Scarville legislator Gassman wants to ban divorces unless conditions met

Iowa Republicans want to ban divorces unless certain conditions are met, currently the bill was been advanced by the Iowan house sub-committee, it looks like it's gaining support:

Scarville legislator Tedd Gassman, a House Republican, has co-sponsored legislation that would ban at-will divorces between married people with children.

According to the bill, a party may petition for divorce only upon proof of any of five conditions when the welfare of any minor child may be affected by the “controversy”

northiowatoday.com...

The conditions below:

1. The other party has committed adultery.
2. The other party has committed a felony and has been 7 sentenced to imprisonment.
3. The other party has abandoned the matrimonial domicile for a period of one year or more and refuses to return.
4. The other party has physically or sexually abused the party seeking the order or dissolution or a child of one of the parties.
5. The parties have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for a period of two years or more.

I don't know what to say to this, it's absolutely absurd. People want to talk about government wasting money, tax payer money, this is a good example of one. We pay politicians to sit on their butts passing bills to regulate our love lives now? Mind you, the conditions above also are required to be proven. You can't force people to love each other, it should not be the governments job (local, state, or federal) to do so either, no government should be granted such powers.

Those conditions are pretty common in divorces, and besides if you really want a divorce you can easily claim you committed adultery or just abandon your partner. Also, this only applies to married couples with children. While I'm all for individual rights, once you have a kid you become responsible for the well-being of your offspring. If this bill stops married parents from walking out on their children and prevents marriage-fraud, perhaps it's not such a bad thing.

Government should get out of the marriage game entirely. This legislation of morality is no different from Bloomberg trying regulate sugar/salt/music volume, 'for the betterment of society'. I, personally, would love to see divorce rates fall and children to be raised in two parent households, society would benefit from this, but it is up to the individual to make those choices for themselves...not these pseudo-parental figures that run for office with a desire to micro-manage lives.

I would love it if we actually had rational adults is these offices.

giggle giggle.Past ridiculous and well on into sublime. giggle
Tonight, Stewart will most likely chew this guy up and Colbert will most likely defend his actions.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


He should also prepose a bill making it illegal to stop drinking water from a public fountain, once started, unless these conditions are met.

1. The legal party is:
i: no longer thirsty
ii: drinking water continuously for a period of more than one year
iii: is alergic to water

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Those conditions are pretty common in divorces,

They are common in divorces, but there other reasons why people divorce as well. Frankly if two people wish not to be with one another any longer in marriage, it should be their choice and their choice alone. Mr Gassman would not be pushing this law if such a law was already in place.

and besides if you really want a divorce you can easily claim you committed adultery or just abandon your partner.

If your position is that this law changes nothing (which I disagree) then what would be the point of law being pushed through then? There'd be no point now would there? But we know this isn't the case.

If two people just no longer love each other and no longer wish to live together, who are you to tell them they *must* remain married? Is it your business? Or is it theirs and theirs alone?

While I'm all for individual rights, once you have a kid you become responsible for the well-being of your offspring.

If you were for individual rights then you would be supporting the rights of individuals, but clearly you're not in this case. I've met numerous parents whom had made a mutual agreement to divorce, have left on friendly terms, and their kids grow up perfectly fine with both their parents being supportive.

I don't buy the excuse that this is about kids, this is just another attempt to enforce laws in favor of the personal morals of some politicians and individuals in this country. There's just no excuse.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


So these GOP are OK with People living in Loveless Marriages , Because its better for the Kids?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I think for the first time ever, I actually agree with you on something. lol

As much as the concept of divorce grieves me- especially with children involved and as sick as I am of hearing about a spouse who walked out on their family, I don't see why on earth we are wasting time on this. Especially considering how our country is falling apart at the seams- and this is what we are worried about?

What a colossal waste of time, money, and energy. Like an above poster said, if someone really wants out, they can just be a jerk and claim they had an affair or move out for a year. This bill doesn't solve the problem of frivolous divorce and shattered families at all. It doesn't even put a band-aid on it.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

If this bill stops married parents from walking out on their children and prevents marriage-fraud, perhaps it's not such a bad thing.

Do you really imagine that it might? One more unenforceable law. Being a Repub. I can easily guess that this fellow is for less government and is firmly against strict gun laws. Or that was the platform on which he ran for office. I really don;t know. Just guessing.

giggle giggle

reply to post by slowisfast

I, personally, would love to see divorce rates fall and children to be raised in two parent households, society would benefit from this, but it is up to the individual to make those choices for themselves..

This is the thing. In a perfect world the divorce rates would be next to nil, every house has the all american nuclear family, gum drops rain from the sky etc etc. We don't live in that world and times are changing. We can't force society to live according to our own personal values and views.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by slowisfast

 

I, personally, would love to see divorce rates fall and children to be raised in two parent households, society would benefit from this, but it is up to the individual to make those choices for themselves..

This is the thing. In a perfect world the divorce rates would be next to nil, every house has the all american nuclear family, gum drops rain from the sky etc etc. We don't live in that world and times are changing. We can't force society to live according to our own personal values and views.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, Bud.

how about we cut to the chase and just ban marriage it serves no positive purpose in the modern world (ladies let your fathers know ive got the biggest pigs in town!)
if you need to make your partnership formal and legally binding to feel secure.... well you probably shouldnt be getting married in the first place

Let's just get rid of legal marriage. Get married in a private ceremony without ties to govt. All the details can be worked out with taxes and finances by commiting to certain agreements in a pre-nup, I suppose.

All the issues that may arise by getting rid of legal marriage would eventually work themselves out.

The legal union of two people as spouses establishes a legal contract, providing for disposition of property/finances and obligations relating to welfare of the children, along with establishing the relationship for other legal matters. This is a good thing.

150 years ago, some women prayed for death as a way to be released from a marriage gone bad. Even 50 years ago, a spouse could be forced through a humiliating court case to prove adultery, in order to end the marriage.

Well, thanks to the wisdom of my conservative Republican governor four decades ago, the much revered Ronald Reagan, California's divorces became "no fault". All it would take would be "irreconcilable differences", and if one party wanted a divorce but the other didn't, that was grounds for irr-diff.

While I sympathize with you re your granddaughter, I think, Mr. Gassman, that you might want to look elsewhere for the cause of her becoming a skank. Under your new divorce laws, her father could have been guilty of zoosexual activity (a misdemeanor), but her mother would still be forced to remain married to him, for at least the time periods you specified.

If no-fault divorce was good enough for The Gipper, too bad it's not good enough for his political descendents.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Iowa Republicans want to ban divorces unless certain conditions are met, currently the bill was been advanced by the Iowan house sub-committee, it looks like it's gaining support:

Scarville legislator Tedd Gassman, a House Republican, has co-sponsored legislation that would ban at-will divorces between married people with children.

According to the bill, a party may petition for divorce only upon proof of any of five conditions when the welfare of any minor child may be affected by the “controversy”

northiowatoday.com...

The conditions below:

1. The other party has committed adultery.
2. The other party has committed a felony and has been 7 sentenced to imprisonment.
3. The other party has abandoned the matrimonial domicile for a period of one year or more and refuses to return.
4. The other party has physically or sexually abused the party seeking the order or dissolution or a child of one of the parties.
5. The parties have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for a period of two years or more.

I don't know what to say to this, it's absolutely absurd. People want to talk about government wasting money, tax payer money, this is a good example of one. We pay politicians to sit on their butts passing bills to regulate our love lives now? Mind you, the conditions above also are required to be proven. You can't force people to love each other, it should not be the governments job (local, state, or federal) to do so either, no government should be granted such powers.

Personally I have mixed feelings on this, on the one hand the law would be a good law in theory, but in reality? It will just lead to more false accusations against innocent men.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I think for the first time ever, I actually agree with you on something. lol

As much as the concept of divorce grieves me- especially with children involved and as sick as I am of hearing about a spouse who walked out on their family, I don't see why on earth we are wasting time on this. Especially considering how our country is falling apart at the seams- and this is what we are worried about?

What a colossal waste of time, money, and energy. Like an above poster said, if someone really wants out, they can just be a jerk and claim they had an affair or move out for a year. This bill doesn't solve the problem of frivolous divorce and shattered families at all. It doesn't even put a band-aid on it.

With all do respect, 75% or more, of divorces are filed by women who kick their husbands out. The whole notion of divorce being caused by the spouse who walks away is a Hollywood myth. And it is also a grievous myth that the spouse "walks away", as it is more often the case the spouse is forced out of the house by a Protection From Abuse order under false pretenses so the wife would have claim to the house and children. Heck, a lawyers associated with the National Organization of Women already wrote a book explaining to women how to get their husband kicked out of the house via a false accusation.

To continue with that myth is to continue to deny reality of why marriage is dieing a quick and brutal death in America.

typical politicians they have it backwards again. Instead of making divorce harder they should make it easier and make getting married harder.
Make getting married such a huge investment of time and money that people won`t be eager to throw all that away by getting divorced.
It`s like anything else, people don`t value things that are gotten too easily so it`s easy to get rid of them. people value and respect their homes and jobs and even their vehicles because they have a lot of time, money and effort invested in those things.Make getting married equally valuable in time, money and effort as we have made our jobs and our homes and people won`t be in any hurry to throw it away by getting divorced.
It`s easier, faster and cheaper to get married than it is to get a drivers license.anything that can be gotten that easily and cheaply won`t have much value to most people.

After reading the article, the language of the bill and the postings the following can be stated:

It is a bad and poorly written bill, it will not pass any court test, and if it is passed, will be challenged and brought up to the Supreme Court to be struck down, the reason for this is that it reeks of the pulpit, having strong religious overtones to it. It also puts an unfair burden on those who have chosen to get married, while makes no provision for those who have children out of wedlock.

While the intention behind such is noble, to keep a family unit together, the problem is that there really is no way for such to happen, if both the man and woman decide to travel out of state to get a divorce, nor does it happen to take that into account.

The other aspect of this, is that his reasoning for such, puts slander on people who have children, wanting to divorce and who do divorce and have young girls. There are questions now, such as is his granddaughter promiscious already? Is she having sex, is she pregnant? Those are the kinds of questions that he has opened the door up to, and has made the life of his daughter and his granddaughter far worse than it already is. Divorce is a messy thing, it can either be agreeable or very nasty, and he just interjected himself in the middle of what he had no business being in.

If he was wanting to keep families together, why not make it easier to get counsling, or even going out and asking for reasons and see if he can come up with solutions for such, along with making it harder to get married in the first place, beyond that to circumvent that law would be to go out of state to say Nevada, and a couple getting married there.