Federal Divorce Amendment?
- Thread starter melon
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
If they want to protect marriage
they should go after divorce.
Divorce is the only threat to marriage.
they should go after divorce.
Divorce is the only threat to marriage.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
melon said:
Well in my parents case only one was a miserable hetero. The other was a miserable homo. And the kids were the most miserable of all. The best thing my parents ever did was to divorce.
So my thought is that Hostettler and his ilk are vicious fucking idiots.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Exactly. Sometimes divorce can be necessary.
No. There shouldn't be an amendment against divorce. It should be a decision that a couple should decide on their own. Trying to make it illegal won't solve the problems that lead to couples divorcing, if anything, it'll just cause more problems, and people will find more ways to try and get around the amendment.
Seriously, these groups really should quit trying to tell people what to do regarding their relationships, be the couple straight or gay. Worry about making sure your own relationships are good and sturdy before running around telling other people how to handle theirs.
Angela
No. There shouldn't be an amendment against divorce. It should be a decision that a couple should decide on their own. Trying to make it illegal won't solve the problems that lead to couples divorcing, if anything, it'll just cause more problems, and people will find more ways to try and get around the amendment.
Seriously, these groups really should quit trying to tell people what to do regarding their relationships, be the couple straight or gay. Worry about making sure your own relationships are good and sturdy before running around telling other people how to handle theirs.
Angela
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
melon said:
Bullshit. In your haste to lash out at anyone who is capable of stripping you of your liberties, you make the erronous decision to include everyone in this. Stop it, melon. You're becoming as blind as those very conservatives you are truly fighting. As tongue in cheek as you might be, you are becoming as bigoted as them by continually saying it, so congrats, I guess. You seem to have wanted this.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
melon said:
You want to stop and consider how many of those "miserable heteros stuck in loveless marriages" are ardent supporters of gay rights, including the right of gay people to marry?
Overturning progressive legislation (ie permitting divorce) isn't the way to respond to proposed reactionary legislation (ie banning gay marriage). Why not focus your energy on demanding the rights you're currently denied rather than supporting attempts to take away other people's rights.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
Actually, I'm more in favor of a law making it a little more difficult to enter into any civil marriage.
Like at least a year waiting period once a divorce is finalized. Or, if you are at least 18, no annulment as a result of a drunken marriage. You've got to go through the whole divorce process.
If we are deciding that marriage is good for society, then the problem is the casualness with which we handle marriage rather than divorce. Not to paint a broad brush, but if we spent more time thinking about the marriage and planning the marriage than we do thinking about the wedding, maybe....
Like at least a year waiting period once a divorce is finalized. Or, if you are at least 18, no annulment as a result of a drunken marriage. You've got to go through the whole divorce process.If we are deciding that marriage is good for society, then the problem is the casualness with which we handle marriage rather than divorce. Not to paint a broad brush, but if we spent more time thinking about the marriage and planning the marriage than we do thinking about the wedding, maybe....
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
BonosSaint said:
I agree
Also I see a bunch of heteros stuck in loveless marriages even w/ divorce being legal-they don't want to give up a certain lifestyle, they want all the benefits while having affairs...there are many reasons
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
I doubt many people are going to take this very seriously.
LoveTown
Refugee
well, I think either divorce should be a bit harder or a marriage license should be a bit harder to get. People enter into marriage too lightly these days.
for example, my niece doesn't know what she wants to do with her life and she is having some financial troubles. My sister, her mother, told her that she needs to get married to solve her financial problems. Yikes, that's a scary thought. I love my niece dearly but she's a 20 year old flake that has no business playing house until she grows up some.
for example, my niece doesn't know what she wants to do with her life and she is having some financial troubles. My sister, her mother, told her that she needs to get married to solve her financial problems. Yikes, that's a scary thought. I love my niece dearly but she's a 20 year old flake that has no business playing house until she grows up some.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Yeah, right, a law banning divorce is not going to get any support from a society in which half the marriages end in divorce. Even fundamentalists get divorced. Sometimes divorce is necessary. I have two divorced siblings. They both really needed to end their unhappy marriages.
LoveTown
Refugee
i just want to state that I do agree that some marriages need to end. However, it seems so many people get married for the wrong reasons. They rush into marriage because they have some romantic notion about what it's going to be like. When reality sets in they want out.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
BonosSaint said:Actually, I'm more in favor of a law making it a little more difficult to enter into any civil marriage.
If we are deciding that marriage is good for society, then the problem is the casualness with which we handle marriage rather than divorce. Not to paint a broad brush, but if we spent more time thinking about the marriage and planning the marriage than we do thinking about the wedding, maybe....
i think this makes a lot of sense.
i know people decry the 50% divorce rate, and i think we can agree that, in most cases, divorce is sad and hard for the kids.
however, we need to look at how marriage has evolved over the past 100 years, and especially in the last 30 years.
the economic empowerment of women has removed one of the major obstacles that kept the divorce rate low (yet possibly increased misery and silent suffering) -- now that more woman than ever don't need a man economically to survive, what becomes the incentive to stay together?
love and commitment. which is beautiful, and when it works, it's a wonderful thing and in some ways its rather wonderful that, today, marriage has never been more idealistic and optimistic as institution.
but, sadly, love fades, commitment wanes, and people fall out of love, people change, and the love that once was is not a guarantee of a lifetime of love. not that this doesn't exist, and everyone in a happy, love-filled marriage (like many FYMers, it seems) should be thankful every day. but we also need to realize that keeping together an idealistic institution founded on love and commitment is simply harder than keeping together a financial arrangement founded on practicality.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
irvine. You always say what I want to say so well! 
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
U2democrat said:
you're such a sweetheart. thanks.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
you're such a sweetheart. thanks.
anytime
By the way a gay couple joined our church a couple weeks ago.
One of them is a hairstylist, interior decorator, AND flower arranger! 
He's wonderful though 
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
If the religious right want to implement biblical law, let them remember the injunctions against divorce in the Bible. Jesus specifically said that the old law was too liberal as regards divorce yet he said absolutely nothing specific about gay rights, good bad or indifferent.
So yes the congressman is at least more consistent in his Biblical intepretations than some on the religious right.
But I don't think it's going to wash in the Bush voting states, which have higher divorce rates than the Democrat voting ones.
So yes the congressman is at least more consistent in his Biblical intepretations than some on the religious right.
But I don't think it's going to wash in the Bush voting states, which have higher divorce rates than the Democrat voting ones.
Last edited:
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
U2democrat said:
I'll second that
. to what BonosSaint said, too. Angela
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
deep said:
Re: Re: Federal Divorce Amendment?
Forgive my rather ironic approach to writing. If I had just wrote it in usual "liberal social outrage," no one would have probably read this. Do you think I seriously want this?
I just want all those apathetic people out there (and I'm not referring to anyone specificially, but, poll wise, that's most of America) to realize that the wrath of the Christian Taliban extends beyond some nameless "Other" and to realize that it can affect them too.
So let's bring on the amendment!
Melon
Angela Harlem said:
Forgive my rather ironic approach to writing. If I had just wrote it in usual "liberal social outrage," no one would have probably read this. Do you think I seriously want this?
I just want all those apathetic people out there (and I'm not referring to anyone specificially, but, poll wise, that's most of America) to realize that the wrath of the Christian Taliban extends beyond some nameless "Other" and to realize that it can affect them too.
So let's bring on the amendment!
Melon
Re: Re: Federal Divorce Amendment?
You mean less than 40% of voters? I think only Oregon's "Defense of Marriage" amendment didn't break the 60% mark.
Maybe this will help the "apathetic majority" to wake up out of their stupor. Or, if not, at least I'll get a chuckle out of an amendment that doesn't affect me and my rights, for once.
Melon
FizzingWhizzbees said:
You mean less than 40% of voters? I think only Oregon's "Defense of Marriage" amendment didn't break the 60% mark.
Maybe this will help the "apathetic majority" to wake up out of their stupor. Or, if not, at least I'll get a chuckle out of an amendment that doesn't affect me and my rights, for once.
Melon
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Isn't this scaring the absolute shit out of anyone but me?
martha said:
No.
ETA: I meant to say yes, not no. WTF, I obviously need sleep, lol.
Frankly, I think we need to nip these things in the bud right now when they're starting to gather momentum and not in a hundred years when these folks have gotten their way.
Last edited:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Let's make the marriage contract something reasonable, like 5 years.
At the 5-year point each party could agree to a 5-year renewal.
A five year option is about all anyone should have to commit to.
Most car leases are 4-5 years max.
At the 5-year point each party could agree to a 5-year renewal.
A five year option is about all anyone should have to commit to.
Most car leases are 4-5 years max.
LoveTown
Refugee
I dunno if 5 years is good. I mean, one of my very best friend's husband started cheating on her 6 months after they were married...
also, what about in the case of domestic violence. Nobody should have to be smacked around or verbally or mentally abused for 5 years before they can get out.
also, what about in the case of domestic violence. Nobody should have to be smacked around or verbally or mentally abused for 5 years before they can get out.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Marriage and Divorce should be as quick, inexpensive and easy as possible.
LoveTown
Refugee
meh lets just do away with marriage. If you love somebody and want to share your life with them go for it!
i believe insurance and all the benefits that go with marriage should be put into place for domestic partners....and hell for that matter if I want to put my elderly parents or a sibling or any person of my choosing on my insurance for a reasonable fee so freaking be it!!! heh
i believe insurance and all the benefits that go with marriage should be put into place for domestic partners....and hell for that matter if I want to put my elderly parents or a sibling or any person of my choosing on my insurance for a reasonable fee so freaking be it!!! heh
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
No, you can keep marriage and also have legal status for domestic partners at the same time.
LoveTown
Refugee
true, very true. however, my statement about being able to decide who I want covered by my insurance still stands. I'd love to be able to put my parents on my plan.
Similar threads
