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.

It's not the states job to promote anything

ununcle: 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.

I should have clarified, assuming that children are not involved, and issues of who-owns-what are settled. Keep in mind plenty of people who get divorced don't have a pot to piss in, tending to make someone less satisfied with their situation, so that's possible. Although that often means that there's debts, and you end up in the opposite case, trying to decide who owes what. Creditors are then involved, because they don't want to see any debt handed off to someone likely to call bankruptcy. In fact it would make sense to borrow heavily, divorce "on paper", leaving one party with no assets and all the debt, who then declares bankruptcy but stays living with their former spouse like nothing happened.

MrEricSir: ZAZ: Nevada offered no-fault divorce since at least the mid-20th century...

This is only news to all 3 Farkers who don't watch Mad Men.

Nope, sorry but I knew it, and have only seen 15 minutes of Mad Men.

/Used to watch the series, Las Vegas, though, so perhaps that disqualifies me.

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.

You caught a lot of people with this! Congrats!

And the Southern States continue to drag themselves back to the turn of the century and earlier...
Th' Gory of GAAAAAHD!
PRayeeeez th' LAWD.
Fam'lee Valyers!

The rest of the world laughs and points their collective fingers at the silly country bumpkins.

AirForceVet: aiiee: Too late for my kids but it really is needed

FTA: 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

I really don't concur with you and this law.

I prefer no-fault because who wants to live with a spouse who's become an asshat? This time requirement also screws kids of divorcing couples as no child support will be awarded for one to two years plus how long it takes to get the divorce finalized.

Alabama seems to have a pattern of treating divorcing women badly. I've heard nothing pleasant from women I've met who divorced in Alabama. While I didn't like my divorce settlement in Florida, it's far better there for women who divorce than in AL.

So you've never heard of temporary support?

Find some better facts or another topic to whine about and come back and see us.

It's like an insurance policy with a HUGE deductible.

Freedom loving republicans.

\contradiction in terms

Minimally Hairy Beer-Powered Simian: Freedom loving republicans.

\contradiction in terms


What a freedom loving republican wants everyone else to look like.

12349876: Somacandra: FTFA: Birmingham Democrat Rep. Patricia Todd pondered whether it was something the Alabama Legislature really needed to address while facing drastic budget cuts..Todd, the only openly-gay lawmaker in the state Legislature, said she would offer an amendment to allow same-sex couples to enter into the same deal if the bill made it to the House.

Uh, isn't the really big news here ---> Alabama has an openly gay state legislator?

Cities in the south are more Progressive than Yankees think. Lexington Kentucky has an openly gay mayor and circuit court judge who previously won reelection to the state senate after coming out.

Yes, it is the countryside and small towns that are batshiat full of fundies and conservative crazy types. That's how it is here in NC anyway.

As for this bill in AL, I don't see it doing anything but giving fundies a way to artificially strengthen their marriage vows. What's the point, though? If they aren't morally strong enough to keep a marriage going on their own, do they think this kind of procedure will force them to stay in a marriage anyway? Sounds like some weak-willed people want the government telling them if they can or can't get divorced. Let the rest of us work it out on our own or go our seperate ways if it doesn't.

Sabyen91: Nabb1: FlashHarry: GAT_00: And suddenly, thousands of jobs appeared!

done in two.

That's the dumbest response I think anyone could have come up with to this issue. It's just an option for marriage if both people agree to it. It's really none of your business if two adults decide to do this. We've had it in Louisiana for over a decade. DuHURRRR JORBS DURHHHYUYRYRR.

Sounds like Sharia law.

Everything that these goons are obsessed with has its equivalent in Sharia law. That's why they're so terrified of it - competition.

This is what happens when you give one group of men so much power. Alabama has no checks and balances.

Am I the only person who sees the perverse incentives of this law on spouses in a "covenant" marriage who for whatever reason want a divorce?

"Guess I've either gotta cheat on her, abandon her, or abuse her. Hmm."

Eh. Whatever they want. It's Alabama, the Special Olympics of statecraft.

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.

Supposedly we are being compelled against our will to buy health insurance to lower the cost of uninsured people getting treated at hospitals. Why not remove divorce to lower the cost of child protective services, judges, etc.

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.

So we should regulate guns to death, but not marriage?

2wolves: jeanwearinfool: 2wolves: Gwendolyn: 2wolves: "I don't recall how his/her head popped off." -Spouse driven over the edge.

Yeah in my first marriage it was either divorce or one of us wasn't getting out alive.

As someone about to graduate with an clinical MSW I can see how this might be good for business but then I would have to live in Alabama.

An acquaintance, who was a former lover of my second wife, got his PhD while in Alabama. Chaos Theory, applied to tornadoes and risk versus reward studies. Nice guy. Once he got out of 'Bama swore that he'd rather pimp dogs out to the Klan than ever go back.

Every time I see you post I'm reminded of something my father once told me. "It's better to be quiet and let people assume you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Nice to know I'm famous in Klan circles.

There it is again.

This will increase the murder rate among participants, if history is any guide.

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.

Seeing as this increases the obnoxiousness related to getting a divorce should a marriage fall through, it would seem that this would discourage reasonable people with the ability to plan ahead for eventualities from ever getting married.

I'm ok with this. America doesn't have a gay marriage problem, we have a straight divorce problem.

GAT_00: And suddenly, thousands of jobs appeared!

Hey, now, we don't need to create any jobs; the only reason people are out of work at this point is because they're too lazy to work. If we learned anything from Republicans in the wake of Occupy Wall Street and the attempt to extend unemployment benefits, it was that.

coco ebert: Isn't getting a divorce already costly and time-consuming enough as it is?

True. On the other hand it is worth every penny.

AZ has the option of covenant marriage, our pastor mentioned it when we did the required pre-wedding couseling (for the regular marriage). As someone who grew up very religious but has since fallen away, as it were, my anecdotal concern would be that younger people with similar upbringings would sign on wholeheartedly for such an arrangement because they didn't know any better, and end up in all sorts of trouble down the road.

Dude, it's Alabama. Who gives a crap?

I have a new proposal.

Every time a state legislature passes a bill that flagrantly violates the Constitution of the United States (for example, one that violates the first Amendment separation of Church and State, as this one) the US Congress must vote on whether to kick that state out of the union. If 60% majority, bye-bye Alabama, Arizona, and a whole bunch of other farkhead states.

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

Because people need to be told what to do.

Difficult-to-obtain divorces?

This guy says, "I'm okay with this."

Aren't the only people to refer to marriage as a covenant usually the pluralistic crowd?

Well, this sure seems like a better way to "defend" marriage than banning gay marriage.

demaL-demaL-yeH: PsiChick: orclover: PsiChick: orclover: PsiChick: DamnYankees: rynthetyn:
It's Arizona. Of course it'll pass.

/Also, I call the hypnotic powers.

Dear PsiChick,
Alabama is not Arizona.

/Arizona already has covenant marriage.
//Since 1998.

....Hunh, must've misread that. Thanks.

jpo2269: This might be a little too much, but certainly better than the blanket "drive through divorces" that have become so prevalent in today's society.

This law would be pretty good, if only they'd make it so that when evidence of infidelity and/or abuse can be demonstrated, the court can immediately grant a divorce, without the overblown waiting period and counseling.

Otherwise, you are dooming battered wives everywhere to an eternity in hell.

The government just needs to stay the fark out of people's personal lives. I swear we need marriage contracts. If you can't stand each other you shouldn't be together. Period.

Man On Pink Corner: umad: Yep. And liberals gave them the playbook with all of their end-around attacks on guns. They learned it from watching YOU, dad.

It's almost like there's no real difference between Assclown A and Assclown B at the end of the day. Funny, huh.

No, what's funny is that Republicans are constantly trying to claim that "both parties are bad". Please, either one of you geniuses, feel free to tell us about some of these "end-around attacks on guns". Oh, and then tell us how your gunpowder-powered penis replacements are somehow equivalent to marriage. Or perhaps I really don't want to know.

FTA: Williams amended the measure to specify that victims of domestic violence would not have to attend counseling with their abuser before seeking a divorce, and they would not be required to continue to live in the same household.

I think the bolded explains exactly what kind of batshiat we're dealing with here.

STRYPERSWINE

I'm ok with this. America doesn't have a gay marriage problem, we have a straight divorce problem.

Then outlaw divorce?

/Same-sex marriages actually increase the number of married people.

umad: ciberido: Conservatives have learned that on some social issues they cannot win head-on, so they try to chip away at, or sneak around, their opposition. Abortion is a big example of this. There's no way Roe vs. Wade is going to get overturned directly, at least not for a good long while, so they're doing everything they can to make getting an abortion more difficult or problematic. They know they won't succeed at trying to directly do away with no-fault divorce, so this is their way of trying to get around it.

Yep. And liberals gave them the playbook with all of their end-around attacks on guns. They learned it from watching YOU, dad.

Look at what you MADE ME DO *smack*. Are you happy now?!?

/idiot