Is Divorce Too Easy?

[ClydeR]

If you thought society had reached an understanding on divorce, then you were sadly mistaken. The Virginia governor's race has opened a can of divorce worms.

Take a look at this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-55aPMOcBE) by Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat candidate.


Mr. Cuccinelli’s proposal would have allowed a husband or a wife who did not wish a divorce to file an objection to the granting of the divorce for marriages begun after July 1, 2008, that include children. It would have once again made divorce a bilateral decision instead of keeping the power to divorce in the hands of one spouse only. Under no-fault divorce laws, the person who does not want a divorce has no choice if his or her spouse does want one; their marriage is declared ended by a judge.

More... (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/crouse-no-fault-divorce-hits-children-hardest/)

What's wrong with that? If it's better for children if their parents stay married, then their parents should stay married. Period.

[Gelston]

I think the state should immediately take the children and place them in a home with loving, heterosexual, christian parents.

[Atlanteax]

What's wrong with that? If it's better for children if their parents stay married, then their parents should stay married. Period.

It is tough to decide whether the 'old way' of staying (unhappily) married 30+ years with divorce being a last-resort, but kids ultimately grow up with two parents ... or 'new way' with a prevalence of single-parents pursuing happier relationships with children only have partial bonds with their estranged parent ... is better.

[Merala]

As the child of a woman whose parents stayed together just for the children, it's better to divorce. She's still fucked up from the fighting, bitterness, and abuse she grew up with.

[Jeril]

What's wrong with that? If it's better for children if their parents stay married, then their parents should stay married. Period.

Parents are supposed to set the example for their children, how is living a life of being unhappily married setting any kind of good example?

[Zelas]

My parents stayed together way too long. Divorce is preferable from my experience. Staying together for the kids only models miserable relationships to the kids who then grow up thinking that's how it should be.

[Wrathbringer]

Or couples could be mature responsible parents regardless of their current feelings about each other and fulfill their obligations cheerfully while sticking it out...

[leifastagsweed]

Anyone who thinks divorce is 'easy' under ANY form of legislation has clearly never been through a divorce.

[Warriorbird]

Fucking Cucinelli.

[Archigeek]

Anyone who thinks divorce is 'easy' under ANY form of legislation has clearly never been through a divorce.

QFT

[Archigeek]

Anyone who thinks divorce is 'easy' under ANY form of legislation has clearly never been through a divorce.

QFT

[Tisket]

The only people that will benefit from making divorce more difficult are lawyers.

[Methais]

Parents are supposed to set the example for their children, how is living a life of being unhappily married setting any kind of good example?

It teaches them to not get married and ruin their own lives.

[leifastagsweed]

It teaches them to not get married and ruin their own lives.

Naw, man, it makes them think I CAN DO IT BETTER EVEN THOUGH I HAVE HAD POOR MODELING AND NO POSSIBILITY OF SUCCESS WITHOUT IT.

http://www.dymaxionweb.com/kulturedrome/eyeless%20automaton.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Cuccinelli is so annoying that he thankfully even bothers Republicans.

[Shaps]

Why is the government even allowed to say who should be with who. People get married, if they choose not to be together, then that is their choice. If there are children involved, then an agreement on custody should be thoughtfully considered.

Unfortunately how our current system is, to many people see children as a cash cow instead of doing things in their best interest. This goes both ways, people don't want to either pay for their kids, or people want monstrous amounts of child support. Kids definetly lose in these situations, but I've lost faith in most people being decent human beings when $ is involved.

But the government should not force two people to remain together if they choose not to be together.

[Zelas]

Why is the government even allowed to say who should be with who. People get married, if they choose not to be together, then that is their choice. If there are children involved, then an agreement on custody should be thoughtfully considered.

Unfortunately how our current system is, to many people see children as a cash cow instead of doing things in their best interest. This goes both ways, people don't want to either pay for their kids, or people want monstrous amounts of child support. Kids definetly lose in these situations, but I've lost faith in most people being decent human beings when $ is involved.

But the government should not force two people to remain together if they choose not to be together.

And quite honestly the government can't make two people stay together. Marriage is a personal relationship with long reaching consequences. States have some laws to deal with those consequences, but it's a mess when things get sideways. Making divorce harder won't change the personal dynamics involved. The same way you can't legislate courtesy. This is just political hot air.

[Thondalar]

And quite honestly the government can't make two people stay together. Marriage is a personal relationship with long reaching consequences. States have some laws to deal with those consequences, but it's a mess when things get sideways. Making divorce harder won't change the personal dynamics involved. The same way you can't legislate courtesy. This is just political hot air.

Divorce should be easy, imo. Marriage should be much harder.

[Showal]

I think the state should immediately take the children and place them in a home with loving, heterosexual, christian parents.

Since we have established that kids with poor modeling have no choice and parents should not stick together in the interest of the kids, I think the state should remove kids from the divorced parents and sterilize them. If they fight or ever display interest in adopting, the kids should be euthanized. If the kids ever grow up to be in a Role model position, they will be shot.

[Ardwen]

Getting married is too easy is the problem, make people run thru hoops and prove they really wanna be hitched!

[Gweneivia]

My brother married his sweetheart from Junior High (though they did date others, in college). After being married for 12 years they decided that rather than continue to try to drag it out for "the sake of the children" they would get a divorce while they still at least liked each other. No bitterness, no drag out fights, no one parent saying mean things/spying on the other parent via the kids. Instead cooperation, communication, concessions, and every effort made for both of them to remain and share in a big part in their kids' lives. While it was still sad and I'm sure my niece and nephew would rather that they had been able to work things out and stay together, but I can't imagine any better outcome on the whole. I can't see how making it more of a struggle for them would have made things any better for their kids or for them.

[Latrinsorm]

Why is the government even allowed to say who should be with who. People get married, if they choose not to be together, then that is their choice. If there are children involved, then an agreement on custody should be thoughtfully considered.

Unfortunately how our current system is, to many people see children as a cash cow instead of doing things in their best interest. This goes both ways, people don't want to either pay for their kids, or people want monstrous amounts of child support. Kids definetly lose in these situations, but I've lost faith in most people being decent human beings when $ is involved.

But the government should not force two people to remain together if they choose not to be together.The point of the proposal is that they didn't decide, one person decided. The analogy to draw would be to any other at-will contract.

People have been totally ill-suited to raising children long before the current government system, and for that matter long before the current government. Child Protective Services would have had a field day with Abraham, which may have prevented him from awakening the Balrog at Mount Moriah, and just think where we'd be then.
I can't see how making it more of a struggle for them would have made things any better for their kids or for them.The proposal wouldn't have applied to them, because both parents were seeking divorce.

[ClydeR]

Unfortunately how our current system is, to many people see children as a cash cow instead of doing things in their best interest.

Ah, yes. The quickest way to wealth is to have a bunch of kids. Just look at Mitt Romney.

[Showal]

Ah, yes. The quickest way to wealth is to have a bunch of kids. Just look at Mitt Romney.

No. The quickest way to wealth is to put your dog in a crate on top of your car. Just look at Mitt Romney.

[Valthissa]

Cuccinelli is so annoying that he thankfully even bothers Republicans.

Sabato said it best - Cuccinelli and McAuliffe are both lucky. They are running against the only person in Virginia they can beat.

I never thought I wouldn't vote, this year that looks like the only sane option.

[Warriorbird]

Sabato said it best - Cuccinelli and McAuliffe are both lucky. They are running against the only person in Virginia they can beat.

I never thought I wouldn't vote, this year that looks like the only sane option.

They're both pretty ridiculously questionable. I'll probably pull for McAuliffe due to the anti Standards of Learning platform.

[Tgo01]

I never thought I wouldn't vote, this year that looks like the only sane option.

Don't let Back hear you say that!