[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!

[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?

[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.

[GOPJ]

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

" Communism" is the ultimate 'big government' and anyone who stands against it is targeted as being a domestic terrorists. This whole piece is a liberal elite dog whistle of hatred toward traditional Americans.

[GeronL]

Bump

[muir_redwoods]

The government properly has no legimate role in prolonging a marriage between people who have made the decision to end it. The state does have a role in assuring that any children or property that are the product of that marriage are handled properly with due regard for the children’s welfare.

[Petrosius]

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

Actually the author has it backwards. It is the introduction of no-fault divorce, allowing the government to dissolve what the parties to the marriage vowed as a permanent covenant, that is the introduction of big government. If there are those who wish to enter into marriage as only a conditional covenant then they should be allowed to do so. But the state should also recognize and allow those who wish to enter into marriage as a permanent covenant to likewise do so.

With the introduction of no-fault divorce we have the situation where marriage, which should be the most sacred of contracts, is actually less binding than a car loan. With no-fault divorce the state is outlawing marriage as a permanent covenant between a man and a women, and between the parents and their children.

[SoFloFreeper]

Strong families and marriages are the basis for a strong society and nation. That is just a FACT.

Governments have an interest and responsibility to promote and preserve the same. True abuse, infidelity, abandonment are certainly valid reasons for pursuing divorce...but these are so often NOT the reasons for current breakups.

The church, too, needs to be more responsible in promoting and engendering strong husband and wife relations.