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.
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.
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.
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!
>> Get government out of the marriage business.
I agree.
Let’s get back to founding law.
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.
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.
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.
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
Ok, then we can just dispense with this whole “small-government” nonsense.
But interesting that Iowa DOES ALLOW GAY MARRIAGES and considers them to be legal.
You actually want mid level state bureaucrats dictating to a couple that they must remain married?
Do you also want the state police to kick in front doors at 3:00 to check if everyone is in the right bed with the right person?
That is interesting.
In a state that has perverted the moral and social aspects of marriage, they are concerned about no fault divorces?
That was what I was thinking. Maybe they’re trying to discourage gays from marrying with the proposed no-fault ban, by making it more complicated to get out. (This thought of mine is giving the IA legislators every benefit of the doubt.... HA)
Straw man argument. Just because I’m against the government writing new laws keeping marriages intact doesn’t mean I’m FOR welfare. In fact I know a guy whose never paid his child support, owes back taxes and just got a 27 thousand dollar student loan from the government to learn how to operate a mixing board...you know the things they use at concerts.
Can we start by enforcing the laws regarding child support?
How do you enfore them without force? If someone doesn’t pay, they go to prison.
How do you enforce them without force? If someone doesn’t pay, they go to prison.
MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL LAWS AND REGULATIONS!!! It is for the children!
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.