Yeah, no shit people don't approve of this

[trinityvixen]

So this woman is out to save marriage from divorce in Oklahoma. This may be an unpopular thing to say, but I applaud her for at least having the courage of her convictions and going full-on with the crazy and not being a hypocrite. See, she really does think gays are a threat to marriage. And she sat a good long time and thought, "Gee, you know

Comments

[kent_allard_jr]

Speaking of homophobic evangelicals ... have you seen this?

[trinityvixen]

I followed this story where it first broke on Rachel Maddow's show. She had that ex-gay leader guy (UBER CREEPY) on to ask him about the kill-the-gays bill and he was all faux-outraged that his teachings--that gays are trying to rape you, your children, your grandparents, and cripples in order to give you the gay (and probably also AIDS)--would be used to that extent. He's a racist piece of shit, too. She read out from his book a list of things that make people gay, one of which was "race." When she cornered him on it, he tried to deflect it: she was making it up! She said, literally, "It's in your book, dude." Then he was like, "It's out of context." Rachel says, "I read the entire paragraph that lists things that make you gay, and that was in there. Doesn't say why, though." He finally flop-sweated with "It won't be in later editions." She's like, "This makes it okay that it's in this edition

[kent_allard_jr]

Being white makes you gay? (That's the only argument I could imagine him making. Thus the whole Ugandan thing of homosexuality being a Western import, etc. etc.)

[trinityvixen]

We'll never know, since he refused to clarify.

[equustel]

Sure, because marriage isn't already tied up in government to the extent that it gives people headaches at best and faulty "rights" at worst! Let's make it further enmeshed!

Also, one big LOL to the term "threat to marriage". The only real threat to any marriage is the people in it.

[trinityvixen]

The only threat to marriage are people determined to save it. (In addition to the people in it.)

[edgehopper]

This reform goes too far, but why should marriage be less binding than a contract?

If you start working for a private biotech company and sign a noncompete agreement with them, and 12 years later you get tired of working for the company and want to go elsewhere, you're stuck with the contract. You can try to negotiate your way out of the contract if the company will let you, but mere unhappiness won't save you. This isn't the case with no fault divorce in pretty much all states--even in New York, where fault is required to get the divorce but doesn't go to asset division, child custody, and child support.

My preferred reform is to just say that a marriage is a contract, and should be treated as such. You want out of the contract without good cause, fine--but you're in breach, and you'll pay through the nose for it (or if you're the lower-earning party, you'll walk away with nothing).

[chuckro]

What interest does that state have in making people miserable?

If you need to be legally bound to have, hold, love, honor and cherish, then you are in a sham of a marriage anyway, because you can't truly do any of those things if you don't want to.

[trinityvixen]

I addressed some of this myself. For me, legally binding marriages are usually of the sort that are either religious or of monetary gain. In the first case, even being miserable, a person finds other fulfillment/commandment in staying married. In the latter case, the marriage is already underwritten with enough pre-nups that making divorce tougher on other people wouldn't change what happens in this case at all. The lawyers would just work around it.

[edgehopper]

None--but the state does have an interest in holding people to their legal commitments, of which marriage is one.

Obvious example, and the dominant one: Most marriages today (and almost all marriages prior to feminism) are based on a division of labor; one party is primarily responsible for household upkeep and childrearing, and the other is primarily responsible for bringing in income. There's a clear bargain here; the party staying at home taking care of kids gives up income and income potential, while the party working knows that his/her family is well taken care of. When a party breaches the contract, it hurts the other party. If the stay at home parent leaves for no reason, the working party shouldn't be penalized in child custody. If the working party leaves for no reason, the stay at home parent is utterly economically screwed.

The argument has nothing to do with love, and everything to do with family economics.

[ivy03]

This is why the plot of Evelyn Waugh's Handful of Dust is so convoluted (if I'm not confusing it with another book...). There's some very confusing stuff about having to fake infidelity to get out of a marriage. And I remember reading the Jeeves and Wooster stories where there's something called "breech of promise." Which means that if you promise to marry a girl, you are legally obligated to do so. And whose word do they listen to on that? The girl's. Thank god we've gotten rid of some of these laws.

[trinityvixen]

Basically, we agree that marriage is a bedrock, but we've enable abuse of it for many years. Divorce allows some escape from that. Assault on divorce is basically asking for that stuff to happen all over again.

[trinityvixen]

Legal enforcement will stop divorce. So will making divorce illegal. The point is not that divorce can be stopped but that stopping divorce is a stupid, intrusive waste of time for any governing body. Yes, recklessly divorcing people end up in court and waste time there. But many divorcing couples use lawyers, file briefs, and go home, peaceable as Buddhists. Imagine how much more of a waste of goddamned time it would be to try and run around mediating divorce with force--which is basically what this woman is advocating by making anyone who falls into her restrictions have to fight to get out of a marriage

[trinityvixen]

I just didn't know if you'd forwarded it in the same light as I was alluding to, which is that counseling aforethought is tantamount to divorce prevention in the same way that birth control is to abortion prevention.

My apologies if you got to that metaphor just as I did. I didn't intend to patronize. Patronizing is bad, and I am sorry.