No fault divorce has been a disaster. If a couple wants to divorce, blame should be assigned to one or both parties for departing their Biblical role as husband and/or wife, and sanction applied to the guilty party. If wrongdoing cannot be done, no divorce should be allowed. No more divorce because "we made a mistake and were young" or "we've fallen out of love."
48 comments
blame should be assigned to one or both parties for departing their Biblical role as husband and/or wife, and sanction applied to the guilty party
If wrongdoing cannot be done, no divorce should be allowed
No more divorce because "we made a mistake and were young" or "we've fallen out of love."
Yes, by all means, deny divorce from the wife beater, that is the christian thing to do. Feel the love, anyone?
@Sisyphus: Making divorce harder is not a moral or intelligent remedy for this though, and likely wouldn't work too well in the first place.
If either person in the marriage wants a divorce for any reason whatsoever, it should be granted. Legal issues beyond that notwithstanding, the process of the actual divorce is fiddly enough as it is.
Yeah, that'll fix all the problems with marriage right up.
You just want people to be as miserable as you are.
What about people who get divorces because of abuse, cheating, or other reasons?
If you don't like the concept of divorce, then don't get a divorce, but don't tell others they should believe the way you do.
(Zuzu)
Game, set, match to Zuzu.
/thread
Right, let's go back to when unhappy spouses were constantly committing perjury to show that the other spouse was at fault in order to obtain a divorce. Sometimes a couple would agree to stage an adultery. Sometimes a woman would pretend she had been domestically abused.
Also since fred1 is so conservative he probably loved Reagan. He signed the first No-fault divorce law in the United States as Governor of California. And he also got divorced but most fundies love him. Guess divorce is OK as long as it's a Republican.
What bothers me about that is that if you require fault, then that requires proof. What about the abused spouse who is too afraid to call the police (no police records) and her abuser is too smart to leave visible marks or do anything that requires hospitilization (no medical records)? No proof, no cause, no divorce, and the abuse goes on. Sounds like a fucking great plan.
...except there is no better solution available. And yet you fundie morons refuse to work toward something that is equitable and flexible for everyone. Granted not everything is one-size-fits-all, but even still unless you're part of the solution, you're still part of the problem.
I agree with the poster narrowly in that no-fault divorce has far too often been one where people see it as an easy out from a marriage for often ridiculous or petty reasons (irreconcilable differences because one partner is fat and doesn't want to lose weight, for example).
On the other hand, what this doofus fails to realise is that putting one party off when they are in physical, mental, or economic harm in favour of a lengthy trial is pointless and cruel--and nudely unfit for a civilised society. A woman who is being beaten up by her husband should not have to as a matter of law remain attached to her assailant--such an assertion is as of these days utterly barbaric.
While I deplore casual marriage/divorce (I'm a romantic at heart who believes that marriage should be a long-term proposition), if the bible were used in divorce courts, the women would get penalised 98% of the time.
Remember - the Bible is the basis of NO laws, nor the Constitution, in the United States. And that's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, because they'd seen the bollocksed mess that government-mandated adherence to the Bible had made of much of Europe. Or don't you know what the Thirty Years' War is?
Oh, screw you blue fred1. I'm on my second marriage. My first ended with a no fault divorce. My ex husband was in China at the time, for God's sake. I was in the US. He couldn't/wouldn't come here to go to one court date to get the divorce finalized, so we went no fault since we had no children and no shared property (land, home, etc.) that needed to be divided. It saved us A LOT of time and money doing it that way, and let us both move on with our lives after a relatively short legal process (I didn't even have to have a lawyer).
Had I not been allowed to divorce him, I'd be still be stuck in a mentally and emotionally abusive marriage with an overgrown child. Since I *was* allowed to divorce, I have a loving husband who treats me well and a beautiful little girl. My ex has since moved on and grown up, and is happier than before. This worked out for BOTH of us in a way that wouldn't have been possible without that no fault divorce.
If you and your ilk had your way, I'd still be married to him and miserable. God knows you don't see abuse of a wife as any big deal, but a lot of the world *does*. For that reason I say FU and go DIAF.
"Guess divorce is OK as long as it's a Republican."
@Jax: Of course, just like having an unmarried pregnant teenage daughter is okay as long as you're a hypocritical, anti-feminist, pro-life, white, well-to-do Republican.
Who gets to assign the blame?
Who gets to decide the sanction? Who would enforce it?
What if either (or both) parties aren't Christian?
And what if blame can't be proven? My ex husband was an verbally abusive control freak who put me though hell. But the people at our church loved him, he was sooooooo nice to them it made me want to puke. I'm sure everyone of them would have gladly taken the stand and told what a great guy he is. Nobody knew the hell I went though at home behind closed doors. The fact is nobody truly knows what goes on in a marriage except for the two people involved. Things are not always what they seem. Perhaps you should work a little harder at being supportive of people and a little less time trying to control who does what.
I guess someone has been living in a barrel.
Perhaps if you were beaten by daily basis, by alcoholic husband, you would think quite differently.
No fault divorce was created in order to lessen the burden on the courts system.
How many fault divorces were because they had fallen out of love, and hubby said, yeah okay we'll just say I cheated on you.
Marriage to fundies isn't about love, it's about power and control... the husband has it, the wife submits to it (or else).
THIS is what they're fighting so hard to protect?
Isn't the question of living together or not living together best decided by the parties involved?
"their Biblical role as husband and/or wife"and wife?
Why this eagerness to find someone to blame? If two people don't want to live together any more, then they should not live together anymore. It' very, very simple in my mind.
because being stuck in a marriage with somebody you can't stand to be around anymore is such a credit to the "institution of marriage" you people go on and on about.
Seriously, if people aren't in love anymore, then there is nothing for society to gain by forcing them to stay together in a relationship they no longer want.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
