GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[Stubby]

Republican lawmakers in Iowa's House of Representatives moved forward with a bill this week that would make it more difficult for married couples with children to get a divorce.

The legislation, which passed a House subcommittee Monday, would ban "no-fault" divorce in Iowa for parents of children under 18. That means that in order to end their marriage, those couples would have to prove to a judge that one party was guilty of adultery, abuse, had committed a felony, or had abandoned the family for more than two years.

Republican supporters claim the measure would help prevent children from experiencing the negative impacts of divorce. One sponsor of the bill, Iowa Rep. Tedd Gassman, even went so far as to claim that the legislation would prevent young girls from "being more promiscuous," adding that his granddaughter had been put "at risk" by her parents' divorce.

“There’s a 16-year-old girl in this whole mix now. Guess what? What are the possibilities of her being more promiscuous?” Gassman said Monday, according to Iowa Radio. “What are the possibilities of all these other things surrounding her life that a 16-year-old girl, with hormones raging, can get herself into?”

Although it is not clear if Gassman's bill will progress to a full committee hearing, the divorce issue underscores the difficulties Republicans face as the party moves to reshape its message to appeal to moderate voters, particularly in Iowa, a key swing state that is also home to the first-in-nation presidential caucuses.

On one hand, the Iowa bill became instant fodder for liberal blogs and commentators, fueling Democrats' "War On Women" message. All 50 states allow no-fault divorce, and studies have shown that the laws are primarily beneficial to women, leading to a 33 percent reduction in domestic violence and 20 percent reduction in female suicide.

On the other hand the move to curtail "no-fault" divorce has broad support among Iowa's Christian conservatives, a strong GOP voting bloc that is key to winning a Republican primary in the state.

"We are a smart society – I believe that we can come up with a system that protects women and prevents drive-thru divorce," conservative talk radio host Steve Deace told Business Insider. "Using divorce to protect women is like protecting children by giving them matches. Women are never safer than when they are in a healthy, wholesome, marriage with a husband who understands his role in that relationship."

Despite conservative support, however, the fate of the divorce bill remains uncertain. The Des Moines Register reported Tuesday that the legislation would not get a hearing this year. However, sources familiar with the process told Business Insider late Tuesday night that House Republicans were still considering moving forward with the bill during the current legislative session.

http://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-rep ... z2NAlEDff4

[MSimon]

You have to wonder. Why don't Christians just stop divorcing each other? You know - follow Jesus. If they would just do that they could probably leave the rest of us alone.

The current attitude of Christians "You haven't heard the WORD? Twenty to life!" Well at least they no longer stone miscreants to death.

[GIThruster]

The report on what constitutes "no fault" divorce is wrong. It is much more complex than that and the difference really is not much. By the time a divorce gets to a judge its is pretty much going to be granted. We don't have No Fault divorce here in NJ and that doesn't seem to affect anyone.

simon, I have known Christians my entire life and never once did any of them fit your description. You're either lying, or you're crazy, or both. Again, this is why no one takes you seriously.

[MSimon]

The report on what constitutes "no fault" divorce is wrong. It is much more complex than that and the difference really is not much. By the time a divorce gets to a judge its is pretty much going to be granted. We don't have No Fault divorce here in NJ and that doesn't seem to affect anyone.

simon, I have known Christians my entire life and never once did any of them fit your description. You're either lying, or you're crazy, or both. Again, this is why no one takes you seriously.

You know, I'm finding out more and more that you are correct. So I take it you are not a Christian? Any way I just found this:

“The drug war has been used to destroy our freedom.” [1] This isn’t a quote from the ALCU or Dr. Ron Paul, but from a 1994 interview with conservative Presbyterian theologian R.J. Rushdoony. He understood that the drug war had been used for the federal encroachment of individual liberties. He recognized that “the drug war has been so deadly to the freedom of the people…” and the federal government has justified each encroachment with the evil of “drugs” as the fear-mongering excuse. Rushdoony continues, “In the name of seizing drugs a man’s car, boat, plane, house or whatever can be confiscated, even if not a trace of drugs are found.”

http://kuyperiancommentary.wordpress.co ... o-liberty/

I seem to be finding a LOT of Christian Libertarians these days. Here is one I know personally.

http://tmbridgeland.hubpages.com/hub/Li ... il-Failure

We have another coffee together planned for this spring.

And of course our own Diogenes is no Christian. So I'm trying to figure out the demographics of those who still support prohibition. Since you seem to be in that camp perhaps you could give me a clue.

BTW this was interesting.

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/03/repu ... d-on-hemp/

What amused me is that a pro legalization site I visit (they are usually leftist oriented) was just screaming about Republicans taking the lead on this. It is out of character for them. There is a link to the legalization site at the above link. If the Republicans take the lead on legalization they will draw a LOT of one issue voters from the left. I'd like that.

OTOH a right wing magazine told me this article:

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/03/endo ... e-science/

would not be welcome at the magazine because the readers were prohibitionists. I write about that in the preface to the article.

====

The reviews of this book (whose sub titile could be - A Christian Looks At Drug Prohibition) were very interesting - all 5 star.

The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom

[GIThruster]

This thread isn't about prohibition. It's about divorce. How many times do you need to be warned to knock off your nonsense?

[hanelyp]

...a bill this week that would make it more difficult for married couples with children to get a divorce.

When a couple has children, the children become party to the commitment they share.

[Stubby]

and how is forcing a married couple to stay together good for the family?

and do you really want government to have that kind of control over your life?

[GIThruster]

and how is forcing a married couple to stay together good for the family?

and do you really want government to have that kind of control over your life?

You do realize that this is our history? The entire notion of marriage has always been predicated upon a social commitment primarily for the sake of the children, intended to provide stability and enforced by witnesses. This is what you're looking at when you want to extend marriage to other forms, say between same sex, or more than two people. The law being proposed was the standard before "no-fault" marriage was invented and it works just fine. We're not having troubles with government intrusion here in NJ.

In short, you seem to be assuming that this proposed change is radical when it is the tradition of all Western Civilization. It is the baseline against which things like "no-fault" need to be measured. It's when you alter the traditional form that has served so well over millennia that the onus falls on the new proposal to justify the change. Just as hanlyp notes, the basis of marriage is the good of the children, and thereby all society.

One can only presume this proposed change back to the previous form is the result of the copious volume of evidence that children are better served inside traditional families.

[TDPerk]

"How many times do you need to be warned to knock off your nonsense?"

Less often than you need to be told to tone down your childish pomposity.

I'll be the first to say MSimon is an idiot about many things--he seems to be willing to claim Christian isn't a sunset of human, for example--but there's a reason you've been banned from other boards GIT.

It's because you're an infant emotionally, and very often no one wants to put up with that.

[rj40]

Are there any traditions that have gone by the wayside for the good? I respect tradition and proven ways of doing things, but what are some examples of things that once worked, but whose time eventually came and they were properly relagate to the dustbin of history? Also, are there any example of cultural norms that ya'll think should now be changed? Why?

[kcdodd]

It's been a while since we burned any witches.

[paperburn1]

It's been a while since we burned any witches.

Sister Gaudentia knew immediately the spectacle the excited children were rushing to see. They were on their way to a witch-burning
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/it ... tches/558/
and this is one of many examples.

[Stubby]

currently lots of witch burnings in africa

[rj40]

Yeah, I guess just because it has been around awhile doesn't necessarily make it desirable.
I can think of some other things that went by the wayside that were never a good idea, but somehow slipped through for hundreds and even thousands of years. I can think of some things around today that I would like to see changed.

Would it be safe to say that just because something has been around and a part of society for a long time, is not sufficient reason to keep it? It might help the argument, but by itself it isn't enough.

[ladajo]

You are playing around with the fundamental concept of society verses anarchy.
What you are really asking is why do we need a rule set to get along in a co-operative group?
The fundamental answer is in the question. In order to co-operate, there must a standards of co-operation. This is the social contract, and rules we follow by participating in the group.
The idea of the social contract to a cooperative group implies a fundamental requirement to define to social entity that participates.
In human culture, that basic entity is the individual. This individual is driven not only exist, but also by inhernet biology, to pro-create. That is the basic function of life, exist and continue.
Currently, the most effective and sustainable method of pro-creation for humans is sexual partnering. It has taken tens of thousands of years of producing and raising children for us to figure out that family units are more conducive to stability. So this in turn introduces another more complex entity to the social contract, that of the family unit. Mess with that, you mess with the entire house of cards. Currently, we are messing with it. And I for one, think it is fundamentally dangerous. And also I think that it has nothing to do with god(s), demons, or space aliens.