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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 8219334


(Slate)   Liberals: You conservatives are such goddamn hypocrites with all your "protect marriage" bullcrap. If you really wanted to protect marriage, why not outlaw divorce? Conservatives: Challenge accepted   (slate.com) divider line 37
    More: Stupid, challenge accepted, Stephanie Coontz, liberals, Amanda Marcotte, hypocrites, Double X, Ex-wife  
•       •       •

414 clicks; Favorite

37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-14 11:48:30 PM
Their divorce was different.
 
2014-04-14 11:59:05 PM

JasonOfOrillia: Their divorce was different.


The only moral divorce is my divorce?
 
2014-04-15 12:04:37 AM
As if Climate Change wasn't already going to raise sea levels now we have to deal with the rushing flow of divorce lawyer saliva.
 
2014-04-15 12:07:24 AM
If your spouse cheats on you and smacks you about the head, you should really take a few days to think about divorce.

/just as you should take a few days to think about keeping your pregnancy if your dad rapes you
//it's the biblical way
 
2014-04-15 12:07:55 AM
The sons a biatches actually listened to liberals. THAT MEANS THEY ARE NOW LIBERALS.
 
2014-04-15 12:08:29 AM

Somacandra: JasonOfOrillia: Their divorce was different.

The only moral divorce is my divorce?


have you divorced a republican today?
 
2014-04-15 12:08:46 AM
Pretty much saw that coming. I always figured they only weren't going after divorce because they didn't think they could possibly win that fight. Maybe this is happening now because their fight against gay marriage is starting to feel just as hopeless.

Still, they're actually gaining ground on abortion, at least for now.
 
2014-04-15 12:12:01 AM
is it just me, or is this attacking the wrong end of the marriage?  Going on the assumption that the number of divorces is high and you want to reduce that number, wouldn't it make more sense to make couples think about the marriage when they're considering it.  Maybe you don't necessarily ban them from getting married, but you could withhold the tax benefits for a fixed amount of time or until they complete a financial planning course successfully (add a mandatory wait time for people who have already gotten married and were divorced before).

Just my two cents.
 
2014-04-15 12:14:08 AM
Party of small government.
 
2014-04-15 12:14:39 AM
That'll teach us.
 
2014-04-15 12:16:10 AM
Offered without commentary:

marriage historian Stephanie Coontz
 
2014-04-15 12:17:06 AM
Seriously, marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults and requires mutual consent.  In what other part of our lives does the Gov't require a specific length of contract other than agreed between the two parties to the contract?  If two partners wanted to split a business, the law does not prevent that - no difference.

One exception does come to mind:  Child support.  But that usually ends on a date-certain.

I've said before, the problem is getting people to think ahead prior to marriage and that can be a real challenge, plus if we mandated some sort of 'training' or whatever you want to call it - operant conditioning? - does that not come into the slippery slope of Social Engineering?  What's next, compulsory psych testing for compatibility?
 
2014-04-15 12:23:27 AM
Thats one sucky blog right there,
 
2014-04-15 12:23:45 AM

pueblonative: is it just me, or is this attacking the wrong end of the marriage?  Going on the assumption that the number of divorces is high and you want to reduce that number, wouldn't it make more sense to make couples think about the marriage when they're considering it.


Later marriage leads to more pre-marriage sinfullness. Jesus disapproves.
 
2014-04-15 12:23:57 AM

bmwericus: Seriously, marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults and requires mutual consent. In what other part of our lives does the Gov't require a specific length of contract other than agreed between the two parties to the contract? If two partners wanted to split a business, the law does not prevent that - no difference.


Counter point:

Your argument assumes that both parties want to split at exactly the same time.  If that happens all well and good; most divorces I know of don't work that way.  Usually one party is more down the line of "let's split" than the other one.  Going back to the business example, if one partner wanted to split and the other didn't, absent a finding of fault on the part of the party not wanting the split, the one who did want to split usually would incur some hefty fees in terms of breach of contract.
 
2014-04-15 12:25:01 AM
Yeah, focusing on social issues will be a real winner this time.  Proceed.
 
2014-04-15 12:25:38 AM
Also, wouldn't the businesses have a pre-agreed upon method of dissolving that isn't required in marriages?
 
2014-04-15 12:26:42 AM
Callista"s species had known violence, known devastation, seen billions fed into the maw of interstellar war, but had never known fear until the day Newt read this article.
 
2014-04-15 12:34:55 AM

pueblonative: Also, wouldn't the businesses have a pre-agreed upon method of dissolving that isn't required in marriages?


Usually.  You may have stumbled upon the solution there... legally-mandated prenups.
 
2014-04-15 12:35:44 AM
Wreck'em? damn near married'em.
 
2014-04-15 12:38:46 AM

pueblonative: bmwericus: Seriously, marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults and requires mutual consent. In what other part of our lives does the Gov't require a specific length of contract other than agreed between the two parties to the contract? If two partners wanted to split a business, the law does not prevent that - no difference.

Counter point:

Your argument assumes that both parties want to split at exactly the same time.  If that happens all well and good; most divorces I know of don't work that way.  Usually one party is more down the line of "let's split" than the other one.  Going back to the business example, if one partner wanted to split and the other didn't, absent a finding of fault on the part of the party not wanting the split, the one who did want to split usually would incur some hefty fees in terms of breach of contract.


coonter-counter point: In California, you may buyout your partner's interest in the LLC. If you cannot come to an agreement on the fair market price and on the terms of payment, then because your partner owns 50% of the LLC, he/she can legally force the LLC to dissolve.
 
2014-04-15 12:40:44 AM
Pressure them to marry early, make birth control impossible to obtain, and make it almost impossible to divorce.

/surely the prescription for a happy prosperous freedom-loving populace
 
2014-04-15 12:41:35 AM
Of course, they're  actually just trying to do away with no-fault divorce, so that more women get brutalized and murdered.

Once again, not about marriage, all about hatred of women, gays, and anyone not an Affluent White Christian Male.
 
2014-04-15 12:42:28 AM

TheBigJerk: Of course, they're  actually just trying to do away with no-fault divorce, so that more women get brutalized and murdered.

Once again, not about marriage, all about hatred of women, gays, and anyone not an Affluent White Christian Male.


They wouldn't hate them if they'd learn their place... or something.
 
2014-04-15 12:45:41 AM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If your spouse cheats on you and smacks you about the head, you should really take a few days to think about divorce.

/just as you should take a few days to think about keeping your pregnancy if your dad rapes you
//it's the biblical way


No. You must look deep inside yourself and find what is wrong with you that would make your spouse cheat on you and hit you, and change it*. This make take some time and many attempts, but you should never give up.

*Only applies if you are a woman.
 
2014-04-15 12:45:57 AM
This sounds like a great way to ensure the death of marriage.

FTFA: The hope is that by making divorce a hassle, or forcing couples to really think about what divorce means, the government can encourage/make more couples give up on the idea and recommit themselves to marriage.

Or you could just trust people to make their own decisions, small government wonks.
 
2014-04-15 12:54:27 AM
Then, if the courts strike down gay marriage bans then the gays that get married will have to stay with their spouse, or will this only be for a man and woman?
 
2014-04-15 12:57:51 AM

pueblonative: bmwericus: Seriously, marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults and requires mutual consent. In what other part of our lives does the Gov't require a specific length of contract other than agreed between the two parties to the contract? If two partners wanted to split a business, the law does not prevent that - no difference.

Counter point:

Your argument assumes that both parties want to split at exactly the same time.  If that happens all well and good; most divorces I know of don't work that way.  Usually one party is more down the line of "let's split" than the other one.  Going back to the business example, if one partner wanted to split and the other didn't, absent a finding of fault on the part of the party not wanting the split, the one who did want to split usually would incur some hefty fees in terms of breach of contract.


But that still allows for the dissolution of the contract; not "nope, you must stay in a contractual relationship with the other party forever, no matter what, as long as that party doesn't stick their dick in a younger company."  Hell, we actively talk about how smart a company is for strategically breaking a contract, and accepting the penalty for a larger profit with a new contract and a better partner.
 
2014-04-15 01:00:21 AM

phalamir: pueblonative: bmwericus: Seriously, marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults and requires mutual consent. In what other part of our lives does the Gov't require a specific length of contract other than agreed between the two parties to the contract? If two partners wanted to split a business, the law does not prevent that - no difference.

Counter point:

Your argument assumes that both parties want to split at exactly the same time.  If that happens all well and good; most divorces I know of don't work that way.  Usually one party is more down the line of "let's split" than the other one.  Going back to the business example, if one partner wanted to split and the other didn't, absent a finding of fault on the part of the party not wanting the split, the one who did want to split usually would incur some hefty fees in terms of breach of contract.

But that still allows for the dissolution of the contract; not "nope, you must stay in a contractual relationship with the other party forever, no matter what, as long as that party doesn't stick their dick in a younger company."  Hell, we actively talk about how smart a company is for strategically breaking a contract, and accepting the penalty for a larger profit with a new contract and a better partner.


Also known as slavery
 
2014-04-15 01:04:03 AM
Oh goody, another lip-service bill that has no shot in hell of passing, but it'll play good with the church busybody crowd.

Laser like focus on jobs strikes again.

Here's an idea, pubs. Instead of shaking in the corner at the thought of what consenting adults do with each other and under what marital circumstances, how about you GET TO FARKING WORK!

Congress is the worst collection of welfare queens we have in this country. Must be nice to work 20 hours a week, 7 months a year, do absolutely nothing, collect six figures, and still whine that you're not getting paid enough.

Maybe we should make congressional pay commission based. You get x-amount of dollars for every bill you come up with that actually passes both houses and gets signed into law. Maybe then, they would focus on bills that could actually do something instead of this Mickey Mouse horseshiat.
 
2014-04-15 01:08:45 AM
by the way, the group is against "quick divorces" and a "cooling off period." A typical "quick divorce" takes about a year. I'd say that's more than enough time to think it over.

But God knows, the same people pushing this throw a full-on tantrum if someone suggests a 5-day cooling off period before buying a handgun.
 
2014-04-15 01:16:07 AM

phalamir: pueblonative: bmwericus: Seriously, marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults and requires mutual consent. In what other part of our lives does the Gov't require a specific length of contract other than agreed between the two parties to the contract? If two partners wanted to split a business, the law does not prevent that - no difference.

Counter point:

Your argument assumes that both parties want to split at exactly the same time.  If that happens all well and good; most divorces I know of don't work that way.  Usually one party is more down the line of "let's split" than the other one.  Going back to the business example, if one partner wanted to split and the other didn't, absent a finding of fault on the part of the party not wanting the split, the one who did want to split usually would incur some hefty fees in terms of breach of contract.

But that still allows for the dissolution of the contract; not "nope, you must stay in a contractual relationship with the other party forever, no matter what, as long as that party doesn't stick their dick in a younger company."  Hell, we actively talk about how smart a company is for strategically breaking a contract, and accepting the penalty for a larger profit with a new contract and a better partner.


It does, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't allow the dissolution, but if you do want to dissolve the marriage absent a finding of marital fraud or financial misdoings on the part of the other partner, you shouldn't get squat in terms of alimony or retirement funds of the other person.  You get what you put in during the marriage plus or minus whatever profit you've made, period.
 
2014-04-15 01:17:07 AM

stoli n coke: by the way, the group is against "quick divorces" and a "cooling off period." A typical "quick divorce" takes about a year. I'd say that's more than enough time to think it over.

But God knows, the same people pushing this throw a full-on tantrum if someone suggests a 5-day cooling off period before buying a handgun.


Pretty much.
 
2014-04-15 01:23:34 AM

pueblonative: It does, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't allow the dissolution, but if you do want to dissolve the marriage absent a finding of marital fraud or abuse or financial misdoings on the part of the other partner, you shouldn't get squat in terms of alimony or retirement funds of the other person. You get what you put in during the marriage plus or minus whatever profit you've made, period.


ATFM, although abuse could be considered fraud in that you promised to love and honor the other person and well. . .abuse ain't either.
 
2014-04-15 02:49:25 AM

pueblonative: phalamir: pueblonative: bmwericus: Seriously, marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults and requires mutual consent. In what other part of our lives does the Gov't require a specific length of contract other than agreed between the two parties to the contract? If two partners wanted to split a business, the law does not prevent that - no difference.

Counter point:

Your argument assumes that both parties want to split at exactly the same time.  If that happens all well and good; most divorces I know of don't work that way.  Usually one party is more down the line of "let's split" than the other one.  Going back to the business example, if one partner wanted to split and the other didn't, absent a finding of fault on the part of the party not wanting the split, the one who did want to split usually would incur some hefty fees in terms of breach of contract.

But that still allows for the dissolution of the contract; not "nope, you must stay in a contractual relationship with the other party forever, no matter what, as long as that party doesn't stick their dick in a younger company."  Hell, we actively talk about how smart a company is for strategically breaking a contract, and accepting the penalty for a larger profit with a new contract and a better partner.

It does, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't allow the dissolution, but if you do want to dissolve the marriage absent a finding of marital fraud or financial misdoings on the part of the other partner, you shouldn't get squat in terms of alimony or retirement funds of the other person.  You get what you put in during the marriage plus or minus whatever profit you've made, period.


I disagree, as do the majority of people (or they are too lazy to use that majority to enact change and therefore have no say).

Marriages aren't quite that simple and neither are careers.
 
2014-04-15 03:11:53 AM

pueblonative: phalamir: pueblonative: bmwericus: Seriously, marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults and requires mutual consent. In what other part of our lives does the Gov't require a specific length of contract other than agreed between the two parties to the contract? If two partners wanted to split a business, the law does not prevent that - no difference.

Counter point:

Your argument assumes that both parties want to split at exactly the same time.  If that happens all well and good; most divorces I know of don't work that way.  Usually one party is more down the line of "let's split" than the other one.  Going back to the business example, if one partner wanted to split and the other didn't, absent a finding of fault on the part of the party not wanting the split, the one who did want to split usually would incur some hefty fees in terms of breach of contract.

But that still allows for the dissolution of the contract; not "nope, you must stay in a contractual relationship with the other party forever, no matter what, as long as that party doesn't stick their dick in a younger company."  Hell, we actively talk about how smart a company is for strategically breaking a contract, and accepting the penalty for a larger profit with a new contract and a better partner.

It does, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't allow the dissolution, but if you do want to dissolve the marriage absent a finding of marital fraud or financial misdoings on the part of the other partner, you shouldn't get squat in terms of alimony or retirement funds of the other person.  You get what you put in during the marriage plus or minus whatever profit you've made, period.


This kinda sounds like whoever is the last man (or woman) standing wins.  I don't think that's  how most disputes are solved.

/Arbitration is most likely
 
2014-04-15 03:18:30 AM

stoli n coke: by the way, the group is against "quick divorces" and a "cooling off period." A typical "quick divorce" takes about a year. I'd say that's more than enough time to think it over.

But God knows, the same people pushing this throw a full-on tantrum if someone suggests a 5-day cooling off period before buying a handgun.


Exactly.  For once, the bureaucracy and BS make sense.  It's about the right time to pull out and give it another shot.

There is no point in forcing people to be together.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report