U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2010, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 13,068,752 times
Reputation: 3536

Advertisements

Pam's House Blend:: Oklahoma: Homo-hating Sally Kern now turns to heterosexuals and divorce

Quote:
Scheduled for introduction in the 2010 legislative session by state Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, House Bill 2279 would restrict the "use of incompatibility as a ground for divorce" in Oklahoma.
The bill would not allow for divorce on the basis of incompatibility if:
* There are living minor children of the marriage
* The parties have been married 10 years or longer
* Either party files a written objection to the granting of a divorce
Do you agree or disagree with these restrictions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2010, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Palm Springs, CA
26,529 posts, read 24,945,066 times
Reputation: 7739
The idea that it's good to force couples to stay married even when they can't stand each other is ridiculous.

A government's role in a free society should be to ensure that we have as much freedom as possible. Restricting freedoms is a bad thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2010, 09:28 PM
 
2,482 posts, read 8,031,795 times
Reputation: 1924
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
The idea that it's good to force couples to stay married even when they can't stand each other is ridiculous.

A government's role in a free society should be to ensure that we have as much freedom as possible. Restricting freedoms is a bad thing.
Tell that to the Evangelicals. Actually, don't. Save yourself from an earful of "you're going to hell because of xyz"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 12:25 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,976 posts, read 15,428,301 times
Reputation: 3946
Kern proves once again it is possible to be more insane than Inhofe, a very tough feat to accomplish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 12:30 AM
 
1,179 posts, read 815,422 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
Ha, I suppose she wrote this on the way to a "less government intrusion in our lives rally."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 01:24 AM
 
Location: California
30,513 posts, read 33,322,731 times
Reputation: 25982
I don't agree nor do I see the point. Unless you can assure that both parties will continue to live together and provide a happy home for minors, denying divorce is useless. And I don't get the "over 10 years" thing AT ALL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 02:32 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,096 posts, read 4,690,626 times
Reputation: 2877
This bill is not so easy to pass judgement on. Everyone would agree that forcing people to stay in a bad relationship can be a very bad thing, so it is easy to blame an idea like this one on the religious right.

You should look at a bill like this with the long-term psychological implications of how it is already so easy to back out of marriage. And then ask, why would that be a problem?

The easier it is to get divorced, the more likely someone will get divorced(duh). If you know that you can back out of a marriage for basically any reason, what incentive do you really have to try to "make it work"? Rarely does it happen that only one person in a marriage is unhappy. If both parties believe that the marriage cannot be broken, they would be much more likely to try to work things out and make compromises.

On top of that, if you knew before you were getting married that it wouldn't be any big deal to get married, you would be a little more choosy about who you got married to in the first place. And really, it is especially sad when any marriage involving children ends in divorce. It really tears apart your children when they feel like they have to pick sides. They can lose their confidence and security. Almost 1/3rd of all households with children are single-parent.

As for oklahoma's connection with tea-parties, I think most of that is directed at the federal government. Oklahomans are tired of Washington telling it what it should be doing. The states know whats best for their people, and are tired of the Hollywood/NYC types trying to force their ideals down our throats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 06:35 AM
 
12,439 posts, read 10,279,742 times
Reputation: 3137
It is Oklahoma. This is pretty much what you expect to come out of that State.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,607,694 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
This bill is not so easy to pass judgement on. Everyone would agree that forcing people to stay in a bad relationship can be a very bad thing, so it is easy to blame an idea like this one on the religious right.

You should look at a bill like this with the long-term psychological implications of how it is already so easy to back out of marriage. And then ask, why would that be a problem?

The easier it is to get divorced, the more likely someone will get divorced(duh). If you know that you can back out of a marriage for basically any reason, what incentive do you really have to try to "make it work"? Rarely does it happen that only one person in a marriage is unhappy. If both parties believe that the marriage cannot be broken, they would be much more likely to try to work things out and make compromises.

On top of that, if you knew before you were getting married that it wouldn't be any big deal to get married, you would be a little more choosy about who you got married to in the first place. And really, it is especially sad when any marriage involving children ends in divorce. It really tears apart your children when they feel like they have to pick sides. They can lose their confidence and security. Almost 1/3rd of all households with children are single-parent.

As for oklahoma's connection with tea-parties, I think most of that is directed at the federal government. Oklahomans are tired of Washington telling it what it should be doing. The states know whats best for their people, and are tired of the Hollywood/NYC types trying to force their ideals down our throats.

Why is it any business of the state if couples want to stay together or part? What Constitutional justification is there for the state involving itself in what are personal choices? (I'm speaking of the Oklahoma Constitution here because it is a proposed state law).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 01:09 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,847,063 times
Reputation: 6453
Why is the State getting itself involved. No i don't see the point or reasoning, when a couple can no longer stand each other, staying together for the sake of the children, is not always the best decision, for the children. I knew a couple like this, and they stayed togehter until the kids were past there teens, wow after that, The women was out the door. But until that point, she was never home for the kids, what good is that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top