Dallas Morning NewsTexas social conservatives want to translate their resounding victory on a gay marriage ban into broader results: reducing the state's divorce rate and passing a nationwide amendment to prevent same-sex unions.
Rep. Warren Chisum, who wrote the amendment, Proposition 2, endorsed by Texas voters by a ratio of more than 3-1, said Wednesday that it's too easy for spouses to split up. The state should consider repealing or modifying its no-fault divorce law, the Pampa Republican said.
"Gee whiz, our divorce rate's higher than New York," Mr. Chisum said. He proposed that between now and their next regular session in 2007, lawmakers study ways "to make marriage thrive more in our state."
<snip>
She endorsed Mr. Chisum's call for a review of the no-fault divorce law, which took effect in 1974. "It is a system that is broken," Ms. Adams said. "Men, women and children are getting hurt with that current law, with revolving-door marriages."
Yeah, but it's the liberals who want to lecture to you about how to live your lives. What a bunch of wing-nuts.
I don't have a problem with re-visiting no-fault divorce ... it is too easy to get one. When I filed for mine no one even asked any specific reason why I wanted it. I was expecting to at least be asked.....'cuz I was ready to unload.
I think that's a waaaay bigger reason for any alleged devaluation of marriage than same-sex marriages ever could be.
Would they have bought the reasoning or the performance?I don't have a problem with re-visiting no-fault divorce ... it is too easy to get one. When I filed for mine no one even asked any specific reason why I wanted it. I was expecting to at least be asked.....'cuz I was ready to unload.
The facts were indisputable, despite that being one of the happiest moments of my life.
"Get the Government out of Marriage 101" Part CXVIII.
Too many repubs have multiple marriages and divorces for this to get very far.
Yep. The problem most seem to have is that their definition of marriage is not the one being imposed on everyone else.
Divorce is a legal, contractual issue that usually involves assets, debt and/or children. How do you get them out of this one?
Why should you need a reason to get a divorce other than the fact that you no longer want to be married?I don't have a problem with re-visiting no-fault divorce ... it is too easy to get one. When I filed for mine no one even asked any specific reason why I wanted it. I was expecting to at least be asked.....'cuz I was ready to unload.
I think that's a waaaay bigger reason for any alleged devaluation of marriage than same-sex marriages ever could be.
________
Wiki vaporizer
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:53 PM.
Divorce is a legal, contractual issue that usually involves assets, debt and/or children. How do you get them out of this one?
On the definitional end as well as regulatory. Let it be a contract like any other.
I am little surprised with this. Even the most argent conservative cant explain the proper reasons why two people cant split from one another by their own volition.
Which leads to more problems?
2 people loathe one another.
a) keep them in the same household with a legal binding agreement between the 2 that forces them to discuss issues they will never see eye to eye on.
b) let those 2 people go their seperate ways without ever having to deal with the subtle nuances of making a life together.
Tough choice. Maybe the government should step in and tell us what to do.
True. It's purely an emotional opinion based on my own personal experience on how children react to divorce. I wouldn't mind it being a little more difficult to obtain for the sole reason that it might make people think a little harder about getting married within a month of knowing each other and popping out a few kids before they even decide if they really, truly like each other or not.
I'm sure that's an opinion that probably tramples on EVERYONES GOTDAMN CIVIL RIGHTS, but it's mine. So there.
It should be harder to get married
Actually, that's a better idea. I got lost in that feeling of euphoria that seems to overcome me when I think back to that day when the Judge signed my papers...and didn't think about that alternative. But still, the only thing I had to go through was this 4 hour class on helping kids deal with divorce.
Other than that is was a piece of cake.
A little touchy are we?I'm sure that's an opinion that probably tramples on EVERYONES GOTDAMN CIVIL RIGHTS, but it's mine. So there.
________
HotCarmell
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:53 PM.
A little touchy are we?
Actually, yes....he just showed up last week out of the blue after being God knows where for the last 4 years....it's been pretty ed up.
Ahhhhhh....now that is friggin brilliant!
That...is....genius. I am NOT being sarcastic.
Then we would have politicians on both sides complaining that we have too many couples living together out of wed-lock.
But I completely concur with you. Simple, elegant and ultimately, truthful.
So, were you being sarcastic or not. Just 'cuz you said it doesn't make it so.
What would be the criteria for making marriage more difficult? Would the couple need to prove their love before a judge? Would they need to prove some kind of financial stability?
I think we should do away with the concept of marriage. It is outdated and treats both parties like pieces of property property. Why can't two people just spend their lives together without entering into a contract? Are we really that afraid that the other person will leave that we have to contract to stay with one another?
________
AVANDIA CLASS ACTION
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:53 PM.
You would have to take classes. And you couldn't get married if the bride is pregnant, which here in San Antonio would reduce marriages by 50%.
________
Wellbutrin Injury Lawyer
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:53 PM.
I wouldn't go that far, I just think we need a clear separation of legal unions and spiritual/religious unions.
If you want to share assets, children, joint insurance, change your name, etc., go to City Hall and fill out the appropriate paperwork. If you change your mind later, do it again.
If you want to be married, go to a church or wherever else they perform the type of ceremony you prefer.
Seriously though, what the do we need marriages for? What purpose do they serve?
________
Sexyvioleta live
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:53 PM.
Hmmm, dont truly know actually. Let me think...
These are totally random thoughts. Shoot down as necessary, their now well-thought out by any means.
1) Minimum time spent together (I dunno...at least 6 months? A year?)
2) Minimum time living together (again, I say year, but thats me)
3) Minimum time spent financially living together (yes, that is different than living together, money problems = 99% of marriage problems)
4) A trial-period. Whereby, the 2 can seperate indefiantely with no palimony/alimony problems (unless children are involved, then criteria change dramatically)
I cant think of any more. And honestly, its never going to happen. The religous people of our country find my living condition to be wrong anyway. They believe you should be married if living with another person.
They want all the things you could think of with little to no thought. All you need to do is increase arrogance and paranoia proportionately to the decrease in open-mindedness and altruistic virtue.
Simple stuff.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
