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.

(Washington Post)   Conservatives want to make divorce harder, conveniently overlook Rush, Newt, George Will, Murdoch, Rove, Megyn Kelly, LaTourette (over the phone), Giuliani, McConnell, Dobbs, Fiorina, McCain, Savage, among others   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 181
    More: Ironic, John McCain, McConnell Center, opponents of same-sex marriage, Stephanie Coontz, divorce harder, red states, Ex-wife  
•       •       •

3059 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Apr 2014 at 4:43 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-13 12:19:53 PM
Ha. Not only are all of these jokers divorced, many of them have been divorced more than once. Family values indeed.
 
2014-04-13 12:27:41 PM
Adultery shall be punished by being stuck with your first wife and/or husband
 
2014-04-13 12:34:46 PM
Nice to see the Republicans are consistent at least. Next stop is to disenfranchise the women who aren't murdered by their husbands.
 
2014-04-13 12:57:48 PM
Hey, those folks could afford the divorce. They are just looking to make free market solutions of the problems. If you can't afford a decent divorce attorney, then you probably shouldn't be getting married. Know the risks, sheeple, or face the penalty. And of course, the censure that results in just shacking up with your non-legally bound significant other, who should be hetronormative, since any other option is just icky. Get with the program proles, and keep the population up, because if the labor force gets diluted too much, then wages are going to have to go up, and no one wants to see that. Consume, procreate, die, but only within the guidelines provided, because otherwise you're looking to upset a lot of folks' bottom lines, and we can't have that, can we, Citizen*?

*Void in certain socioeconomic classes. Rights and privileges are subject to cessation upon voiding circumstances. Offers only good within specific frames of reference and/or stipulations of contract. Upon voiding of the terms of these social contracts, all rights and privileges will be awarded to the contracting entity for dispersal to new contractors and licensees. Upon termination of privileges and rights, one should leave the building as quickly as possible, under the observation of the contractor and/or their appointed observers. Please keep your hands at your sides, and be ready for prompt and courteous search and/or seizure of all properties that the contractor deems fit and meet. Have a nice day.
 
2014-04-13 12:57:48 PM
You forgot St. Ronald, submitter.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-13 01:00:28 PM
I know from watching the Kennedy family that all liberals are rapists, killers, and drug addicts, so they shouldn't be so quick to criticize conservatives.
 
2014-04-13 01:04:40 PM
Because the GOP is the party of personal freedoms. If government would just move out of the way...

Imagine if a liberal proposed making it harder to get married so there would be less divorce. Mandatory premarital counseling. Mandatory home-ec classes. Waiting periods extended. Think we'd hear an objection?
 
2014-04-13 01:06:58 PM
There's another delicious layer of irony to this parade of shiat wizards

FTA In 1969, California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorces - permitting divorce without requiring proof of wrongdoing such as adultery - in the Family Law Act, signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan.
 
2014-04-13 01:26:21 PM

Tigger: There's another delicious layer of irony to this parade of shiat wizards

FTA In 1969, California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorces - permitting divorce without requiring proof of wrongdoing such as adultery - in the Family Law Act, signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan.


That's also the guy that really started gun control.
 
2014-04-13 02:29:40 PM

Speaker2Animals: You forgot St. Ronald, submitter.


Well, he was a Democrat at the time, so...stupid libtard!!1!
 
2014-04-13 02:30:00 PM

dr_blasto: Tigger: There's another delicious layer of irony to this parade of shiat wizards

FTA In 1969, California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorces - permitting divorce without requiring proof of wrongdoing such as adultery - in the Family Law Act, signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan.

That's also the guy that really started gun control.


And made abortion legal in CA in 1967, long before Roe v. Wade.
 
2014-04-13 02:41:59 PM
Well, good.

They keep thumping the sanctity of marriage drum when gay marriage is brought up, so logically, they would be against divorce as well.

They may be wrong, but at least their logic is consistent for a change.
 
2014-04-13 03:36:21 PM
so much for strict constitutional freedoms of divorcing your wife so you can marry a much hotter woman half her age
 
2014-04-13 03:38:45 PM
If you think any laws the Republican's pass regarding stricter divorce laws will effect the very rich you're fooling yourself.
 
2014-04-13 04:00:49 PM

optikeye: If you think any laws the Republican's pass regarding stricter divorce laws will effect the very rich you're fooling yourself.


Unless by "effect" you mean make them richer
 
2014-04-13 04:44:57 PM
Megyn Kelly is single?
 
2014-04-13 04:52:08 PM

keithgabryelski: so much for strict constitutional freedoms of divorcing your wife so you can marry a much hotter woman half her age


When they want to divorce, they can just go the Henry VIII route. After all, we wouldn't want to try a JOB CREATOR for murder, would we?
 
2014-04-13 04:58:57 PM
You forgot divorcee Ronald Reagan
 
2014-04-13 05:00:43 PM
Until 1995 there was no divorce in Ireland. But there was a hullava lot of cohabitation.
 
2014-04-13 05:00:58 PM
Ungh....

Isn't divorce hard enough on everybody already? Man, the GOP needs to eject their social conservatives. Have them form some nice religious party or something, somewhere.... in a corner... far away... in a different country. They can have the Tea Party label now that they've wrecked it.

It's almost like the social conservatives need some kind of amicable split-up with the rest of the party... like a... like a... what's the word for it?

Oh right... DIVORCE.
 
2014-04-13 05:02:51 PM
To be honest, any politician is generally a two faced liar regardless of party.  It isn't surprising that a so-called conservative is thrice or more divorced.

It should be harder to get divorced.  Also - somewhere along the way support of single parents turned into acceptance to the point that everyone things they can raise a child on their own. IMO, if we could get back to a nuclear family model - I'm guessing some of our silly laws and school issues will start to go away.

A non-nuclear family doesn't have to be shunned - but it should be the exception and not the ideal.
 
2014-04-13 05:07:36 PM

kukukupo: To be honest, any politician is generally a two faced liar regardless of party.  It isn't surprising that a so-called conservative is thrice or more divorced.

It should be harder to get divorced.  Also - somewhere along the way support of single parents turned into acceptance to the point that everyone things they can raise a child on their own. IMO, if we could get back to a nuclear family model - I'm guessing some of our silly laws and school issues will start to go away.

A non-nuclear family doesn't have to be shunned - but it should be the exception and not the ideal.


Strawmen slain!  well done brave warrior!
 
2014-04-13 05:08:54 PM
These laws are mild inconveniences for wealthy people.  Sure a big pain in the ass for the lesser castes tthough.
 
2014-04-13 05:08:56 PM
"Small government"

img.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-13 05:10:05 PM
Let's make it harder to get married...and in inverse proportion to how much money you've got. The extremely wealthy should have to jump through the most hoops: No quickie weddings and fast divorces in Las Vegas for YOU Britney Spears!
 
2014-04-13 05:10:47 PM

whistleridge: Ha. Not only are all of these jokers divorced, many of them have been divorced more than once. Family values indeed.


Conservative TV HostShepard Smith and Virginia Donald divorced in 1993 with no children after 6 years of marriage


o.0
 
2014-04-13 05:11:35 PM

kukukupo: IMO, if we could get back to a nuclear family model - I'm guessing some of our silly laws and school issues will start to go away.


Everyone is going to want this. The problem is, you just can't legislate it.

I have my own exceedingly unpopular opinions on the subject that run along the lines that producing offspring should be licensed, etc... Which runs counter to my libertarian tendencies. (It all makes more sense when I start drinking.)
 
2014-04-13 05:14:18 PM

Destructor: (It all makes more sense when I start drinking.)



You're preaching to the choir, brother
 
2014-04-13 05:16:08 PM

Notabunny: Destructor: (It all makes more sense when I start drinking.)

You're preaching to the choir, brother


Yeah... I think its late enough in the day to start making sense of it all... Cheers... ;-)
 
2014-04-13 05:16:14 PM

kukukupo: To be honest, any politician is generally a two faced liar regardless of party.  It isn't surprising that a so-called conservative is thrice or more divorced.

It should be harder to get divorced.  Also - somewhere along the way support of single parents turned into acceptance to the point that everyone things they can raise a child on their own. IMO, if we could get back to a nuclear family model - I'm guessing some of our silly laws and school issues will start to go away.

A non-nuclear family doesn't have to be shunned - but it should be the exception and not the ideal.



Always nice to hear from people who want to impose their faith based beliefs on others through legislation.
 
2014-04-13 05:19:38 PM
It will only apply to you, not to THEM!
 
2014-04-13 05:24:20 PM

BSABSVR: whistleridge: Ha. Not only are all of these jokers divorced, many of them have been divorced more than once. Family values indeed.

Conservative TV Host Shepard Smith and Virginia Donald divorced in 1993 with no children after 6 years of marriage


o.0


Shepard Smith was once married to a woman? That is a shocker.
 
2014-04-13 05:28:31 PM
I don't often agree with the social conservatives on many issues.  However, in this case, they may just have a good idea. Sort of.  As a teacher, I've seen the difference between single parent households and two parent households and its affect on children.  The kids who have both parents active (not necessarily living together) often do better than the child with only one parent in their lives.  The kids who do the best have 2 parents in the same household, married/civil unions.  Maybe making divorces slightly more difficult to obtain will make some people think twice before they get married, bring a child into the world, and then end up divorced.

At the same time, you also want to make divorce available as an option when its the only solution to the problem.  There's a fine line between keeping a partner trapped in a loveless marriage/civil union or an abusive relationship when compared to the benefits to a child and or society.

I do know one area where I would start.  Fathers are just as legally and financially responsible for their children: mandatory child support with required visitation periods along with all the legal responsibilities that are required by law. The father can be held just as responsible for their kids attending school, damages that the child can cause if they vandalize property, etc.  If some guy has 5 different kids by 5 different mothers, that will pretty much eat up his entire discretionary spending.  Same for the mother of the child as well. At the same time, child support money should be supervised by an officer of the court or official.  The parent that has primary custody should have to justify every penny they spend on the child.

That might start to cut down on the single parents.  Or it will make buttsecks all the more popular.
 
2014-04-13 05:35:08 PM
It's so cute that subby thinks that Republican authority figures are subject to laws they pass.
 
2014-04-13 05:36:12 PM
Absent abuse, adultery or abandonment, what is the objection to a mandatory cooling off and counseling period?
 
2014-04-13 05:40:37 PM

bobothemagnificent: I don't often agree with the social conservatives on many issues.  However, in this case, they may just have a good idea. Sort of.  As a teacher, I've seen the difference between single parent households and two parent households and its affect on children.  The kids who have both parents active (not necessarily living together) often do better than the child with only one parent in their lives.  The kids who do the best have 2 parents in the same household, married/civil unions.  Maybe making divorces slightly more difficult to obtain will make some people think twice before they get married, bring a child into the world, and then end up divorced.

At the same time, you also want to make divorce available as an option when its the only solution to the problem.  There's a fine line between keeping a partner trapped in a loveless marriage/civil union or an abusive relationship when compared to the benefits to a child and or society.

I do know one area where I would start.  Fathers are just as legally and financially responsible for their children: mandatory child support with required visitation periods along with all the legal responsibilities that are required by law. The father can be held just as responsible for their kids attending school, damages that the child can cause if they vandalize property, etc.  If some guy has 5 different kids by 5 different mothers, that will pretty much eat up his entire discretionary spending.  Same for the mother of the child as well. At the same time, child support money should be supervised by an officer of the court or official.  The parent that has primary custody should have to justify every penny they spend on the child.

That might start to cut down on the single parents.  Or it will make buttsecks all the more popular.


The court system as it stands now is already overwhelmed with cases in this regard... a lot of problems with law enforcement (in the judicial and not the police sense) is a function of our population being too large for the bureaucracy needed to manage it, but everyone farking hates bureaucracy so we can't expand it in the areas that we need. Not to mention when you have systemic problems like single parent-hood that means that you have fault that's all everywhere in the system.

It leads to the 'intellectual' classes tearing their hair out because they can see a problem but no solution that can be implemented cleanly.

And while I'm thinking about it: give a shoutout or a donation to the volunteers that help with CASA Children, they need it... bad.
 
2014-04-13 05:47:53 PM

BlueDWarrior: bobothemagnificent: I don't often agree with the social conservatives on many issues.  However, in this case, they may just have a good idea. Sort of.  As a teacher, I've seen the difference between single parent households and two parent households and its affect on children.  The kids who have both parents active (not necessarily living together) often do better than the child with only one parent in their lives.  The kids who do the best have 2 parents in the same household, married/civil unions.  Maybe making divorces slightly more difficult to obtain will make some people think twice before they get married, bring a child into the world, and then end up divorced.

At the same time, you also want to make divorce available as an option when its the only solution to the problem.  There's a fine line between keeping a partner trapped in a loveless marriage/civil union or an abusive relationship when compared to the benefits to a child and or society.

I do know one area where I would start.  Fathers are just as legally and financially responsible for their children: mandatory child support with required visitation periods along with all the legal responsibilities that are required by law. The father can be held just as responsible for their kids attending school, damages that the child can cause if they vandalize property, etc.  If some guy has 5 different kids by 5 different mothers, that will pretty much eat up his entire discretionary spending.  Same for the mother of the child as well. At the same time, child support money should be supervised by an officer of the court or official.  The parent that has primary custody should have to justify every penny they spend on the child.

That might start to cut down on the single parents.  Or it will make buttsecks all the more popular.

The court system as it stands now is already overwhelmed with cases in this regard... a lot of problems with law enforcement (in the judicial and not the police sense) is a function of ...


There's also a lot to be said about cultural influences as well.  If the message the younger generations get constantly is "bang a ho and leave her" repeatedly, well, life imitates art.  The solution can't be legislated, it has to be voluntarily done by the society at large.  Right now I don't see society, at least in many areas of the country, willing to make that choice right now.
 
2014-04-13 05:50:31 PM

Earguy: Because the GOP is the party of personal freedoms. If government would just move out of the way...

Imagine if a liberal proposed making it harder to get married so there would be less divorce. Mandatory premarital counseling. Mandatory home-ec classes. Waiting periods extended. Think we'd hear an objection?


I'd vote for him
 
2014-04-13 05:50:33 PM

riverwalk barfly: Until 1995 there was no divorce in Ireland. But there was a hullava lot of cohabitation.


I was going to say that with two year waiting periods, NC was going to see a ton of cohabitation as people tried to move on even when the court hadn't. But then I remembered that family court judges can and do insert morality clauses in custody agreements...
 
2014-04-13 05:53:31 PM

cchris_39: Absent abuse, adultery or abandonment, what is the objection to a mandatory cooling off and counseling period?


What the fark right does the farking state have to tell adults who are managing the most private and intimate aspects of their own lives to "cool off" and get counseling?
 
2014-04-13 05:55:34 PM

bobothemagnificent: BlueDWarrior: bobothemagnificent: I don't often agree with the social conservatives on many issues.  However, in this case, they may just have a good idea. Sort of.  As a teacher, I've seen the difference between single parent households and two parent households and its affect on children.  The kids who have both parents active (not necessarily living together) often do better than the child with only one parent in their lives.  The kids who do the best have 2 parents in the same household, married/civil unions.  Maybe making divorces slightly more difficult to obtain will make some people think twice before they get married, bring a child into the world, and then end up divorced.

At the same time, you also want to make divorce available as an option when its the only solution to the problem.  There's a fine line between keeping a partner trapped in a loveless marriage/civil union or an abusive relationship when compared to the benefits to a child and or society.

I do know one area where I would start.  Fathers are just as legally and financially responsible for their children: mandatory child support with required visitation periods along with all the legal responsibilities that are required by law. The father can be held just as responsible for their kids attending school, damages that the child can cause if they vandalize property, etc.  If some guy has 5 different kids by 5 different mothers, that will pretty much eat up his entire discretionary spending.  Same for the mother of the child as well. At the same time, child support money should be supervised by an officer of the court or official.  The parent that has primary custody should have to justify every penny they spend on the child.

That might start to cut down on the single parents.  Or it will make buttsecks all the more popular.

The court system as it stands now is already overwhelmed with cases in this regard... a lot of problems with law enforcement (in the judicial and not the police sense) is ...


Also I'd be willing to wager that in a high percentage of those divorces that one of the parents is already "absent". I'd say the solution would be to make marriage harder, but in reality people would just shack up and not get married. Maybe make having a kid out of wedlock rarer, but then we'd have to admit that birth control is a good thing.
 
2014-04-13 05:56:18 PM

cchris_39: Absent abuse, adultery or abandonment, what is the objection to a mandatory cooling off and counseling period?


Because it is none of your business? Betting you've never been married.
 
2014-04-13 06:00:40 PM

MindStalker: bobothemagnificent: BlueDWarrior: bobothemagnificent: I don't often agree with the social conservatives on many issues.  However, in this case, they may just have a good idea. Sort of.  As a teacher, I've seen the difference between single parent households and two parent households and its affect on children.  The kids who have both parents active (not necessarily living together) often do better than the child with only one parent in their lives.  The kids who do the best have 2 parents in the same household, married/civil unions.  Maybe making divorces slightly more difficult to obtain will make some people think twice before they get married, bring a child into the world, and then end up divorced.

At the same time, you also want to make divorce available as an option when its the only solution to the problem.  There's a fine line between keeping a partner trapped in a loveless marriage/civil union or an abusive relationship when compared to the benefits to a child and or society.

I do know one area where I would start.  Fathers are just as legally and financially responsible for their children: mandatory child support with required visitation periods along with all the legal responsibilities that are required by law. The father can be held just as responsible for their kids attending school, damages that the child can cause if they vandalize property, etc.  If some guy has 5 different kids by 5 different mothers, that will pretty much eat up his entire discretionary spending.  Same for the mother of the child as well. At the same time, child support money should be supervised by an officer of the court or official.  The parent that has primary custody should have to justify every penny they spend on the child.

That might start to cut down on the single parents.  Or it will make buttsecks all the more popular.

The court system as it stands now is already overwhelmed with cases in this regard... a lot of problems with law enforcement (in the judicial and not t ...


Basically we are trying to figure out how to moderate a basic impulse/fact of life and we don't know how to do it with going full nanny-police state, yet.

We don't want people having kids they can't properly care for but that has been a fact of life since the beginning and I don't see how or where it stops.
 
2014-04-13 06:01:17 PM

cchris_39: Absent abuse, adultery or abandonment, what is the objection to a mandatory cooling off and counseling period?


Party of "Small Government" everyone!
 
2014-04-13 06:01:26 PM

cchris_39: Absent abuse, adultery or abandonment, what is the objection to a mandatory cooling off and counseling period?


What's the objection to allowing grown-ups to make their own decisions?
 
2014-04-13 06:03:22 PM

Lionel Mandrake: cchris_39: Absent abuse, adultery or abandonment, what is the objection to a mandatory cooling off and counseling period?

What's the objection to allowing grown-ups to make their own decisions?


When there are kids and/or large amounts of property involved, everything gets really messy really fast.
 
2014-04-13 06:05:46 PM

BlueDWarrior: Lionel Mandrake: cchris_39: Absent abuse, adultery or abandonment, what is the objection to a mandatory cooling off and counseling period?

What's the objection to allowing grown-ups to make their own decisions?

When there are kids and/or large amounts of property involved, everything gets really messy really fast.


Which has fark all to do with the notion of a mandatory "cooling off" period, but thank you for your pointless deflection.
 
2014-04-13 06:06:56 PM
Threads like this are perfect proof that members of the party of small government are largely full of complete shiat.
 
2014-04-13 06:08:05 PM
Making divorce harder would probably result in an uptick in murders. Just saying.
 
2014-04-13 06:08:06 PM

Mrtraveler01: cchris_39: Absent abuse, adultery or abandonment, what is the objection to a mandatory cooling off and counseling period?

Party of "Small Government" everyone!


Where!? I can't see!
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report