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.

(AL.com)   Alabama considers "covenant marriage" bill, which would make divorce attainable only with counseling under very limited circumstances   (blog.al.com) divider line 248
    More: Asinine, covenants, Alabama, Alabama Legislature, austerities, same-sex relationship, Ex-wife  
•       •       •

9500 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2012 at 11:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-16 12:04:26 AM  
FTFA: If passed into law, the bill would limit the circumstances in which married couples could seek divorce. Those include:
- One spouse has committed adultery
- A spouse abandons the shared home and refuses to return for at least one year
- The other spouse physically, emotionally or sexually abuses the spouse seeking divorce or one of the couple's children
- The spouses have been living apart for at least two years


So if you ordinarily would have just filed for no-fault divorce, now you're encouraged to commit adultery or abandon your spouse with no support for a year, or physically/emotionally/or sexually abuse your spouse, or leave your spouse with no support for two years.

(I'm not really sure why they offer leaving your spouse without support for one year AND offer leaving your spouse without support for two years, but whatever.)

If you're looking for the fastest divorce, it looks like you should go with adultery or abusing your spouse in one or more of several interesting ways. NICE.
 
2012-04-16 12:06:16 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: Can't they just make marriage illegal and be done with it?


I'd be happy if the government got out of the marriage business altogether.
 
2012-04-16 12:06:35 AM  

PsiChick: DamnYankees: rynthetyn: And given how hard it is to prove abuse, particularly psychological abuse that hasn't yet gotten physical, it's definitely going to wind up being used to keep abused women in unsafe marriages.

I literally cant think of any other use for this law.

I can. Theocracy.


Its hillaroius if you look at it over a 10 year context. Terrorist want a fundamentalist theocratic America. 9/11 clusterfark happens. Republicans gain 51% control of the country. Now were turning into a theocracy!

Remember, we ASKED for this. Well not we maybe them, and by them I mean republicans, and by republicans I mean fark this I'll be moving to canada.
 
2012-04-16 12:06:52 AM  

ArkAngel: DamnYankees: ArkAngel: Considering it's entirely optional, I don't see the problem

Why would you need a law for this? If you don't want to divorce unless its under very limited circumstances, just dont divorce unless its under very limited circumstances

The state has a reasonable interest in promoting marriage.


Why?
 
2012-04-16 12:07:06 AM  
Well, everybody keeps saying that if the right really were concerned about defending marriage that they should work on outlawing divorce, not gay marriage. Whupps.
 
2012-04-16 12:07:15 AM  
Serious question time. Have the Republicans authored or introduced even one jobs bill within the past year? Difficulty: Tax cuts for the super-wealthy do not count as jobs bills.
 
2012-04-16 12:08:08 AM  

ArkAngel: The state has a reasonable interest in promoting marriage.


I've looked all through the Constitution and I don't see anything at all about the government taking an interest in marriage. Care to point me in the right direction?
 
2012-04-16 12:08:26 AM  

How 21st Century Republicans view America:

i43.tinypic.com


Link (new window)
 
2012-04-16 12:08:43 AM  

2wolves: Once he got out of 'Bama swore that he'd rather pimp dogs out to the Klan than ever go back


Is there good money in this?
 
2012-04-16 12:09:24 AM  
I hope they don't make divorce illegal. In the past, that's been shown to lead to Rick Wakeman albums.
 
2012-04-16 12:09:53 AM  

casual disregard: I say let Alabama do whatever it wants in its own territory so long as it doesn't affect me and so long as it doesn't violate any Federal law. I'm not in danger of living in Alabama any time soon, so I'm not that concerned. As for anyone who is about to be born in Alabama? It's farking Alabama, they already have no chance as is. Whether it becomes law or not, anyone born in Alabama is almost guaranteed to be subhuman regardless of intervention, so why bother?


Like, say....oh, I don't know, 3/5ths?
 
2012-04-16 12:10:07 AM  

Bugsi: So if you ordinarily would have just filed for no-fault divorce, now you're encouraged to commit adultery or abandon your spouse with no support for a year, or physically/emotionally/or sexually abuse your spouse, or leave your spouse with no support for two years.


Pretty sure you cant demand the divorce if you're the one who's at fault.
 
2012-04-16 12:11:09 AM  

ArkAngel: Considering it's entirely optional, I don't see the problem


Because the law tries to limit how much of your rights you can "sign away". Certain rights are supposed to be INALIENABLE, they cannot be taken away. For example, a credit card application might have a term that says you can be taken into slavery if you don't pay. Sent to a coal mine or sold off to a mercenary force as cannon fodder. Wait- no, there is no legal way to OWN a person, even if they do sign it. If it were possible, not only would too many people make that mistake, but it can become so commonplace it could be a boilerplate term you don't expect to get used. Then they use it.

rubi_con_man: You know what? I kinda think this is a good idea, but let's do it the right way :

1. Require a 60 day waiting period on all marriages

2. Require at least a half-dozen free pre-marriage counselling classes

3. Require that women be of childbearing age, and men have a viable sperm count

4. Require that they sign an affadavid of perparation for parenthood.

5. Make adultery a felony.


t1.gstatic.com

We could just return to the "stoning" institution, as the Founding Fathers intended.
 
2012-04-16 12:12:03 AM  
FTFA: If passed into law, the bill would limit the circumstances in which married couples could seek divorce.

Why is this law needed? Is there some kind of bonus added to my score if I choose this? A trophy?


// a different color explosion?
 
2012-04-16 12:14:29 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: I've looked all through the Constitution and I don't see anything at all about the government taking an interest in marriage. Care to point me in the right direction?


The government doesn't need the Constitution to encourage it's citizens to do something; where does it say anything about writing off the interest on your mortgage? It doesn't because the government is direct policy to encourage a behavior. If you encourage marriage you're supporting an apparently or inherently healthier way of producing offspring which leads to more citizens to work and defend the country.

/That's the theory anyway I'd say
 
2012-04-16 12:14:32 AM  
Just another sneaky way to try and take away women's rights. The problem the fundies have is that when they are assholes, their wives will leave them. So you get something like this. The church, family, etc then puts heavy pressure on the woman to accept a covenant marriage because it is the only "real marriage" and "what god wants," and all that shiat. Then, once in it, it is hard for them to get out. Turns out their husband is a worthless asshole they can't stand, too bad, that's not a reason to leave a covenant marriage.

Not saying it'll be all that effective, but then one never gave them a lot of points for brains.
 
2012-04-16 12:16:27 AM  

Counter_Intelligent: FTFA: If passed into law, the bill would limit the circumstances in which married couples could seek divorce.

Why is this law needed? Is there some kind of bonus added to my score if I choose this? A trophy?

// a different color explosion?


I think it unlocks an achievement.
 
2012-04-16 12:19:57 AM  
'till death do us part...
 
2012-04-16 12:21:07 AM  

FSTFKL: Couples tend to pool resources and have children.


I agree there are some privileges you cannot establish with contract law. It's not clear to me exactly what those have to do with coupling behavior; why am I not free to grant those privileges to any person who agrees to receive them? I'd suggest all such privileges should either be removed entirely (tax benefits) or at least optionally separated from marriage, even if you think marriage itself was a good idea. Think 401(k) beneficiary designation -- it's assumed to be your spouse, but with your spouse's consent you can grant that privilege to another party.

I'd support an easier way to form the contracts that marriage simulates, just like states have already done in other areas like real property sales. I agree that actually forming and maintaing all the contracts required to enact the benefits of marriage is complicated, but that's an argument for a simplified process, and I don't see a reason for that process to require marriage.

Pooling resources seems like a weak interest. Registered property, bank accounts, credit, etc. all have systems that allow arbitrary sharing of responsibility without marriage. So it's really just a forced pooling of income -- something that could be easily accomplished with a standardized contract (if that's really a goal people have), and something in which I see little state interest, as the state doesn't care about your unregistered property (if they did they'd make you register it).

The responsibility for children thing is simply false. Failing to marry a child's mother does not relieve the father of responsibility. Likewise marrying a child's father does not grant a step-mother any rights with respect to the child.
 
2012-04-16 12:23:11 AM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: The government doesn't need the Constitution to encourage it's citizens to do something


I guess we're about to find out, in any case.
 
2012-04-16 12:23:40 AM  

ZAZ: It also limits the reasons for which married couples can divorce.

That used to be the rule. In 2010 New York was the last state to switch to no-fault divorce.

Nevada offered no-fault divorce since at least the mid-20th century, but states are not obliged to respect Nevada divorces if neither spouse is a Nevada resident, and Nevada courts can not make an enforceable award of alimony if only one spouse takes up residence there.


No-fault divorce wasn't really about removing reasons to allow divorce, but was rather an attempt to clear out all the backlog of court cases related to divorce settlements.

No-fault divorce is really sucky though -- in the old days if your wife cheated, or a husband was abusive, it affected the divorce settlement. Now with the law the way it is, a guy who worked for me's wife cheated with his teenaged son's friend then she filed for divorce, got half of everything, and he had to leave the family house!

At some point I feel that divorce SHOULD be treated as a breach of contract. Not due to conservative family values, but simply because it is an agreement with significant monetary consequences. Divorce isn't always really "no fault" -- sometimes there is a lot of fault.
 
2012-04-16 12:26:23 AM  

ZAZ: Nevada offered no-fault divorce since at least the mid-20th century, but states are not obliged to respect Nevada divorces if neither spouse is a Nevada resident, and Nevada courts can not make an enforceable award of alimony if only one spouse takes up residence there.


That's one of the reasons Vegas started attracting Hollywood stars back in the day. Nevada was one fot the first states to have no-fault divorce, so the stars would go to Vegas for 6 weeks till the divorce went through, and then they'd go back to Hollywood.
 
2012-04-16 12:28:16 AM  
You know why divorce is so expensive?
Because it's worth it.

Maybe I'm just shallow but I've never once had desire to marry. So I never did.
Love my lady.
Loved a few before her.
Live long enough and things change. Not always for the better.


Marriage seems like useless ceremony and a superficial social recognition designed to complicate life.
 
2012-04-16 12:29:28 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-16 12:30:15 AM  

orclover: PsiChick: DamnYankees: rynthetyn: And given how hard it is to prove abuse, particularly psychological abuse that hasn't yet gotten physical, it's definitely going to wind up being used to keep abused women in unsafe marriages.

I literally cant think of any other use for this law.

I can. Theocracy.

Its hillaroius if you look at it over a 10 year context. Terrorist want a fundamentalist theocratic America. 9/11 clusterfark happens. Republicans gain 51% control of the country. Now were turning into a theocracy!

Remember, we ASKED for this. Well not we maybe them, and by them I mean republicans, and by republicans I mean fark this I'll be moving to canada.


Gods, it disturbs the hell out of me. This is reality. It shouldn't look like a comic book.
 
2012-04-16 12:30:27 AM  
Alabama, convenient marriage. Strange things come to mind . . .
 
2012-04-16 12:31:06 AM  
one thing is for sure. divorce and broken families is a huge problem in our country. it is a problem because families are the unit that creates human capital and broken families have a much more difficult time creating that human capital. considering the fact that husbands and fathers generally get horribly screwed in family court, and the fact that between 80-90 percent of divorces are initiated by the wife, i dont have a problem with this at all.
 
2012-04-16 12:34:04 AM  

PsiChick: orclover: PsiChick: DamnYankees: rynthetyn:
Gods, it disturbs the hell out of me. This is reality. It shouldn't look like a comic book.


We should at least have superpowers, or at least I should fark everybody else.

Is there any chance of this even passing? or are the gop just trolling the dems again?
 
2012-04-16 12:34:07 AM  

wejash: ArkAngel: Considering it's entirely optional, I don't see the problem

The problem is that this can become the default form of marriage because, well, why WOULD you choose the "not really married" option when you can be "really committed?"

It's a way of repealing no fault divorce without saying so.

The state should register marriages and divorces, it should make sure kids are cared for by their parents. But beyond that the gov't shouldn't go.


I was under the impression marriage was a religious belief....so in none of that should the gov't go. This country punishes people for not getting married and it's ridiculous, it's none of their concern or business.
 
2012-04-16 12:35:22 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Why are conservative Christians so determined to use levers of the government to enforce their own personal faiths? Covenant marriage is even weirder than most of their religious cretinism; I genuinely can't understand why they're so gung ho about getting the government's permission to marry and divorce?


Because they organized fund raisers for their politician(s), walked for them to pass out media to party voters, went to the homes of the mail in ballot voters (which is most likely the elderly) and mailed in their ballots, went out and voted at the polling place and got other members of the party to go to, and their candidate won. Now the candidate is doing what their voters are asking them to do.

Why you ask? Because most likely the rest for whatever reason most who could have voted didn't go out and use their voting power to stop them. So now the rest of us are paying the price of "Social Conservative views" that we don't agree on. Will it get people out to vote in 2010? Who Knows?
 
2012-04-16 12:36:17 AM  
I'm already amazed at how difficult it is to divorce, when marriage is freely and unconditionally legally recognized immediately.

Technically, any unrelated, unmarried male/female couple can get married in minutes. County clerk and less than $100 will do it. No significant questions or anything. They may ask if you're doing it to defraud immigration, but there's no counseling classes, you don't need a lawyer. It's just "done", on demand.

Divorce, conversely, is a wildly complicated process. It can take many months, even years, it's expensive, even when both parties have already decided who gets what. Let alone what happens when one party wants to get divorced but the other doesn't for whatever reason, even if they don't live together anymore. I never had to do that, I never got married, but it boggles my mind when people talk about getting divorced and it's an ongoing, like YEARLONG quest.

I suppose part of the reason is that the govt bases a LOT of law on legal marriage. Taxes, can't be compelled to testify against spouse in court, immigration sponsorship. And insurance, too. They don't want rules being exploited by making yourself married when it suits you and divorced when it doesn't. Still, strange that they put all the burden on dissolving a marriage.
 
2012-04-16 12:38:08 AM  
Brought to you by the political party for smaller government.

- Rolling on floor laughing my ass off.
 
2012-04-16 12:38:12 AM  
Look, just because you hate eachother is no reason to get a divorce. It's much more important that a child grow up with the right number of parents; two, than the child grow up in a loving home or has parents with a healthy relationship.
 
2012-04-16 12:39:17 AM  
What's wrong with just allowing marriages and divorces?

People change, minds change.
 
2012-04-16 12:39:22 AM  

ZAZ: It also limits the reasons for which married couples can divorce.

That used to be the rule. In 2010 New York was the last state to switch to no-fault divorce.

Nevada offered no-fault divorce since at least the mid-20th century, but states are not obliged to respect Nevada divorces if neither spouse is a Nevada resident, and Nevada courts can not make an enforceable award of alimony if only one spouse takes up residence there.


If neither spouse can show prove residency, the court would simply not have jurisdictions and procedurally, no decrees would ever be reached by a court in that state,
 
2012-04-16 12:40:08 AM  

Oznog: I suppose part of the reason is that the govt bases a LOT of law on legal marriage. Taxes, can't be compelled to testify against spouse in court, immigration sponsorship. And insurance, too. They don't want rules being exploited by making yourself married when it suits you and divorced when it doesn't. Still, strange that they put all the burden on dissolving a marriage.


You forgot to add the crotch fruit.
 
2012-04-16 12:41:05 AM  

skinink: I read the comments, and I'm still confused why gay/lesbians want the right to marry aside from the social benefits.


Simple. People generally want to marry because they love each other. Gender has nothing to do with it aside from determining personal attraction.

TofuTheAlmighty: Why are conservative Christians so determined to use levers of the government to enforce their own personal faiths?


This is also simple. They believe that their views are objectively good and any others are objectively evil. They want their government and society to be good so they are trying to force it to become so.
 
2012-04-16 12:42:32 AM  

Oznog: I'm already amazed at how difficult it is to divorce, when marriage is freely and unconditionally legally recognized immediately.

Technically, any unrelated, unmarried male/female couple can get married in minutes. County clerk and less than $100 will do it. No significant questions or anything. They may ask if you're doing it to defraud immigration, but there's no counseling classes, you don't need a lawyer. It's just "done", on demand.

Divorce, conversely, is a wildly complicated process. It can take many months, even years, it's expensive, even when both parties have already decided who gets what. Let alone what happens when one party wants to get divorced but the other doesn't for whatever reason, even if they don't live together anymore. I never had to do that, I never got married, but it boggles my mind when people talk about getting divorced and it's an ongoing, like YEARLONG quest.

I suppose part of the reason is that the govt bases a LOT of law on legal marriage. Taxes, can't be compelled to testify against spouse in court, immigration sponsorship. And insurance, too. They don't want rules being exploited by making yourself married when it suits you and divorced when it doesn't. Still, strange that they put all the burden on dissolving a marriage.


There's more involved in divorce because it entailes children and houses and a great deal of wealth.
 
2012-04-16 12:45:54 AM  
Well, at least it's 100% optional.

Him: Honey, I love you. Will you marry me?

Her: Yes, I will. I love you so much, I think we should get opt in for the covenent marriage. You know, to show our friends and family that our love will endure forever. Do you feel that way too, dear?

Him: .... Um, huh, I... um....
 
2012-04-16 12:46:17 AM  

FormlessOne: I just want to know what in the hell an "affadavid" is, honestly. What, do all men named David in the state of Alabama now claim prima noctis, so everyone else is "after David?"


Woooeee! We gon' get hitched and then I gets to bareback Eileen affa David!
 
2012-04-16 12:49:30 AM  
You can take a pill for prima noctis now.
 
2012-04-16 12:51:16 AM  

DamnYankees: Pretty sure you cant demand the divorce if you're the one who's at fault.


That's even worse. It encourages you to keep beating your spouse until they file for divorce.

/No fault divorce FTW.
 
2012-04-16 12:51:45 AM  

orclover: PsiChick: orclover: PsiChick: DamnYankees: rynthetyn:
Gods, it disturbs the hell out of me. This is reality. It shouldn't look like a comic book.

We should at least have superpowers, or at least I should fark everybody else.

Is there any chance of this even passing? or are the gop just trolling the dems again?


It's Arizona. Of course it'll pass.

/Also, I call the hypnotic powers.
 
2012-04-16 12:52:35 AM  

DamnYankees: ArkAngel: DamnYankees: ArkAngel: Considering it's entirely optional, I don't see the problem

Why would you need a law for this? If you don't want to divorce unless its under very limited circumstances, just dont divorce unless its under very limited circumstances

The state has a reasonable interest in promoting marriage.

But you said its optional. So how does this make any sense.


step 1) make it optional
step 2) outlaw the other type of marriage
step 3) profit
 
2012-04-16 12:55:41 AM  

profplump: FSTFKL: Couples tend to pool resources and have children.

I agree there are some privileges you cannot establish with contract law. It's not clear to me exactly what those have to do with coupling behavior; why am I not free to grant those privileges to any person who agrees to receive them? I'd suggest all such privileges should either be removed entirely (tax benefits) or at least optionally separated from marriage, even if you think marriage itself was a good idea. Think 401(k) beneficiary designation -- it's assumed to be your spouse, but with your spouse's consent you can grant that privilege to another party.

I'd support an easier way to form the contracts that marriage simulates, just like states have already done in other areas like real property sales. I agree that actually forming and maintaing all the contracts required to enact the benefits of marriage is complicated, but that's an argument for a simplified process, and I don't see a reason for that process to require marriage.

Pooling resources seems like a weak interest. Registered property, bank accounts, credit, etc. all have systems that allow arbitrary sharing of responsibility without marriage. So it's really just a forced pooling of income -- something that could be easily accomplished with a standardized contract (if that's really a goal people have), and something in which I see little state interest, as the state doesn't care about your unregistered property (if they did they'd make you register it).

The responsibility for children thing is simply false. Failing to marry a child's mother does not relieve the father of responsibility. Likewise marrying a child's father does not grant a step-mother any rights with respect to the child.


You don't seem to be disagreeing with what I explained-- the state wants to keep track of who owns what. As you noted, the "marriage" situation would be difficult to duplicate by contract alone. That is part of the reason we have laws explaining what happens to people's property if they die without leaving a will or if the will that they leave is invalid for some reason.

Anyway, the question that was asked, was *why* does the state get involved in marriage, not *should* the state get involved in marriage.
 
2012-04-16 12:57:51 AM  
I call this the "Someone's running on family values" maneuver.

Look good. Change nothing. Run for office. Profit.
 
2012-04-16 12:58:11 AM  

NewportBarGuy: How 21st Century Republicans view America:

[i43.tinypic.com image 640x480]

Link (new window)


Weren't Ma and Pa brother and sister?
 
2012-04-16 12:58:20 AM  

KidneyStone: BuckTurgidson: Alabama?

Who the f*ck cares what local damage their self-selected retardislators inflict on their ign'nt sorry slack-jawed drooling selves? It's not like their executive has the remotest hope of competently carrying it out, or their judiciary of being able to - literally - read it.

That's pretty racist considering Alabama has over twice the national percentage of African Americans.


Alabama's white population is about 74%.

Alabama's state house is about 75% white-dominated, their state senate about 80% white-dominated. 100% of their Republican state legislators are white. 96% of their white state legislators are Republican.

So, I suppose it's the fault of Alabama's negroes that this sort of practical problem-solving non-divisive job-creating legislation reaches fulfillment in the Alabama state house.
 
2012-04-16 12:59:34 AM  
As it should be. No man can rip asunder etc.. etc..

Look people, God created 432 trillion humans and 60 trillion stars (or star-like heavenly bodies) over 40 million billion years ago. The goal of the creation was to achieve higher harmony.

To achieve Trinity (as mentioned by Jesus), God and all other gods (except eleven gods mentioned below) were born into this Earth for many times. They did not go about telling people they were gods. Many times they themselves did not know they were gods on Earth.

God spent trillions of years for achieving Trinity. About 30 years ago, Trinity was achieved. So, the Heaven has been full of joy. With Trinity, God's punishments are much swifter than before. Another benefit of Trinity is that human sins can be seen by sinners and others in public places rather than hidden from the public. Before Trinity, sins were often covered up in public places.

People cannot distinguish God (the Creator of Heaven and this physical universe) from the Father of the Creator. In the past when I said God , I sometimes actually meant the Father of God, for the latter was never mentioned in history. Both God and His Father are great. The Father of God has eleven companions who has never been born to any physical world. They are never mentioned in history.

Humans do not know the Father of God when we are awake. But when are asleep, we go to Heaven every night and we know Him. We simply forget what we know in our sleep, just as we forget our lives in Heaven (before we were born). Trust me, every devil knows who is the Father of God.

When we go to sleep every night, we go to Heaven to drink energy
provided by God. That's the normal condition, but some people go to their friends in hell and drink the energy of God in hell. All humans, no matter in hell or on heaven or in this universe, need the energy of God every so often. This point is obvious to every person in hell or on Heaven. But many people there, as on Earth, are still ungrateful to God most of the time.

The souls of other animals do not need to go back to Heaven to drink God's energy. That's why other animals are more alert in sleep than humans in sleep. That's why humans die within 7 to 8 days if they do not go back to Heaven/Hell to drink God's energy in 7 or 8 days. That's why we feel energetic in the morning even though we may not yet have breakfast in the morning.
 
2012-04-16 01:00:47 AM  
The very sad thing is these people think they are protecting marriage. Marriage as a religious institution should be strictly between the two parties and their deity. Marriage as it is currently done is a legal function that replaces the deity with government. Currently government steps in to play counterfeit messiah, and that which it has created it may dissolve.

If you want to save marriage go to the source of the problem, don't manage the symptoms. End marriage licenses altogether.
 
Displayed 50 of 248 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report