Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would forbid parents from getting no-fault divorce (Iowa)
Radio Iowa ^ | 03/04/2013 | O. Kay Henderson

Posted on 03/05/2013 11:19:41 AM PST by Responsibility2nd

Seven Republicans in the Iowa House are pushing a bill to prohibit parents of minor children from getting a “no fault” divorce and the proposal could be debated in a House committee this week.

A three-member subcommittee debated the bill today. Representative Tedd Gassman, a Republican from Scarville, said he’s concerned about the negative impact divorce has on children.

“In my opinion, it’s time to look out for the children instead of constantly worrying about the adults,” Gassman said.

Daren Clark of Forest City — one of Gassman’s constituents — spoke about his recent divorce and the ongoing conflict with his ex-wife over custody of their two young children.

“The no-fault divorce law which was introduced in California in 1969 created the attitude of ‘do what’s best for me’ which has damaged thousands of families and their children. There needs to be reform of some kind in the no-fault divorce law. I’m going what I’ve told my kids to do: talk to those who can help,” Clark said, his voice breaking with emotion as he spoke to legislators and pleaded: “Ease the pain for thousands of kids and their families.”

Under the proposed legislation, parents with kids under the age of 18 could not get a no-fault divorce. Instead, they’d have to show a spouse was guilty of adultery, had been sent to prison on a felony conviction, had physically or sexually abused someone in the family, or had abandoned the family for at least a year.

“This basically is an attempt on my part to keep fathers in the home,” Gassman said. “I sincerely believe that the family is the foundation of this nation and this nation will go the direction of our families. If our families break up, so will this nation.”

Parents who have lived separately for at least two years could use that as a “fault” for a divorce, however.

Rachel Scott of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence told lawmakers the changes proposed often make homes a more dangerous place.

“One of the things that we’ve seen with places where there is fault divorce is it escalates tension and conflict between the two individuals,” Scott said.

Representative Marti Anderson, a Democrat from Des Moines who opposes the bill, said the tension in her childhood home lasted eight years, until her parents divorced back when fault had to be proven.

“The stay-together time was very, very damaging to my family,” said Anderson — the oldest of four children, “and although we’re all adults now, I’m not sure any of us have ever really gotten past that.”

Karl Schilling of the Iowa Organization for Victim Assistance said no-fault divorce was a carefully crafted solution to deal with those kind of problems.

“I think if you really want to lessen the divorce rate, there’s better things the legislature can do, such as work against poverty, increase jobs,” Schilling said.

Representative Gassman said the issue is “near and dear” to his heart because his daughter and son-in-law recently divorced, putting his granddaughter at risk.

“There’s a 16-year-old girl in this whole mix now. Guess what? What are the possibilities of her being more promiscuous?” Gassman said. “What are the possibilities of all these other things surrounding her life that a 16-year-old girl, with hormones raging, can get herself into?”

Gassman and another Republican lawmaker gave the bill initial approval today. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says there needs to be a discussion about the full range of problems in society, including divorce, and he may bring the bill up for debate in his committee. In 1970 Iowa became the second state in the nation to adopt a “no-fault” divorce law.

All 50 states now have “no-fault” laws allowing couples to divorce without citing evidence of wrong-doing from either spouse.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: divorce; nofaultdivorce
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Worth repeating in bold font....

Gassman said. “I sincerely believe that the family is the foundation of this nation and this nation will go the direction of our families. If our families break up, so will this nation.”


1 posted on 03/05/2013 11:19:47 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
"Parents who have lived separately for at least two years could use that as a “fault” for a divorce, however."

Then what's the sense...this is what they will do.

2 posted on 03/05/2013 11:23:24 AM PST by Fawn (In a World of Information, Ignorance is a Choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Karl Schilling of the Iowa Organization for Victim Assistance said no-fault divorce was a carefully crafted solution to deal with those kind of problems.

“I think if you really want to lessen the divorce rate, there’s better things the legislature can do, such as work against poverty, increase jobs,” Schilling said.

 

Idiot. How many thousands of studies - since No Fault was enacted - do you need to see before you know that NFD INCREASES poverty for parents and for their children?

3 posted on 03/05/2013 11:24:13 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fawn

No they won’t... It’s not “they”, the one who moves out is at fault and as the at fault party won’t get their share of the loot. Since it is almost always the woman who initiates the no-fault, often with the expectation of getting the loot, I think this would have a dramatic effect on the divorce rate.


4 posted on 03/05/2013 11:33:37 AM PST by LambSlave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

This is a Church issue. The last thing we need are government bureaucrats telling folks who they have to spend the rest of their lives with.

Shhesh


5 posted on 03/05/2013 11:36:04 AM PST by Blackirish (Forward Comrades!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fawn

The sense comes into play as these lawmakers realize that anything and everything they can do to slow down the breakup of the family (And America) is all good.


6 posted on 03/05/2013 11:38:11 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Sounds like governmental micromanagement of people’s lives.


7 posted on 03/05/2013 11:38:52 AM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Communist Goal 40: Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Communist Goals 1963

8 posted on 03/05/2013 11:38:52 AM PST by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Government screws up much/almost all of what it controls.

Get government out of the marriage business.

9 posted on 03/05/2013 11:45:55 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave

bitter, eh?


10 posted on 03/05/2013 11:46:31 AM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

You should educate yourself on the fundamentals before spouting off with a stupid remark like that.

Marriage is the backbone to any great society. There must be laws to promote marriages between a man and a woman. And laws which punish those who seek to destroy marriage and society.

Unfortunately liberals have found power in destroying the family, replacing the father with a welfare check, and enslaving blacks and minorities with welfare benefits as they enhance divorce laws and even promote queer marriages.

This is way much more than a Church issue.


11 posted on 03/05/2013 11:47:20 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

it involves tax money and property and health care etc....its a govt issue to be sure, and it would be best for the govt....that would be we the taxpayers.....for families to stay intact....but I don’t know how a govt can force that on anyone....


12 posted on 03/05/2013 11:48:12 AM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion
Communist Goal 40: Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

The first no-fault divorce law in the U.S. was signed by that noted Communist, Governor Ronald Reagan.

13 posted on 03/05/2013 11:49:16 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
How about this? Instead of one parent being able to have a divorce regardless of the other parent's wishes, both parties have to agree to the divorce?

Not just the financial settlement and property division. Not just custody. Both parents would have to agree<> to the divorce itself.

That's "no-fault".

14 posted on 03/05/2013 11:50:19 AM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The first no-fault divorce law in the U.S. was signed by that noted Communist, Governor Ronald Reagan.

Who was also divorced.

15 posted on 03/05/2013 11:51:50 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
He also singed that Abortion Law in California.

Everyone makes mistakes.

IIRC he also was on one time leader of the AFLCIO!

16 posted on 03/05/2013 11:52:20 AM PST by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Even the Great Ronaldo made a few major errors. Amnestry for illegal immigrants springs to mind for one.

He was a great and a good man, but he was a man like any other and prone to error.


17 posted on 03/05/2013 11:53:25 AM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Government screws up much/almost all of what it controls.

Get government out of the marriage business.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, It’s LIBERALS that screw up..... We need to get LIBERALS out of the marriage business.

Conservatives know that marriage is a fundamental building block to the success of a nation.

Liberals know that tearing down marriage only serves the State.


18 posted on 03/05/2013 11:53:42 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

the family is the foundation of not only this nation but all of civilization. Legislation will not fix our families...only the reinstitution of Judeo-Christian values can bring back the nuclear family which has been purposefully and systematically attacked and brought close to destruction.

If our nation will turn back to God the health of America’s families will be restored. It is the only way.


19 posted on 03/05/2013 11:54:34 AM PST by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
This is a Church issue.

Then why did the couple go down to the court house to file for a marriage license in the first place?

If the government is going to give benefits to certain people who engage in a certain behavior, they should have a say in the termination of that behavior.

Nobody forced the couple to apply for a marriage license.
Nobody forced them to file as a married couple on their taxes.
Nobody forced one spouse to accept benefits earned by the other spouse.

These were things that the government offered to them in exchange for being married because the government has an interest in parents raising children together.

20 posted on 03/05/2013 11:55:31 AM PST by nitzy (You can avoid reality but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012

Micromanagement? Only if you’re stupid enough to swallow the liberal lies.

What these conservatives are trying to do is offset the micromanagement that is no-fault divorce and the damages it has done to our country.


21 posted on 03/05/2013 11:57:00 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
No, It’s LIBERALS that screw up..... We need to get LIBERALS out of the marriage business.

Yes, because using the power of the government to demand that two people who do not like each other stay together is the very definition of small, limited government. Great for the kids, too.

But, based on your drug war posts, we already know you do not favor small government. You merely want government enforcing your own worldview.

22 posted on 03/05/2013 11:58:22 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

So much for a belief in small government.


23 posted on 03/05/2013 11:59:13 AM PST by ksen (". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Utter idiocy. The sate is going to FORCE people to stay married????? Insanity.

Someone wrote, and I agree, this is a Church issue. NOT Government issue.


24 posted on 03/05/2013 12:03:15 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
There must be laws to promote marriages between a man and a woman.

Right, because without laws men and women would stop getting married.

But hey, thanks for proving that conservatives are just as much for intrusive government as the < scarequote>liberals< /scarequote> are.

25 posted on 03/05/2013 12:05:13 PM PST by ksen (". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Then the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If they promote it with tax and benefit incentives then they can regulate it. I wouldn’t mind if they got out of it altogether.


26 posted on 03/05/2013 12:05:52 PM PST by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Marriage is the backbone to any great society. There must be laws to promote marriages between a man and a woman. And laws which punish those who seek to destroy marriage and society.

Individual freedom is more important than "society" and is the core of what this nation was founded on.

When people try to justify laws in the name of "society", this usually means they are trying to cram their belief system down your throat at the point of a gun. In this sense there is no difference between liberals and neocons.
27 posted on 03/05/2013 12:06:42 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Both parents would have to agree<> to the divorce itself.

Sure, because an abusive spouse would of course go along with a divorce request from the abused spouse.

28 posted on 03/05/2013 12:07:46 PM PST by ksen (". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Way to bring your pro-drug views into play here.

Lets see... You are pro-drug, anti-family and God knows what else.

Care to elaborate on your pro-queer marriage ideas? Or how about you argue for queers in the military?

Better yet... Take this to the DUmp.


29 posted on 03/05/2013 12:16:56 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Liberals know that tearing down marriage only serves the State.

Liberals know that tearing down marriage only serves the Democrat party.

30 posted on 03/05/2013 12:19:20 PM PST by aimhigh ( Guns do not kill people. Abortion kills people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Someone wrote, and I agree, this is a Church issue. NOT Government issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That “someone” was schooled in post 11, 12, 20, and other replies. Read ‘em and try to understand:

Marriage is essential to the success of a nation.


31 posted on 03/05/2013 12:21:00 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Ronaldo Maximus claimed the no fault divorce law was his greatest mistake. He went through a horrid separation and divorce from his first wife, Jane Wyman.
32 posted on 03/05/2013 12:23:14 PM PST by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Better yet... Take this to the DUmp.

Blah, blah, blah. When you run out of ideas & arguments call the other person a liberal. *yawn*

I'm for small government. I think you're the one who would feel more welcome over at DU. Then you can all discuss how you want Government to solve all your problems.

33 posted on 03/05/2013 12:23:23 PM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Ronaldo Maximus claimed the no fault divorce law was his greatest mistake. He went through a horrid separation and divorce from his first wife, Jane Wyman.
34 posted on 03/05/2013 12:23:41 PM PST by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga

I wouldn’t mind if they got out of it altogether.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? Do you understand you are getting your wish? And as the government destroys marriage, it is being replaced by the Welfare State.

Be careful what you wish for.


35 posted on 03/05/2013 12:24:02 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Holy Carp.

Last time I looked Jim Robinson made it clear this is a pro-God, pro-family site.

Since you disagree with these laws protecting marriage, suppose you enthrall us with how wonderful the Welfare State is. Cause you should damn well know that your atacks on marriage and the family only lead us to believe you favor the liberal position.


36 posted on 03/05/2013 12:28:34 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ksen
But that would be a fault divorce, and the abused man could get out.

I'm talking when one person wants out and the other spouse is not at fault, she would have to get him to agree, possibly by great concessions on the financial or custody side.

37 posted on 03/05/2013 12:29:35 PM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

The government can’t destroy marriage unless they ban church and religion.


38 posted on 03/05/2013 12:30:09 PM PST by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: microgood

“Individual freedom is more important than “society” and is the core of what this nation was founded on.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Stability,” said the Controller, “stability. No civilization without social stability. No social stability without individual stability.”

~~~ Huxley. Brave New World


39 posted on 03/05/2013 12:40:05 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga

The government can’t destroy marriage unless they ban church and religion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And just what the HELL do you think is going on as we FReep?


40 posted on 03/05/2013 12:42:39 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

The end of “traditional marriage” was the introduction of unilateral breach of contract with no recourse (a/k/a no-fault divorce).

No fault divorce (and the decriminalization of adultery) has done more to destroy the institution than anything a few homosexuals can cook up.

And the horrified reaction to this proposal by “conservatives” simply shows how far gone traditional marriage really is.


41 posted on 03/05/2013 12:45:40 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

The bill only applies to couples with minor children.

In our present welfare state, unfortunately, divorces involving children often becomes an issue involving the state.

This is a band-aid on a bigger problem, but I wouldn’t dismiss it as a church-only issue.


42 posted on 03/05/2013 12:46:44 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Last time I looked Jim Robinson made it clear this is a pro-God, pro-family site.

p. sure Jim feels FR is a pro-small government site not a pro-small government unless someone wants to use government to enforce their religious views on others.

But hey, good luck getting your theocracy set up!

43 posted on 03/05/2013 12:50:00 PM PST by ksen (". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gdani; Responsibility2nd

>> Get government out of the marriage business.

I agree.

Let’s get back to founding law.


44 posted on 03/05/2013 12:51:29 PM PST by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

See, this is why you conservatives lose elections. You’re all for using the government to police the private behavior of people in their bedrooms and marriages.

“Decriminilization” of adultery . . . lol.

I hope you thank god for gerrymandering every night before you go to bed because if it wasn’t for that your guys wouldn’t have the House right now.


45 posted on 03/05/2013 12:53:23 PM PST by ksen (". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it puts the onus on the wrong end of the equation. The problem has never been no fault divorces, some people just shouldn’t be together; the problem is ill-considered marriages, people who shouldn’t be together getting married. People get married too quick without knowing anything about themselves or the person they’re marrying, forcing them to stay together “for the kids” isn’t going to fix anything. Growing up in a war zone household isn’t any better on kids than a single parent household. Let people who’ve learned to hate each other stop being married.


46 posted on 03/05/2013 12:53:55 PM PST by discostu (Not just another moon faced assassin of joy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
And the horrified reaction to this proposal by “conservatives” simply shows how far gone traditional marriage really is.

 

And I'm horrified that they are horrified. I remember a time when no one at FR supported no-fault divorce. Now you not only see wide spread support for it, but you see open and hostile attacks on us conservatives who support marriage not only from a religous POV, but from a secular and political POV. You prove that traditional marriage benefits a society and the opposite goal of this viewpoint is an increased Welfare State, and what does it matter? You're just a Nanny Stater.

~sigh~

I miss Free Republic.

47 posted on 03/05/2013 12:57:20 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Last time I looked Jim Robinson made it clear this is a pro-God, pro-family site.

p. sure Jim feels FR is a pro-small government site not a pro-small government unless someone wants to use government to enforce their religious views on others.

But hey, good luck getting your theocracy set up!

 

There have been times when too many trolls like you tried to get the upper hand and Jim would have to send out firm and stern reminders. With zots.

FR is and will remain a pro-God, pro-life, pro-family site. [FReepathon thread XXXVII]
Click here to pledge your support via secure server! ^ | Nov 11, 2012 | Jim Robinson
 

Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:15:09 AM by Jim Robinson

 

One more time: FR's God-given Life & Liberty constitutional conservative activism agenda!!
In response to GOP Proud (Queer eye and RINO guy for the TPP) ^ | Nov 14, 2010 | Jim Robinson
 

Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2010 7:13:16 PM by Jim Robinson

Edited on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:09:46 PM by Jim Robinson. [history]

 

Statement by the founder of Free Republic
Free Republic ^ | Jim Robinson
 

Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 9:22:17 PM by Jim Robinson

I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I'm receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I'm NOT fair and balanced. I'm biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.
 

FR, the pro-God "purist" site that RINOs love to hate
Aug 14, 2012 | Jim Robinson
 

Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:53:35 PM by Jim Robinson

 

 

 

48 posted on 03/05/2013 1:07:16 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Ok, then we can just dispense with this whole “small-government” nonsense.


49 posted on 03/05/2013 1:10:47 PM PST by ksen (". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

But interesting that Iowa DOES ALLOW GAY MARRIAGES and considers them to be legal.


50 posted on 03/05/2013 1:32:14 PM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson