certainly tragic and deplorable, how much of it can be prevented by longer courting/dating periods, or perhaps living with a potential spouse before actually tying the knot?

By imparting the severity of marriage, people will hopefully think twice (and thrice) before settling down, and mockeries such as the Spears’ weekend marriage will be hopefully ended.

17

I’m all for covenant marriage, and have stated so here in the past. It’s a damn fine idea, requiring premarital and pre-divorce counseling, for those that choose it.

For those worried about abuse, this is covered in the law as grounds for both separation and divorce, without additional counseling becoming necessary.

For the record, I support getting rid of no-fault divorce as well. This law truly has made divorce too easy. It makes it, in effect, the go-to strategy for marital difficulty in too many cases.

I’m all for taking reasonable steps to strengthen families, and these are reasonable steps.

18

So much for the conservative ideal of reducing government intrusion into people’s lives, eh? :wink:

19

I don’t know what you mean.

Marriage is entirely a governmental institution, at least the civil component of it being discussed here. It is an agreement entered into by two people that carries with it rights honored by, and obligations entered into with, the state.

Indeed, this is the crux of the gay marriage argument, governmental recognition of those relationships. And we know which side of the fence you fall on that one.

20

I’m not sure the reductio ad absurdum makes exactly the point you’re aiming at.

So legislating against divorce is effectively a ridiculous non-starter, from the contemporary, consensus standpoint of most of us (me too, let’s stipulate for the moment).

But look! If you accept the anti “same sex marriage” arguments, you might as well accept the outlaw-divorce argument! They must both be equally absurd. Is that where you’re going?

But they’re not necessarily equally absurd, because on divorce, there really is a contemporary, consensus agreement that outlawing it isn’t a good idea and could do more harm than good.

On “same sex marriage,” there simply does not exist, at this time, a contemporary consensus that it’s a good thing, or that laws against it are necessarily a bad thing. For the moment, there may be closer to being a consensus that these laws are a good and societally-utile thing. I understand you may not agree with that judgment; but that is facts-on-the-ground reality for the moment.

So where do we end up? “Those nutty anti SSM people have a legal worldview that would just as easily allow divorce to be outlawed!” Yes, they do. And, it would be constitutional. But, they didn’t do anything quite so nutty, so the possibility is moot. Can’t this equally well be said to prove that the system works? The people don’t get the nutty theoretical laws that they couldn’t live with and don’t want, and do get those laws that a consensus does want and deems workable. Hypothetical ridiculousness averted.

There are many things that are possible or constitutional for the electorate and legislature theoretically to do in our democratic society that they don’t, in fact, do, based on their judgment that such things would be dumb or unnecessary. To paraphrase what Bricker has said elsewhere, it is a serious mistake to confuse what the law or Constitution would permit (or not permit) as being a comprehensive catalog of everything that is a good (or bad) idea for society.