If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Government Cheese)   Bill proposes mandatory 10 hour 'divorce classes' costing up to $2000, even if a couple wants to file a no-fault divorce and just get the hell on with their lives   (wfaa.com) divider line 231
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

7533 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2009 at 7:25 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-04 04:11:20 PM
*reads article*

Oh, it's only Texas.
 
2009-03-04 04:13:26 PM
Another fine idea from the people who run the State of Taxus.
 
2009-03-04 04:13:29 PM
make me some tea: *reads article*

Oh, it's only Texas.


Yep, this is a typical douchebag Texas Republican thing. Of course, now that Craddock is out as speaker, this kind of bullshiat will have a much more difficult time getting through. I hope.
 
2009-03-04 04:19:03 PM
Meh. Just don't get married in the first place ;)
 
2009-03-04 04:21:11 PM
I bet the guy goes to the Church in Houston that just finished building this off of I-45:

www.arch-ive.org
 
2009-03-04 04:23:04 PM
SpinStopper: Meh. Just don't get married in the first place ;)

Pretty much.
 
2009-03-04 04:25:07 PM
jasonmicron: I bet the guy goes to the Church in Houston that just finished building this off of I-45:

I'll see your Houston cross and raise you an Effingham Illinois giant-ass one!

www.thecross-photo.com

/see that twice a year on the trip up to central IL.
 
2009-03-04 04:36:05 PM
jasonmicron: I bet the guy goes to the Church in Houston that just finished building this off of I-45:

That's all I need to convince me that Jesus is the way: A big-ass cross.

\Or big ass-cross
 
2009-03-04 04:46:12 PM
It's just another way to stick it to you financially for doing something some people deem unfit. No more retarded than those alcohol awareness classes one has to take after a DUI. Or the traffic school some states require after you get a speeding ticket. Or the most retarded of all, sensitivity training.
 
2009-03-04 04:46:49 PM
I have to say, I'm probably crazy, but I don't see why this is so bad.

I admit, its an infringement on personal choice. I admit, its probably stupid and won't help much.
But I don't see it as wholly bad

FTA: "A bill filed in the Texas House would require married couples with children seeking a no fault divorce to take the 10-hour class."

Okay, MAYBE taking this 10 hour class will at LEAST help parents have a more amicable divorce and post-divorce.
I'm sorry, but I think this is at least worth trying.
 
2009-03-04 04:46:58 PM
BobtheFascist: It's just another way to stick it to you financially for doing something some people deem unfit. No more retarded than those alcohol awareness classes one has to take after a DUI. Or the traffic school some states require after you get a speeding ticket. Or the most retarded of all, sensitivity training.

Except that it means poor people can't get divorces.
 
2009-03-04 04:47:56 PM
This is the real defense of marriage. Or the first step, anyway. Step two is where we let the judge decide whether or not you can divorce.
 
2009-03-04 04:48:37 PM
Katie98_KT: Okay, MAYBE taking this 10 hour class will at LEAST help parents have a more amicable divorce and post-divorce.
I'm sorry, but I think this is at least worth trying.


Unless you have someone who wants a divorce but can't afford the classes. I mean, it's one thing to mandate the classes. It's another to make people pay for them.
 
2009-03-04 04:51:15 PM
The Icelander: Unless you have someone who wants a divorce but can't afford the classes. I mean, it's one thing to mandate the classes. It's another to make people pay for them.

Then just go to the next state and take care of it there.
 
2009-03-04 04:53:50 PM
What they really should do is make people take this class before they get married.

/divorced
//it was a giant, expensive PITA but sooooooo worth it
 
2009-03-04 04:53:58 PM
Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Then just go to the next state and take care of it there.

Even so, poor people don't generally have the means to take off work and drive to another state.

And I certainly hope this bill has provisions for victims of abuse. It would suck if you forced a woman to pay to go to counseling with her abuser so that she could divorce him.

Really want to end divorce? Raise wages and stop the stigma against sex outside of marriage.
 
2009-03-04 04:54:01 PM
Katie98_KT: Okay, MAYBE taking this 10 hour class will at LEAST help parents have a more amicable divorce and post-divorce.
I'm sorry, but I think this is at least worth trying.


It's the no-fault issue here.. People who do that typically have all the issues worked out ahead of time and don't need hours and hours of either classroom or legal counsel to protect their interests from an asshole spouse.

I suspect many of these "classroom" entities are funded by divorce lawyers who are upset that sane, rational people who can come to an amicable decision about their futures have cut into their revenue stream.
 
2009-03-04 05:02:49 PM
lajimi: Another fine idea from the people who run the State of Taxus.

Got that one bass-ackwards, chief. Texas may be run by fundy Baptist loons and crooked politicians, but they do love to keep their taxes low. No state income tax.

SpinStopper: Meh. Just don't get married in the first place ;)

Yep, just one more fine reason to enjoy being with your significant other without going through all the legal BS.
 
2009-03-04 05:05:23 PM
Katie98_KT: I have to say, I'm probably crazy, but I don't see why this is so bad.

I admit, its an infringement on personal choice. I admit, its probably stupid and won't help much.
But I don't see it as wholly bad

FTA: "A bill filed in the Texas House would require married couples with children seeking a no fault divorce to take the 10-hour class."

Okay, MAYBE taking this 10 hour class will at LEAST help parents have a more amicable divorce and post-divorce.
I'm sorry, but I think this is at least worth trying.


I agree.. but then make the class free.
 
2009-03-04 05:06:34 PM
Katie98_KT: I don't see why this is so bad.

Simple. I make 15k a year. That means even if I had a wife willing to go 50/50 with me, this would financially crush me, especially if it were a no-fault where we were amicably dealing with the situation just because some conservative christian thinks all marriage is sacred which is against my beliefs.
 
2009-03-04 05:09:58 PM
The Icelander: Unless you have someone who wants a divorce but can't afford the classes. I mean, it's one thing to mandate the classes. It's another to make people pay for them.

eh, I have a feeling the article overstates the cost. it says the classes could cost as much as $200 an hour. I'm pretty sure you could find something for $50-$150. I admit, still not free, but yea.

markie_farkie: It's the no-fault issue here.. People who do that typically have all the issues worked out ahead of time and don't need hours and hours of either classroom or legal counsel to protect their interests from an asshole spouse.

no-fault means different things in different-states. It doesn't necessarily mean that all the issues are worked out.
From wikipedia: "Prior to the no-fault divorce revolution, a divorce could be obtained only through a showing of fault of one of the parties in a marriage. This was something more than not loving one another; it meant that one spouse had to plead that the other had committed adultery, abandonment, felony, or other similarly culpable acts."
No-fault CAN simply mean that the parties aren't required to prove that someone did something wrong. Simply that they want to get divorced.
 
2009-03-04 05:11:04 PM
I love my state, but can I please be allowed to hunt in the State House.



Eddie_Dean_NY: crooked politicians

Not so much really...

But will agree on the babtist loons.
 
2009-03-04 05:11:36 PM
The Icelander: And I certainly hope this bill has provisions for victims of abuse. It would suck if you forced a woman to pay to go to counseling with her abuser so that she could divorce him.

btw, the article specifically mentions that there is.
 
2009-03-04 05:13:10 PM
Gotta love that "small government" GOP.
 
2009-03-04 05:17:28 PM
Lionel Mandrake: Gotta love that "small government" GOP.

Common misconception. The GOP isn't for smaller government, it is for smaller federal government, aka more state's rights.

Though with Bush... Hmm...
 
2009-03-04 05:18:45 PM
Ah, another intrusive bill from the party that supposedly wants to keep the government off your back.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2009-03-04 05:20:16 PM
And I certainly hope this bill has provisions for victims of abuse.

This is about no-fault divorce. Adultery, abuse, abandonment, etc. are causes for divorce. "We don't want to be married" is not so you need the no-fault kind. Also, the law only applies to families with children.

Divorce should be hard, and there should be a waiting period before remarriage, and a longer waiting period before a second remarriage. Put another way, if you are going to ask the state for the benefits of marriage you need to show that you take it seriously.
 
2009-03-04 05:25:16 PM
The Icelander: stop the stigma against sex outside of marriage

Good luck on that one. If you've got an open Larry Flynt-style relationship, more power to you. If not, let me know how it goes if the little lady ever decides she needs some variety.
 
2009-03-04 05:29:40 PM
baka-san: Eddie_Dean_NY: crooked politicians

Not so much really...


You might be the 1st person since 1822 to say Texas isn't run by crooked politicians.
 
2009-03-04 05:33:34 PM
patrick767: Ah, another intrusive bill from the party that supposedly wants to keep the government off your back.


Well said. Government has no role in legislating social issues. Period.
 
2009-03-04 05:34:53 PM
BobtheFascist: The Icelander: stop the stigma against sex outside of marriage

Ya know, I may have mistook what you were getting at there. Did you mean sex outside of an existing marriage or sex before marriage?

If it was the previous, then my statement stands. If it was the latter, well, there are some rather prudish folks out there. But, I'm pretty sure most people believe in a test drive before marriage.
 
2009-03-04 05:53:10 PM
jasonmicron: Common misconception. The GOP isn't for smaller government, it is for smaller federal government, aka more state's rights.

Fair enough...I should of worded it more like patrick767 in the post following yours.
 
2009-03-04 06:30:27 PM
If they're looking to protect marriage, they should require mandatory couples counseling BEFORE marriage. Make sure a couple will do well together; don't force them to stay together when things go awry.
 
2009-03-04 06:30:34 PM
long overdue
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2009-03-04 07:11:35 PM
If they're looking to protect marriage, they should require mandatory couples counseling BEFORE marriage.

Didn't Louisiana try that?

BTW, "no fault" divorce is mostly modern. In the old days you had to prove adultery, abandonment, etc. In Victorian England divorced men were often socially ruined. Divorce was hard to get. If she successfully divorced you against your will it meant you were so abusive, overtly promiscuous, or whatever that even the pro-male system had to admit you were a loser.
 
2009-03-04 07:28:26 PM
how about mandatory "marriage often sucks......learn to grow up and deal with it" classes instead
 
2009-03-04 07:29:10 PM
Just make 'em all appear on the reality divorce show.
 
2009-03-04 07:30:49 PM
farm4.static.flickr.com

And an idea that Fark should implement:

farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2009-03-04 07:31:44 PM
O'er the laaaaand of the feeeeeee....
 
2009-03-04 07:32:35 PM
Getting ready to watch the Naive Farker Anal Rape Parade. Popcorn, anyone?

/Katie98
 
2009-03-04 07:32:58 PM
Say this every defense of marriage type thread:
The knaves to realize, the problem isn't that it's too easy to get divorced. The problem is that it's too easy to get married.
 
2009-03-04 07:34:00 PM
This has nothing to do with keeping families together. This is all about one more way the government can make money for doing nothing.
 
2009-03-04 07:34:49 PM
You want to know what's wrong with this?

Let's say you're in abusive marriage. You want to leave, but the state says you can't unless you attend a class with your abusive spouse, and pay for it, before you can get out.

Bad idea. It essentially punishes people for seeking to get out of a bad situation. This is why Texas sucks.
 
2009-03-04 07:34:50 PM
This will make the divorce sicilian style much more popular.
 
2009-03-04 07:34:56 PM
DOES NOT APPROVE:
www.artsales.com
 
2009-03-04 07:35:34 PM
as someone who married a girl 5 weeks after meeting her, stayed with her for six years, and is currently going through a divorce, i'm really getting a kick...
 
2009-03-04 07:35:39 PM
Marriage isn't supposed to be a union of convenience. It's supposed to be a commitment. No fault divorces have turned it into a joke. Quick divorces are used by people to weak to deal with family issues.

Sure, if your spouse is cheating on you, I'd say that's a good reason. Your husband leaves his dirty socks on the floor or your wife is a crappy cook? Nope. Deal with it.

I'm not some right-wing religious fanatic. I'm completely non-religious and definitely not a republican. However, mandatory counseling before granting a divorce seems like a damn fine idea to me.
 
2009-03-04 07:35:39 PM
So next time, instead of it costing me $20,000+ to get rid of her it's now going to cost me over 22K. Worth every f**king dime.
 
2009-03-04 07:39:17 PM
Christ, I love Texas but I hate our jackass Jesus freaks that care too much about some other person's personal life.
 
hej
2009-03-04 07:40:14 PM
So I guess it would be cheaper to go get divorced in another state.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report