The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

[Elixir]

if the woman still wants a divorce, she can get counseling to help explain to her she is wrong.

The new breed of marriage counselors has adopted a specific dress code out of safety concerns:

 

[Gun Nut]

Point of order: This proposal applies only to "Covenant Marriages".
A covenant marriage is different than a "regular" marriage, in that extra legal steps must be taken to codify the marriage as having no termination date, and places the agreement within the scope of a completely different set of divorce laws / guidelines.

For "regular" marriages, "no-fault" has been in place in many states since the 1960's and n o one is suggesting a change, as far as I can tell.

 

[zorq]

Point of order: This proposal applies only to "Covenant Marriages".
A covenant marriage is different than a "regular" marriage, in that extra legal steps must be taken to codify the marriage as having no termination date, and places the agreement within the scope of a completely different set of divorce laws / guidelines.

For "regular" marriages, "no-fault" has been in place in many states since the 1960's and n o one is suggesting a change, as far as I can tell.

Point of order: You are wrong.

As the OP points out the Texas GOP wants to eliminate no fault divorce and has introduced legislation to do just that.
See point 212 in the 2022 Texas GOP party platform.

212. No-Fault Divorce: We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws and support
covenant marriage and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six
months after the date of filing for divorce.

In 2017 they (Texas GOP) pushed a bill that would do exactly that, and now there is more talk about pushing it again this year.

 

[Toni]

I had not heard of covenant marriage, and assumed that it was part of a particular religious group's beliefs and teachings--I was thinking LDS, Orthodox Judaism, or Catholicism, the latter of which has its own processes under which a marriage can be annulled under Church law. Legally, members of any of these faiths can be legally divorced but their divorce may not be recognized under their religion.

But I looked it up: Covenant marriage exists in 3 states and very few individuals choose this option. Marriage as most people know it is the much more common form of marriage:

Covenant marriage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What happened to that small government GOP?

They were the conservatives, not the neo-cons. The modern Republicans aren't your father's Republicans.

(Quite literally. My father was involved with the Republican party long ago, even made a hopeless run for office (so as to not let the other guy run unopposed), but by the 80s he was voting Democrat. His politics didn't change, the parties did.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

 

[Gun Nut]

Point of order: This proposal applies only to "Covenant Marriages".
A covenant marriage is different than a "regular" marriage, in that extra legal steps must be taken to codify the marriage as having no termination date, and places the agreement within the scope of a completely different set of divorce laws / guidelines.

For "regular" marriages, "no-fault" has been in place in many states since the 1960's and n o one is suggesting a change, as far as I can tell.

Point of order: You are wrong.

As the OP points out the Texas GOP wants to eliminate no fault divorce and has introduced legislation to do just that.
See point 212 in the 2022 Texas GOP party platform.

212. No-Fault Divorce: We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws and support
covenant marriage and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six
months after the date of filing for divorce.

In 2017 they (Texas GOP) pushed a bill that would do exactly that, and now there is more talk about pushing it again this year.

I stand corrected, then. I thought it was the opposite... that they were changing how Covenant Marriage disputes are handled, not trying to make all Marriages like Covenant Marriages.

 

[Playball40]

I don't understand this. What's the outward reasoning here, you know, beyond the silent part of wanting to control women? Is it just religious people who think marriage is somehow magical and need everyone to follow their archaic religious text's weird rules?

By my reckoning, marriage is a mutual relationship and if it isn't working for one of the people, it should be dissolved, no matter how much the other person wants to keep it. Also, it shouldn't matter if the reasons for that failure fit into some limited predefined "fault" categories defined by politicians.

We shouldn't be trapping people into permanent relationships that are causing harm.

Religion and/or control has nothing to do with it. It depends whether or not there are kids involved. When it comes to making sure the kids are raised to the governments standards, yes the government will get involved with every aspect of the marriage, even without any more laws than we already have today. That is what the Department of Family Services is all about. Whenever a divorce goes before a judge its always the kids that get brought up before any pleasures of what the man wants or the women. Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

It's proven over and over again that CHILDREN are much better off with happy, healthy divorced parents than witnessing and living through unhappy, potentially abusive, mentally unhealthy relationships. Your argument holds zero water.

 

[RVonse]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

 

[bilby]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

Holding anyone hostage is not a good foundation for a sound marriage, nor a good environment for raising children.

 

[Jarhyn]

Dissolving a marriage is not easy.

Source: I am divorced, in the easiest way possible in my state, and it still cost me thousands of dollars.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

How do you judge the “should”? Only the married people are capable of doing so.

 

[Elixir]

How do you judge the “should”? Only the Republican controlled government or married people are capable of doing so.

FIFY.
Same as abortion. A woman may deem a blastocyst to be a detriment to her physical and mental health, but if the Republican controlled government disagrees, the woman must subjugate her body and her mental health to their whims. Same with an abusive husband.
This is just another expression of right wing impotence trying to compensate by wreaking violence upon women. This “what about the chilluns?” bullshit is just pretend righteousness to rationalize their exercise of control over women’s bodies.

 

[Shadowy Man]

How do you judge the “should”? Only the Republican controlled government or married people are capable of doing so.

FIFY.
Same as abortion. A woman may deem a blastocyst to be a detriment to her physical and mental health, but if the Republican controlled government disagrees, the woman must subjugate her body and her mental health to their whims. Same with an abusive husband.
This is just another expression of right wing impotence trying to compensate by wreaking violence upon women. This “what about the chilluns?” bullshit is just pretend righteousness to rationalize their exercise of control over women’s bodies.

I was more curious about RVonse's response to the idea that he may be able to deem the worthiness of someone else's marriage with respect to their ability to "stand true to their vows". This presumes a certain sacredness to marriage that not all agree with. A vow is not a legally binding agreement. To the extent that a marriage is a legal arrangement and a divorce is a dissolution of that legal arrangement, I think that it should be up to the members of the marriage to determine how and why that is dissolved.

Perhaps there is a bit of inconsistency in the conservative viewpoint here. There's a vocal backing of parents' rights over state's rights, certainly when it comes to schooling of children, but to presume that the state has an interest in the well-being of the child over the will of the parents (i.e., that they may deny the dissolution of the marriage for the "sake of the children") seems in conflict with that and looks more like the kind of government overreach that conservatives always seem to be arguing against.

 

[Elixir]

I think that it should be up to the members of the marriage to determine how and why that is dissolved.

Republicans believe that anything having to do with how women and their bodies may be treated by men, falls under the purview of their elected Republican representatives.
You can’t leave important stuff like that to the fickle whims of silly females!

 

[RVonse]

I was more curious about RVonse's response to the idea that he may be able to deem the worthiness of someone else's marriage with respect to their ability to "stand true to their vows". This presumes a certain sacredness to marriage that not all agree with. A vow is not a legally binding agreement. To the extent that a marriage is a legal arrangement and a divorce is a dissolution of that legal arrangement, I think that it should be up to the members of the marriage to determine how and why that is dissolved.

Perhaps there is a bit of inconsistency in the conservative viewpoint here. There's a vocal backing of parents' rights over state's rights, certainly when it comes to schooling of children, but to presume that the state has an interest in the well-being of the child over the will of the parents (i.e., that they may deny the dissolution of the marriage for the "sake of the children") seems in conflict with that and looks more like the kind of government overreach that conservatives always seem to be arguing against.

You will have no argument at all with me that government should if possible stay away from individual liberty and rights. It's fair to say I am far much more of a libertarian than you are.

But individual rights and liberty has to end up the point where the general public becomes harmed and affected. If my individual rights to end a relationship too early causes my kids to be 10 times more likely to be in trouble.....then that right has gone too far for society.

Look up the statistics for children brought up in 2 parent traditional homes versus those with a single mom. Why should my 2nd amendment rights be taken away because someone else's kid has gone crazy with gang violence?

It is not inconsistency it is common sense and good judgement.

 

[bilby]

It is not inconsistency it is common sense and good judgement assuming that correlation must imply causation.

FTFY.

A more appropriate comparison to determine whether there might possibly be any causation here might be to compare traditional two parent homes in which the parents hate each other and argue constantly against those with a single mom.

I strongly suspect that such an analysis would show very different results.

The idea that the harmful effects of the breakdown of a marriage can be reduced by prohibiting the people in that failed marriage from separating, is crazy.

You cannot (and certainly should not attempt to) legislate to force people to continue to love each other. You can force them to live together, but that's not even close to being the same thing, no matter how hard you wish that it were.

 

[Bronzeage]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

What vows would this be? Is there some government mandated text of marriage vows which constitute the minimum required obligations for two persons to be come one?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I was more curious about RVonse's response to the idea that he may be able to deem the worthiness of someone else's marriage with respect to their ability to "stand true to their vows". This presumes a certain sacredness to marriage that not all agree with. A vow is not a legally binding agreement. To the extent that a marriage is a legal arrangement and a divorce is a dissolution of that legal arrangement, I think that it should be up to the members of the marriage to determine how and why that is dissolved.

Perhaps there is a bit of inconsistency in the conservative viewpoint here. There's a vocal backing of parents' rights over state's rights, certainly when it comes to schooling of children, but to presume that the state has an interest in the well-being of the child over the will of the parents (i.e., that they may deny the dissolution of the marriage for the "sake of the children") seems in conflict with that and looks more like the kind of government overreach that conservatives always seem to be arguing against.

You will have no argument at all with me that government should if possible stay away from individual liberty and rights. It's fair to say I am far much more of a libertarian than you are.

But individual rights and liberty has to end up the point where the general public becomes harmed and affected. If my individual rights to end a relationship too early causes my kids to be 10 times more likely to be in trouble.....then that right has gone too far for society.

Citation needed for study that shows kids from divorced homes fair that much worse than kids in homes whose parents want to divorce but are prohibited by state intervention from doing so.

Will the government check their homes to be sure that they are still living together? Sharing a bed? Not arguing with each other?

I do understand your point I just don’t see how to reconcile it with a libertarian viewpoint. And I don’t see how you know my views well enough to compare your libertarian “cred” to mine.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Furthermore, if your metric is what makes the kids more likely to get in trouble and impact society then there are host of parent behaviors that could potentially become under government watch. How would a libertarian draw the line between parental freedom and government oversight?