If anti-gay "family values" groups actually do start to focus on curbing heterosexual divorce, as the Washington Post reports, might it limit their support? Probably only if they move beyond rhetoric and support for voluntary options such as less easy to dissolve "covenant marriage," and instead work for actual legal barriers to marriage dissolution-which isn't all that likely (don't expect any proposed state or federal constitutional amendments!).
Not surprisingly, as the Post story indicates, you can leave it to liberal Democrats (in this case, openly gay Virginia house delegate Adam Ebbin) to suggest, in response, that what's really needed to discourage divorce is for the government to force employers to pay higher wages and to further nationalized health care.
21 Comments for “Targeting Divorce”
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Logically, curbing divorce begins with curbing ill-advised marriages. This includes those entered into for the sake of appearance. Sake of appearance becomes less important when everybody gets the same degree of basic respect. Respect in our society often follows achieving all rights enjoyed by others.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
However, as the rate of out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation shows in our society, there is little to no social stigma whatsoever involved with whether one is married or not.
Furthermore, it is utterly silly for gay leftists to argue that not having marriage is somehow intolerable for gays, given that literally millions of existing heterosexuals seem to have no problem whatsoever living together, sharing finances, and having children without being married. If this were so painful and awful, or if it were shameful and destroyed all respect they would receive socially, then why on earth are they choosing to do it?
posted by Brian Miller on
ND30’s argument is akin to one that says that a law banning gay people from living in any part of the country other than New York State is just fine, since millions of heterosexual people live in New York State and get by just fine with no problems at all. Typical Republican illogic at its finest.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30’s argument is akin to
It’s not “akin to” anything. It is a direct question as to why gay leftists are applying a double standard of need.
For instance, they insist that the absence of marriage is totally damaging to children when arguing for marriage, so much so that the courts must intervene — but they insist that children are not damaged in the least when born and raised out of wedlock.
From another angle, gay leftists insist that their unmarried status endangers their children and families by blocking health benefits and visitation rights — but never say anything about heterosexuals being allowed to deliberately endanger other people by not forcing them to get married.
Furthermore, Mr. Miller, I’m surprised to see you get involved, inasmuch as your position argues for the abolishment of marriage. Why would you care — unless changing the laws to allow same-sex marriage would accelerate the process of eliminating it?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “…they [the ubiquitous “gay leftists” that haunt ND30’s every waking minute] insist that the absence of marriage is totally damaging to children when arguing for marriage…”
Please provide a citation where the gay-marriage discussion has focused on the “totally damaging” lack of marriage rights in regards to children. This issue is dramatic enough without your typical shenanigans.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Please provide a citation where the gay-marriage discussion has focused on the “totally damaging” lack of marriage rights in regards to children.
This is way too easy.
Talk about your family and friends and how they are affected. Profile same-sex couples who you know and their real-life stories about how their families are harmed by being denied marriage.
It is especially powerful to talk about the impact on the children in these families. Even if people are uneasy with the idea of gay people raising kids, they know it happens and we need to make them realize that these children are harmed when their parents are denied legal recognition of their relationship.
We can get even more specific than that.
Recent studies show that marriage equality is essential for the fiscal and mental health of the GLBT community and the hundreds of thousands of children raised by same-sex couples.
By the way, those are PFLAG’s suggested talking points for the gay marriage discussion.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
So you admit that you lied about “gay leftists” using rhetoric about the “totally damaging” (your words ND30, just asking for some proof) effects of marriage inequality?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nope.
I stand by what I cited and what I said.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Oh, so you have no proof (as usual) for the smears and distortions you’ve posted here. Fine…you’ve been caught lying and are now unable to admit it. Thanks for the dishonesty, wouldn’t want you any other way ND30!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, I have very clear and referenceable proof, CP.
Whether or not you choose to read, recognize, or acknowledge it, of course, is solely dependent on you.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Totally damaging??? Please provide a source for such a claim…are you unable to do so?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I already have, CP.
Again, whether or not you choose to read, recognize, or acknowledge it is solely dependent on you.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
You might want to read, recognize, and acknowledge your own post ND30…you’ll see that it is, in fact, a direct refutation of your unfounded claim. Game Over, you lied.
posted by Brian Miller on
‘m surprised to see you get involved, inasmuch as your position argues for the abolishment of marriage.
It calls for no such thing.
It calls, as you well know, for the privatization of marriage, as worked well in this country for its first 100 or so years of existence.
In order to do that, a transitional policy is required that makes “marriage licenses” available to anyone who wants one, followed up with a devolution of the “rights” of marriage to all and sundry, followed up by getting government out of the marriage business entirely and keeping it a private affair that people may choose to celebrate — or not celebrate — of their own accord.
It is a direct question as to why gay leftists are applying a double standard of need.
Actually, it is illustrative of the problem with both yourself and “leftists.” You both believe that external parties in government are in the best position to judge the “needs” of others — and centrally manage others’ lives based on their bureaucratic assessments.
Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that individuals know their “needs” much better than government bureaucrats and wannabe nannies of any political stripe, and that those needs, plus desires, etc. are best regulated by individual adults acting consensually.
There’s this whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” thing that Republicans and Democrats keep forgetting about. They keep trying to replace it with “regulation, restriction, and government determination of need.” That sort of thing flies in Europe, much less so in this country.
posted by Lori Heine on
Libertarians also believe that government should only do the few things it can do better than anyone else.
Does regulating marriage fall into that narrow category? Well, how has the government done in regulating it?
It sucks at it.
Let’s go back to doing things the way we did before the nanny state decided we were all too stupid to live our own lives.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Game Over, you lied.
(shrug) Again, ColoradoPatriot, I stand by what I wrote and what I referenced. Again, whether or not you choose to read, recognize, or acknowledge it is solely dependent on you.
Next up, to Lori.
Well, how has the government done in regulating it?
It sucks at it.
Oh, I wouldn’t say that. It’s done a masterful job of ending child marriage, it’s done a very good job of eliminating plural marriage, and it does a better-than-passing job at eliminating incestuous marriages.
Minus the government, there would be as much restraint on those as there is on cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births — which is to say none.
Personally, I rather prefer that the long arm of the law is there to help with people like Warren Jeffs, but that’s just me.
And now to Mr. Miller.
In order to do that, a transitional policy is required
Hardly.
All that needs to be done is for you to come forward and state publicly that, in the name of gay and other rights, you want to abolish all forms of marriage and provide automatic marriage benefits to anyone who demands them, regardless of circumstance.
followed up with a devolution of the “rights” of marriage to all and sundry
Odd; when I’ve argued that our efforts should be focused on making health care proxies, wills, and other whatnot both easier and stouter from a legal standpoint — which nicely falls into this category — you’ve loudly derided that. It seems odd that you would be hostile to such a thing when it’s what you claim to advocate.
Perhaps that’s because my way doesn’t require abolishing or diminishing marriage.
posted by Gay Leftist on
You’re a “gay leftist” if you disagree with NDT. Why do you people encourage him?
posted by Randy on
Considering the fact that one of the leading causes of divorce is financial problems, it would behoove people who deplore divorce to consider what that means. If it means helping married couples be more financially stable, then that would be a good thing, no?
So raising the minimum wage and having affordable health care might actually lower the divorce rate. It wouldn’t be a cure-all, by any means, but it’s not a crazy thought.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Considering the fact that one of the leading causes of divorce is financial problems, it would behoove people who deplore divorce to consider what that means.
Well, given that we’ve all seen poor couples stick together and wealthy couples divorce, it doesn’t really mean squat; indeed, if money were correlated with marital happiness and stability, average marriage length in Hollywood would be measured in decades, not months. Furthermore, when one considers how financially devastating a divorce is, given that it’s basically a forced asset sale with hefty legal fees, getting one to deal with financial problems is the rough equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The simplest way to reduce divorce is to eliminate no-fault. It always amuses me how so-called “advocacy groups” for women will argue that they need no-fault so that women can escape abusive relationships — which ignores the fact that, if a woman is being abused, that in and of itself is acceptable grounds for a divorce, and puts into the justice system the clear fact that her husband is an abuser.
posted by Randy on
From Highbeam Research:
“In the US, 57% of divorced couples name money as the cause. Different financial goals and views of the role of money as well as a simple lack of money are some causes of discord.
Money enables people to buy many things; unfortunately, it can’t buy happiness, love or a lasting relationship. And surprisingly, money turns out to be the leading cause of today’s divorces.”
posted by Lori Heine on
Protecting minors from premature marriage is quite doable without letting the state meddle in marriage between consenting adults.
Polygamy is only widespread in societies where women lack adequate financial resources of their own. Those on the Right who want to keep women financially dependent on men are hypocrites to claim they want to prevent polygamy — which will happen anyway, legal or illegal, under those conditions. If they really want to prevent polygamy, they’ll walk the talk by working to improve conditions for women and children.
If two idiots who are related to each other want to get married and produce more idiots, I don’t suppose there’s much the government can do to stop them, no matter what sort of laws it passes.
Back in the Fifties, “there oughtta be a law” was a corny slogan perpetuated by standup comics. Today, it’s all too many people’s answer to everything.
Let’s pass a law against sunspots and see if they stop.