Conservatives Want to Make Divorce Harder, Extend Government Power

Opposing Views ^ | 04/14/2014 | By Michael Allen

[Responsibility2nd]

The Christian conservative Family Research Council and the National Organization have been on the front lines in the opposition to gay marriage.

Now, both groups and socially conservative politicians are trying to make divorce harder for straight married couples.

According to The Washington Post, these small government advocates have voted to expand the power of government into the personal lives of adult couples.

More than a dozen states have introduced bills that required longer waiting periods for divorce, counseling courses for adults and have limited the number of reasons that people can file for divorce.

While this may seem like a fringe idea, Arizona, Louisiana and Utah have already passed tough divorce laws in hopes that fewer (unhappy) marriages will end.

This extension of government power into people's personal lives is supported by the Family Research Council, which often complains about "big government."

In 2013, the Family Research Council actually opposed universal preschool because of "big government."

However, Peter Sprigg, of the Family Research Council, wrote in a policy paper, "As the grantor of both marriage licenses and divorce decrees, the state has already established the right to regulate the disbursement of each."

Sprigg also claims kids fare better in an unhappy married home: "Children fare better in almost every measurable socio-economic indicator when raised in a non-violent home with two [even unhappy] parents, rather than being raised in a broken home."

Sources: Family Research Council and The Washington Post

 

[Responsibility2nd]

Ahh, the libertarian agenda against conservatism is at play once again.

[Viennacon]

I’m not sure if the complaint isn’t a little 2-faced. Surely a true ‘government out of my life’ person would be against the state involvement in their marriage the first place. Could it be, they like the goodies?

[Walrus]

Divide and conquer, baby.

Bill Clinton’s successful “triangulation” strategy.

[Mr. K]

Q: Why are divorces so expensive?
.
.
.
.
.
.

A: BECAUSE THEY’RE WORTH IT!

[Responsibility2nd]

Surely a true ‘government out of my life’ person would be against the state involvement in their marriage the first place.

___________________________________

Perhaps this is true. But who cares what those liberals want. You see, a true conservative recognizes the value of a strong and competent government upholding the values of traditional marriages whereas libertarians don’t care about or even deny the social and economic benefits of marriage to a society.

[Mariner]

"While this may seem like a fringe idea"

It IS a fringe idea and it will receive opposition from me.

The next big C conservative that advocates this...and the complains about the Federal Leviathan will have exposed themselves as a statist.

Either you want small government, or you don't.

Now, I WILL NOT say this is a Constitutional issue. Clearly the states are empowered to enact such laws.

But I will choose to live in a state that doesn't believe it can compel two people to stay married when they don't want to be.

[Praxeologue]

Socialists spread confusion by stating that conservatives, who are free marketers in economics, are hypocritical when they favor increased state control on social issues, such as abortion.

Our response is that we are not libertarians.

It is very simple, but supposed conservative who don't have their intellectual ducks in a row usually fall for this line. That's why a Romney loses a debate, for example.

[Wallace T.]

Without what Edmund Burke called the little battalions of family, church, and community, the central government fills the gap. The Communists in Russia and elsewhere strove to weaken all institutions that were not affiliated with the state. In Europe, the established church, whether Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, or Calvinist, regulated marriage and other family and societal matters with the sanction and support of the government. In America, with no one denomination prevalent, the several states took over such matters, generally taking a pan-Christian approach, not as strict on Sabbath-keeping as the Calvinists would have liked, not as strict on divorce as the Catholics would have liked. But areas of general agreement among the Christian groups, like adultery, sodomy, pornography, etc., were covered by common law and later statutory law.

These restraints were overturned in the cultural revolution, which is popularly associated with the 1960s but had its roots much earlier, with the rise of skepticism and liberalism among the Ivy League educated upper classes around the beginning of the last century and the impact of the Frankfurt School refugees in the 1930s on academia and the overall culture. By and large, libertarians are in agreement with the elimination of such laws to their own detriment. In pre-1960s America, there was always the ability to leave an overly puritanical area to a more libertine one. If you didn't like Podunk, there was always a New Orleans, a San Francisco, or a Bohemian district in New York or Chicago. A decentralized society is more conducive to libertarian ideals than a centralixed one.

[virgil283]

"Starting in the late 60s, child support and alimony went from necessary evil to an open bribe available to any woman who was willing to betray her husband and children ....

We replaced a patchwork of laws with a declaration that legitimacy doesn’t matter. Around the same time, we ushered in no fault divorce with very strong bias towards mother custody, while leaving in place the punitive practices of child support and alimony........."

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2014/04/starting-in-late-60s-child-support-and.html

[maryz]

More than a dozen states have introduced bills that required longer waiting periods for divorce, counseling courses for adults and have limited the number of reasons that people can file for divorce.
While this may seem like a fringe idea, . . .

Isn't this more or less the way it was everywhere before no-fault divorce became the way to go, in the late 60s IIRC?

[Responsibility2nd]

Thank you for your many excellent points. Some of the finer points...

 

By and large, libertarians are in agreement with the elimination of such laws to their own detriment.

A decentralized society is more conducive to libertarian ideals than a centralixed one.
 

[Mariner]

Remember the old show from the 60's "Divorce Court"?

Folks had to go into court to PROVE a wrong by the other party.

Giant "he said, she said" fest. Enormously expensive.

But it was not one sided. If a man could prove infidelity, drunkenness, neglect...he could avoid alimony and gain custody of the kids.

[caligatrux]

If they really want to promote more marriage and stronger families, they should make it more difficult to get married in the first place.

[Theoria]

There are pros and cons for .gov marriage. But, once the state is involved, that opens the door for other policies.

In the past, some states had anti miscegenation laws. Now, .gov marriage has 'allowed' gay 'marriage'. Group 'marriage' is just around the corner.

[Mariner]

"they should make it more difficult to get married in the first place"

I'm not sure that would promote more marriage.

How many young men would choose to marry if they knew the details of that unwritten contract?

[Responsibility2nd]

We replaced a patchwork of laws with a declaration that legitimacy doesn’t matter. Around the same time, we ushered in no fault divorce with very strong bias towards mother custody, while leaving in place the punitive practices of child support and alimony.........

Exactly and extremely correct. And I might add that the removal of the State from marriage has led directly to the Welfare State we are now mired in. Replacing the father with a welfare check is a libertarian nightmare come true.

[Mariner]

"Replacing the father with a welfare check is a libertarian nightmare come true"

That's not a libertarian idea. That's a socialist-statist idea.

[Ghost of SVR4]

If a man could prove infidelity, drunkenness, neglect...he could avoid alimony and gain custody of the kids.

Not so today (which you are probably aware of). Even if the husband can absorb the enormous legal bills of going through "divorce court", fault divorces are hardly issued anymore. No-fault is easier for the state and usually ends up leaving the aggrieved spouse destitute with debt for a number of years.

[caligatrux]

I'm not sure that would promote more marriage.

How many young men would choose to marry if they knew the details of that unwritten contract?

Point taken. I guess my intent was to promote better marriages that will endure and benefit soceity. Maybe less marriages would actually help that cause.

[Responsibility2nd]

Isn’t this more or less the way it was everywhere before no-fault divorce became the way to go, in the late 60s IIRC?

___________________________________________

You are correct. And even the liberals began to realize that a full frontal assualt on marriages by the State was a bad idea. Hence the Defense of Marriage Act signed by none other than the Adulterer in cheif himself; Bill Clinton.

Fast forward 20 years and we see a marital anti-Christ (Obama) has now struck down that law and is intent on removing any and all traces of traditional marriages from our laws.

And the bastard libertarians are supporting this.