Outlaw Divorce?

[Grumpy]

Yet, in recent years, calls for an end to no-fault divorce have increasingly been made by some prominent Republicans. These include the current speaker of the House, Mike Johnson – the one who had his own son monitor his porn consumption via an evangelical app and who is himself in a ‘covenant marriage’, an extreme and explicitly Christian form of marriage that is very difficult to dissolve and legally available in only three states, including his native Louisiana.

The state-level platforms of the Republican Party branches in Texas and Nebraska have also called for the abolition of no-fault divorce, and the topic has seen some debate in red states’ legislatures in recent years.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/no-fault-divorce-ban-republicans-win-presidency-2024-christian-mike-johnson-donald-trump/

[ML]

Then Private Eyes will get more business and they would be called on to take photos of one or both of the married persons in bed with someone else.

[ML]

Then Private Eyes will get more business and they would be called on to take photos of one or both of the married persons in bed with someone else.

Just remembered what happened to a friend of mine regarding taking pics of persons in bed.

There were no pics and both he and sex partner were unmarried.

He and the gal would meet at a town halfway between their towns and do their business in a motel.

On one occassion the gal's  ex saw them enter the motel room.

So 5-10 min into the affair, when they were going at it . . .

The ex threw a trash can through the window, reached in and opened the door, and charged in.

My friend got up (still naked) and was in hand to hand combat with the ex when police arrived.

End results:

1) The ex was arrested.

2) My friend could not attain an erection for a couple of months.

[Steamer]

Outlawing divorce would only increase the murder rate.

[ML]

Outlawing divorce would only increase the murder rate.

"Divorce, Italian Style" movie.

[Bee Farmer]

I'm no fan of divorce.  But I also believe that sometimes, it's better for folks to split.

Rather than outlawing divorce, I think a better solution is to outlaw remarriage.

If you would rather be alone than to be with the person you married...you can be alone.  But if you later decide it would be better to be married than to be alone, the person you divorced is your only option.

It would make people think twice about who they chose...and give more incentive to working things out, rather than to walk away at the first fight, with the expectation they can find someone else.

[Trenchcoat]

I'm no fan of divorce.  But I also believe that sometimes, it's better for folks to split.

Rather than outlawing divorce, I think a better solution is to outlaw remarriage.

If you would rather be alone than to be with the person you married...you can be alone.  But if you later decide it would be better to be married than to be alone, the person you divorced is your only option.

It would make people think twice about who they chose...and give more incentive to working things out, rather than to walk away at the first fight, with the expectation they can find someone else.

I take about the same line. I like the point made by Jordan Peterson (though I am not religious) that if divorce is made hard then two people essentially learn to live with each other before they tear each other apart in most instances. Conversely if it is made easy then there is the tendency for people to take the easiest route out, the path of least resistance which may not be best in the long run for anyone however terrible things may seem at the time.

I think also on top of that is how easy either the divorce is made by the State not so much in terms of whether it is allowed, time it takes, but in terms of who gets what. If a Country balances who gets what so that neither party can walk away feeling like thet have gotten what they wanted then people are likely to be less inclined to divorce. Fir example if the man keeps whatever he owned before marriage (say a house) while the woman got custody of the kids with the man's ability to visit either very restricted or in question then both sides may stand back and look at it and think, 'hmmnnn... I as the woman don't get the house so need to find accommodation which could be problematic and unsuitable options plus with children in tie that I am now solely responsible for'. While the man thinks, 'Ok I have the house back and to myself which is nice but damn I don't get to see the kids and have them around me and I miss them and having a family so get lonely, possibly miserable, etc'.

Pre-nups for that very reason I think are best avoided that they try and resolve it all so that people don't end up facing that but make it too easy for people to walk away by giving them the ideal that suits them/both of them. Sone even say it's like planning that your relationship is going to fail before you even get to a divorce and I think there could be some truth in that.

So yes I think you have a point Bee Farmer that more needs to be done post divorce to ensure people don't see it as an easy in east out. From what I hear divorce us often seen as a stressful and destructive process so not good for anyone really.

[Boethius]

I think divorce should be simple as should remarriage. I don’t believe people will stay together merely because divorce is difficult. They often then split and don’t formalize their split.

No matter how equal a division of property is, both parties end up losing.

I think “covenant marriage” is silly. If those folks really were religious, they wouldn’t need that. Just read your NT.

[Bee Farmer]

I think divorce should be simple as should remarriage. I don’t believe people will stay together merely because divorce is difficult. They often then split and don’t formalize their split.

No matter how equal a division of property is, both parties end up losing.

Why do you believe it should be simple for both parties to end up losing? 

Wouldn't it be better if winning was easier than losing?  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - if people avoided marriages that would likely end in disaster, wouldn't that be better than getting married and then ending up losing?

I think “covenant marriage” is silly. If those folks really were religious, they wouldn’t need that. Just read your NT.

Please explain.  I've read the New Testament multiple times.  And I still have no idea what you are insinuating.  (Just as I have no idea what being religious has to do with the NT, as I know religious people who do not follow Christianity.  Then again, I know many so-called Christians who do not follow Christianity either.)

Jesus did say that God allows divorce because of the hardness of mans heart.
Jesus also said that even if you get divorced, you commit adultery if you are with someone else before your original spouse dies.  (So much for the idea of remarriage.)  [And the Old Testament said that if a man put away his wife (divorce) he was still required to financially support her and give her more than any of his other wives - this was in reference to polygamous marriages.)
If marriage were a contract (versus a covenant) a person would be free to remarry after divorce without it being adultery.  If being with someone else after divorce is adultery, that means the original marriage was a covenant that can only be broken by death.  If you get divorced because of the hardness of your heart, you must remain alone or be reconciled.

The New Testament also says that you are supposed to love and cherish your spouse.  (The Old Testament does say that a man is to find pleasure in his wife's body.)  It doesn't say that you have to be happy.  (How many women believe divorce is acceptable if either party isn't happy?  Is happiness supposed to be the goal, or a side effect?)

But we should also ask, "What is the purpose of marriage?"  Is it just for companionship, for people who can't stand to be alone?  Is it for people, who want someone to take care of them?
Or is marriage for the purpose of creating a family, and providing an environment that provides the offspring the best chance for the best life they can have?  If that is the case, then what is the point of folks marrying who are past child-bearing age?

[ML]

But we should also ask, "What is the purpose of marriage?"

The purpose of marriage for the man is to have someone to cook, clean and engage in sex.
It is best that the man keep the woman barefoot, pregnant, and without education.

I have failed because she will not give up her shoes, my vascetomy prevents pregnancy, and she kept sneaking out of the house to go to university to obtain MS and PhD.

But she does still cook, clean and engage in sex . . . so all is good.