One wonders if Ms. Kern, if she is serious about Judeo-Christian values, will include in her bill the right to divorce if either party is sexually unsatisfied. Because that’s one of the acceptable reasons for divorce under Jewish law.

Can’t wait for the Anti-Blasphemy laws!

In the bad old days when divorce was restricted like that, there were marriages that were ended by the husband theatrically hitting his wife once, in front of witnesses. Or “adulteries” arranged with the help of a friend, a motel room, and a detective/photographer to catch them standing around in their underwear.

It was shown in *movies* of the period, so it’s obvious everyone knew that if you wanted divorce bad enough, it could be arranged with a bit of expense and embarrassment. No-fault laws and such just meant embarrassment didn’t have to happen.

It’s clear the only reason to roll things back is to make sure embarrassment is a part of it. Which is all the *more* cruel if there are children involved. “Honey, mommy and daddy aren’t in love anymore, but they are still friends and we are such good friends, we are going to do a little play-acting together. People will say bad things about us, but don’t worry, it will all turn out okay.”

Do they clone this type of reactionary bigot? because she’s the spitting image of our very own (the British) Anne Widdecombe who is our very vocal elected reactionary bigot, who recently defended the Catholic Church’s demonisation of condom use (against condom use against the spread of AIDS) in Africa in debate against Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens.

She does at least do us the service of proving that we were right about where all this legalism was heading.

Or as somebody else once said, “An injury to one is an injury to all.”

Can’t wait for the Anti-Blasphemy laws!

Naw, that’s Ireland with the anti-blasphemy laws. Maybe we could convince her to move?

*sigh*  I obviously got out of Oklahoma in the nick of time, before Zombie Reagan ate all their brains.  the Lunatics are truly in charge of the asylum.

How does it benefit to make legal separation harder?  Wouldn’t it be better to work instead on creating reconciliation and marriage counseling programs that even amicable divorces could use ‘for the children’?  or even prevent ones from happening?

Once you have kids, you can’t just forget about the prior spouse, you’re going to see them regularly, at least through the kids, so learning how to get along at that point is kinda important.  Late, but important.

In the bad old days when divorce was restricted like that, there were marriages that were ended by the husband theatrically hitting his wife once, in front of witnesses. Or “adulteries” arranged with the help of a friend, a motel room, and a detective/photographer to catch them standing around in their underwear.

Heh.  My wife and I are planning to divorce - are divorced in all but name - but we haven’t been able to move out for economic reasons.  Tough times, y’know?  Still, we’ve both started dating again, and both of us have had sex with people not each other.  Her regularly, lucky devil.  We could get a divorce at any time on grounds of adultery, rather than waiting the year of legal separation required for no-fault divorce in NYS. 

Somehow, I don’t think that’s what Bachman had in mind, do you?

Note: I understand that there are many people like us in this recession - people who can’t leave doomed relationships because neither of us can pay the rent by ourselves.

“Something is wrong when you can get out of a marriage easier than a loan for a car.”

Only if “marriage” = “prison.”

A good marriage, one worth keeping in existance, is one where both parties involved want it.

The current trend in the ever-fluctuating definition of marriage is one of the best ones: from its rambling course through “family-managed economic tool” and “slavery” and “breeding program” and “shackling-together of young people so that a magical seven-month baby can benefit from a technicality” and “this is your life, not suck it up and live with it” to finally arrive at “an expression of love, commitment, and life-sharing between equal partners,” and with the rise of divorce availability, it has finally gotten to a point where it is (at least partially, but good people are working on it) something good and useful: a social construct built to serve the people who use it, easily dismantled when it ceases to serve that purpose.

To have people serve institutions instead of institutions serving people is counterproductive to human rights and happiness.

If a marriage is ended, it may have failed, but at least it isn’t still failing.  It isn’t sitting around like toxic waste, poisoning people’s lives. Or, maybe it hasn’t failed. Maybe it’s served its purpose and, while useful for a time, is now finished. People grow apart. People change. Shackling them to relationships that are (or maybe were) suited to who they used to be is as pointless as trying to keep a child in toddlers’ clothes as zie grows into a teenager. Life involves growing. Life involves changing. Our institutions need to work with that.

If this were to pass, I forsee a lot of couples making agreements for one of them to have sex with someone else, just so they can use the adultery exemption.

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

I notice that in the majority of cases parts one and two will arrange for a complete block on divorce for incompatability, since by the time the kids reach majority age you can’t help but have been married longer than ten years. You have kids, you’re stuck. Hello, incentive for abortion, for women questioning their marriages.

The second exception is revoltingly counterproductive, since it forbids divorce between people as they gain more opportunity to grow apart from each other or change.

Number three, way to exacerbate that incompatability. I can’t think of much that would make me hate a husband more than him vetoing my ability to leave him.

Trainwreck from start to finish.

I forsee a few couples divorcing every nine years and then remarrying, just to be on the safe side.
I forsee more couples cohabitating instead.
I see more extramarital sex, and sooner/younger, on the basis of “Marriage is too risky, so I’m not gonna get married, so there’s not much point in waiting for marriage.”
I see more quick divorces by women who realize they’re pregnant; I see more abortions, as I said above; I see more “let’s have our kids BEFORE we get married sot hey’re not “children of the marriage.”

Not only is she unpleasant and controlling, she’s exceedingly stupid, and ignorant as to how the world actually works.

This bullshit about ethics and morality being the sole domain of religion really needs to stop.

The very fact that our species has evolved and flourished is proof that “Thou shalt not kill” is a basic human instinct that doesn’t need to be taught. If it was something we had lacked before religion, we would have killed each other off long before the father of Kern’s beloved Jewish zombie (which was actually him…obviously morality and intelligence don’t go hand in hand) told everyone not to.

Well, I have seen arguments made by the advocates of same-sex marriage that if the opponents are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, they ought to address the divorce rate first.  Here, Representative Kern is doing just that, taking your advice.

“Here, Representative Kern is doing just that, taking your advice.”

...of course, not suggesting anything actually useful, just making something illegal or greatly restricted by the state — in typical wingnut fashion.  Because if something is illegal or greatly restricted by the government, that always stops it dead in its tracks, amirite?

(And here’s where I get personal, Dana P., good Catholic but only father to two.  I certainly hope you’ve never used Birth Control or either of you have gotten snipped, ‘cause that makes The Pope very irate, even if God doesn’t actually care one way or the other.  You see, because The Pope has decided it’s wrong, that means you can’t do it without violating The Pope’s edict.  Which of course proves that no good Catholic has ever used birth control…ever, in all of history since the Crucifiction…)

Propagandhi:  I would argue that if you need an outside influence in order to act like a decent human being, you have problems.  Just because someone doesn’t believe in a sky fairy doesn’t make them run out and become a mass murderer.  The fact that these religious nuts would assume that scares the hell out of me.  What is going on in their heads?

No divorce:  Because hate, recrimination, guilt, and tension are so good for the kiddies.

Dana:  You can’t see the ridiculousness of the argument?  You can’t see how silly it is to legislate behavior?

So defending the “sanctity” of marriage involves equating it with a roach motel- you check in but you can’t check out. Ooookay, Sally. Whatever you say.

Not that he’d be surprised, but Dan Savage has been telling nice straight folks this for years: these freaks aren’t just after the gays, they’re after pretty much every other bit of reproductive, sexual and romantic freedom that has been gained over the past fifty years.  The notion that they will Stop once gays are shoved into a spiky closet is ludicrous.

“Here, Representative Kern is doing just that, taking your advice.”

And racking up an 87% disapproval rating on the issue.

There is a potentially lucrative cottage industry here: Divorce Photographers.

Want a divorce? We’ll come to your home and photograph you in a tastefully arranged nude pose guaranteed to meet the legal requirements for divorce proceedings. You can provide your own models or for a reasonable fee we will provide professionals for the shoot.

For a slight upcharge, we will post the photos and/or video to a social networking site for you.

We also offer “proof of homosexual conduct” photoshoots for anyone wishing to leave the military or document ineligibility for the draft.

Well, I have seen arguments made by the advocates of same-sex marriage that if the opponents are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, they ought to address the divorce rate first.  Here, Representative Kern is doing just that, taking your advice.

I agree, insofar as a lower-than-average divorce rate should be one major goal for religious conservatives who believe in “the sanctity of marriage.” But the government shouldn’t be in the business of lowering the divorce rate anymore than it should be in the business of barring same-sex couples from civil marriages (and all the rights and responsibilities that go with such unions). 

You should be afraid of people like Sally Kern, Dana: she wouldn’t hesitate, if given the power, to regulate everything about your life including what brand of toothpaste you’re allowed to use.

I see more extramarital sex, and sooner/younger, on the basis of “Marriage is too risky, so I’m not gonna get married, so there’s not much point in waiting for marriage.”
I see more quick divorces by women who realize they’re pregnant; I see more abortions, as I said above; I see more “let’s have our kids BEFORE we get married sot hey’re not “children of the marriage.”

How long until a pregnancy is defined as a minor child, and how long until having children will be used to force a marriage? If having minor children can legally be used to prevent a divorce against the mutual desires of the spouses, it isn’t that big a leap to mandate the marriage in the first place.

Has anyone here read The Englishman’s Boy, by Guy Vanderhaeghe?  There is a part where an English traveller heading west in the late 1800s tells his “boy” (an orphaned youth whom he has taken under his wing) to do some menial task, only to be taken aside by the locals and told in no uncertain terms not to do this.  Their reasoning? 
“In this country, niggers only come in one colour and that’s black.”

They’re okay with her making damn sure that people they don’t like follow the Bible*, but very less keen with her forcing them to**.

———————————————————————-
* - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:24-32, the latter stating that gays are “worthy of death”, which must thrill Ms. Kern no end.
** - Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:2-12, if you are interested.

Lymis @ #21:

Problem 1 - The law regarded this as “collusion” and it was an offence for divorce proceedings.

Reality 1 - The bit in Hamlet about “more honour’d in the breach than the observance” certainly applied.  Peter Ustinov paints a brief, sad but revealing picture of his first wife, sitting and playing cards with the hired co-respondent in a cheap hotel room, looking at their watches and waiting for the “detective” to burst in to “catch” them together.  It’s a very depressing little vignette of a dehumanizing little requirement.

Well, I have seen arguments made by the advocates of same-sex marriage that if the opponents are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, they ought to address the divorce rate first.  Here, Representative Kern is doing just that, taking your advice.

Indeed.  She may be cruel, bigoted, totally lacking in empathy or even understanding of how humans work, but at least she’s not a hypocrite.  On this issue. 

And as Preying Mantis pointed out, her disapproval on this issue is 87%.  Funny how people start to care when it’s their rights under attack.  Maybe next time, they’ll realize that it someone is willing to restrict one group’s rights, they’ll gladly do it to another.

Dana, one doesn’t “address the divorce rate” by banning divorce any more than one solves addiction by locking up addicts; that’s not what the statement means.

When a progressive makes a comment like this it is a ironical rhetorical device to make a point: that gays and straights, people of the right or people of the left, anybody should be left free to live their lives without interference from the state or by people of differing views using the state as their stalking-horse or protector.

You’re often wrong but less often stupid.  I can only presume that you know this full well but are being a bit cheeky.  You know damned well that the statement is merely a progressive’s way of quoting the message in Matthew 7:3: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

I am not saying everyone has to be Christian; this is not a homogenous nation. What you have to be is someone who believes in a Judeo-Christian ethic, in other words, in knowing there’s a right and wrong.

Sounds oddly akin to the rights of dhimmi under Sharia Law.

Wait, scratch that. Nothing odd about this dimwit ignorantly aping what she fears the most.

You should be afraid of people like Sally Kern, Dana: she wouldn’t hesitate, if given the power, to regulate everything about your life including what brand of toothpaste you’re allowed to use.

All the while screeching about how the federal government is too intrusive into the rights of citizens.

Incertus, that’s why the notion of “federalism” or “states’ rights” is such total BS coming from the right.  It’s almost always code for, “let the states abuse the rights of somebody that I disapprove of, and keep the feds out of their way”.  As one noted in the Schiavo case they have no problem with the feds putting their big boots on the necks of people as long as it’s folks that the right doesn’t like.

“You should be afraid of people like Sally Kern, Dana: she wouldn’t hesitate, if given the power, to regulate everything about your life including what brand of toothpaste you’re allowed to use.”

...not to mention your choice of religious belief.  Sure, Catholics and Bible Thumpers are best buddies right now (with the SCOTUS almost entirely Catholic and ruling the way they want it to, and with the RCC putting up all kinds of money to keep the thumb on LGBT people), but you know as well as I that won’t last.

Anti-Catholic sentiment, laws, and outright bigotry are a deep part of America’s cultural DNA.  Once you help them get what they want, you’re gonna be up against the wall.  The only question is whether Atheists, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., come before or after Catholics in the Great Purge…

. . . not all religions are equal.

I entirely agree with her on this one point.

It’s simple good manners not to criticize private practices that don’t concern you or hurt anyone else, so I don’t care what sort of religious inanity she gets into at home.

However, when she insists that it be a basis for public policy, the public becomes entitled to examine and, if inclined, criticize its every last premise. And some religions (or lack thereof) stand up much better to that sort of scrutiny than others.

Kerns’s hate-powered, sex-obsessed brand of Christianity would scarcely get past the first question (for example, “Here in America, why should someone who doesn’t share your religious beliefs be forced to observe them?”) before dissolving into a shouting match about exactly who and what it is that Jesus loves, tongue-clicking assertations that they needn’t justify—well, basically anything they do, say or think—because “that’s how they were raised,” and finally, whining that their overwhelming majority religion is being persecuted. Essentially, they will be unable to discuss it rationally—and they will anything in their power to prevent anyone else discussing it at all.

Now, that’s a crappy religion.

* * *
It’s been a wonder that, even in the Bible Belt, someone as unhinged as Kerns could keep getting elected. However, Oklahoma has the highest divorce rate in the country. I imagine the proposed legislation is Kerns’ brilliant idea of how to change this, but she’s now sticking her nose into the private lives of more than half the married people in her state. If she gets any sort of a challenge next election, it’s likely to be her last.

Molly, never underestimate the ability of conservative America to elect and re-elect somebody who’s as mean as a snake.  Ever.

“Molly, never underestimate the ability of conservative America to elect and re-elect somebody who’s as mean as a snake.  Ever.”

...and don’t forget conservative America has a deep-seated need to legislate control over what their neighbors do too…

Mr Ess wrote:

(And here’s where I get personal, Dana P., good Catholic but only father to two.  I certainly hope you’ve never used Birth Control or either of you have gotten snipped, ‘cause that makes The Pope very irate, even if God doesn’t actually care one way or the other.  You see, because The Pope has decided it’s wrong, that means you can’t do it without violating The Pope’s edict.  Which of course proves that no good Catholic has ever used birth control…ever, in all of history since the Crucifiction…)

OK, you asked; this may be more information than you really want.  Mrs Pico was unable to become pregnant absent surgical intervention.  It wasn’t a problem which you’d expect would have that effect, but it did.  After she had the surgery, pregnancy resulted.  And resulted again.

Unfortunately, Mrs Pico had further health problems, requiring further medical procedures, one effect of which means she cannot have children again.  Under the Code of Canon Law, if a medical procedure is necessary to preserve the lfe or health of a woman, and that procedure also results in sterilization, the procedure is licit if done for te purpose of protecting her life or health, and not simply as a method of sterilization.  I’m at work right now, and can’t find the exact Canon Law citation, but it’s there.

Okay, Dana.  I’ll let you slide on that one.

But the fact remains that while the RCC’s official stance is that “Artificial Birth Control” is unacceptable, the overwhelming majority of Catholics violate that stance, especially in America.

The point I was trying to make is that laws/pronouncements/restrictions from authority figures do not stop human behavior, any more than the rain would stop if I stood up and demanded it from the clouds.

People control what they do for two reasons: They believe it’s the “right” thing to do, or they believe it’s in their best interests to do so.  Legislating that they will or will not do something is stupid…

How does it benefit to make legal separation harder?  Wouldn’t it be better to work instead on creating reconciliation and marriage counseling programs that even amicable divorces could use ‘for the children’?  or even prevent ones from happening?

Yeah, conservatives have this whole thing backward.  They want to stop divorce because it’s some bad thing, and their method is to legally limit access to divorces.  I don’t personally think that divorce itself is a bad thing, but I don’t like divorce because it’s a sign of a bad relationship.  Like Kerns, I would like to see less divorce.  Unlike Kerns, I would prefer that we have less need/desire for divorce, rather than less access.  They have the exact same stance with abortion.  Rather than try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, they’re rather just reduce access.  The only conclusion is that they are cruel people who want everyone else to suffer for the sin of not living up to ideals that they can’t even meet themselves.

Mr Ess, my first comment was being made sarcastically; I figured that y’all would see that.  But it is interesting: since advocates of same-sex marriage have used the argument that opponents, if concerned about the sanctity of marriage, should be working against heterosexual divorce, and when I pointed that out, there were a lot of responses that you can’t do that, am I to assume that whenever the proponents of same sex marriage use that argument again, they are being disingenuous?

I’m pretty sure the Supreme Law of the Land has a section on this…
Let me google that for her…

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

It was shown in *movies* of the period, so it’s obvious everyone knew that if you wanted divorce bad enough, it could be arranged with a bit of expense and embarrassment. No-fault laws and such just meant embarrassment didn’t have to happen.

It’s clear the only reason to roll things back is to make sure embarrassment is a part of it. Which is all the *more* cruel if there are children involved. “Honey, mommy and daddy aren’t in love anymore, but they are still friends and we are such good friends, we are going to do a little play-acting together. People will say bad things about us, but don’t worry, it will all turn out okay.”
Comment #4: Samantha Vimes on 01/04 at 10:41 PM

The most famous of which was Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson’s divorce From Simpson, so that she could wed Edward the VIII who became the Duke of Windsor after he abdicated.  All it too was a maid at a hotel to testify in court that she’d seen Simpson in bed with a woman.  He had to be at the hotel of course as proved by a registry book, but no actual photos have ever surfaced, TIKO.  THe technical name for the woman in the bed was a correspondent (trivia from an angloroyalphile)

Want a divorce? We’ll come to your home and photograph you in a tastefully arranged nude pose guaranteed to meet the legal requirements for divorce proceedings. You can provide your own models or for a reasonable fee we will provide professionals for the shoot.

For a slight upcharge, we will post the photos and/or video to a social networking site for you.

We also offer “proof of homosexual conduct” photoshoots for anyone wishing to leave the military or document ineligibility for the draft.

Man, low tech.  My service will only require you dropping by for a quick 3D-Scan, after which you may choose to cheat on your significant other with a wide selection of our digital doubles.  Want a picture of you in a foursome with the Marquis de Sade, Catherine the Great (real one or Catherine Zeta-Jones performance) and a Klingon of your choice?  We’ll set you up.

Unfortunately, Mrs Pico had further health problems, requiring further medical procedures, one effect of which means she cannot have children again.  Under the Code of Canon Law, if a medical procedure is necessary to preserve the lfe or health of a woman, and that procedure also results in sterilization, the procedure is licit if done for te purpose of protecting her life or health, and not simply as a method of sterilization.  I’m at work right now, and can’t find the exact Canon Law citation, but it’s there.
Comment #35: Dana on 01/05 at 12:29 PM

There are now many women out there with falsified medical records which have hormonal BC prescribed for other “licit” reasons, now I have to wonder how many women have the same falsified medical records for this “surgery.”  I can’t wait until some of them start suing the pants off the RCC and its hospitals because they’re suffering rescinded or denied coverage based on those falsified records.

My comment on the article about Kern’s latest whackjobbery:

“Now you know how gay people feel when these rightwing whackjobs interfere in their private family life and right to marry, and the women who have these nuts trying to force them to give birth, no matter the threat to life or health. If you let Kern and her ilk get away with interfering into other’s private lives, didn’t you know they’d be coming after your life, too? Next on their agenda is outlawing birth contol of any sort. Don’t say you weren’t warned.”

http://www.koco.com/politics/22120159/detail.html?treets=okl&tid=26511474000813&tml=okl_12pm&tmi=okl_12pm_1_12000101042010&ts=H

phylosopher wrote:

There are now many women out there with falsified medical records which have hormonal BC prescribed for other “licit” reasons, now I have to wonder how many women have the same falsified medical records for this “surgery.” I can’t wait until some of them start suing the pants off the RCC and its hospitals because they’re suffering rescinded or denied coverage based on those falsified records.

Kind of difficult to falsify records for a hysterectomy.  You could, I suppose, present a family history showing where other women in your family became increasingly ill after each pregnancy, and just a tubal ligation was needed.  Thing is, if you were falsifying the records, a woman wouldn’t have a problem with a tubal at a Catholic hospital; to get to the scenario you presented, she’d have to use an OB/GYN who practiced only at a Catholic hospital and be seeking a tubal without any sort of falsified records.

...and don’t forget conservative America has a deep-seated need to legislate control over what their neighbors do too…

MikeEss (and seeker6079 too): Absolutely—and so far, that need has worked out very well for Mrs. Kerns. But now she’s decided to legislate control over what her conservative constituent do, and even they have their Hey, Lady—whose ox do you think you’re goring? limits.

(I can’t imagine anyone willingly staying married to this bitch, nor do I expect her husband is any prize—which makes me think her proposal is something akin to all those fundies who claim that homosexuality is a choice because they themselves chose to have unfulfilling sex lives. Like, if the Kerns are toughing out a crappy marriage, they’re probably consoling themselves that they’re doing the “right” thing. But the crappier the marriage is, the more consolation they need along these lines, and at a certain point of utter domestic misery, some fanaticism on this point is bound to turn up—hence the legislation, the fruit of her whited sepulchre of a marriage. )

Seeker beat me to it with the ‘divorce by collusion reference’, but I would like to point out another historic effect of this kind of divorce limiting legislation, which is that it mainly restricts divorce to the upper and educated classes.  Middle class people leading ‘lives of quiet desperation’ might be able to rustle up the cash required for the whole charade, but their class insecurity would make them less likely to risk the public embarrassment - or at least, that was usually the case in Britain.  The poor just used desertion and bigamy.

Just because someone doesn’t believe in a sky fairy doesn’t make them run out and become a mass murderer.  The fact that these religious nuts would assume that scares the hell out of me.  What is going on in their heads?

I’m guessing that they are projecting: I’m sure they’d love to kill every heathen/GLBT/liberal et al if they could. The Republic of Gilead would be utopia to them.

The fact that these religious nuts would assume that scares the hell out of me.  What is going on in their heads?

I’m guessing that they are projecting: I’m sure they’d love to kill every heathen/GLBT/liberal et al if they could.

These are traditions that spend a lot of time trying to suppress the development of an individual moral compass.  If you have someone where it worked to a greater rather than a lesser extent, it can be a difficult thing to conceive of having or being able to arrive at a just, moral, or even ethical decision without the guidance or, preferably, dictate of some external authority.

Kind of difficult to falsify records for a hysterectomy.  You could, I suppose, present a family history showing where other women in your family became increasingly ill after each pregnancy, and just a tubal ligation was needed.  Thing is, if you were falsifying the records, a woman wouldn’t have a problem with a tubal at a Catholic hospital; to get to the scenario you presented, she’d have to use an OB/GYN who practiced only at a Catholic hospital and be seeking a tubal without any sort of falsified records.
Comment #44: Dana on 01/05 at 03:16 PM

Exactly, Dana. Woman wanting tubal has OB-GYN who has admitting privileges (or even offices) in an RCC owned building or practice, but is not him/herself RCC,  and would claim woman’s health/life would be endangered by more pregnancy - voila, falsified records and the woman gets her tubal.  It seems this is in dispute in the pragmatic hospital administrative world versus bishop lalala we don’t have any pedophiles as priests land.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_hospital_and_bishop_at_odds_over_sterilizations/

And it is only recently that a tubal has become preferred over a full hysterectomy - there are still women who just “want it all taken out”  due to misinformation or misinterpreted family history. 

But really Dana, it always makes me happy to read what you write - blissfully happy that I no longer have to give a goddamn about what a bunch of bigoted, misogynistic old farts in dresses claim their sky fairy says about what happens in a woman’s uterus, or in my bedroom (or out of it) etc.  NOw if the RCC would only do what that one bishop? threatened to do - get the hell out of medical care for all but their own members.

Drugs, abortion, teen sex, healthcare, and now divorce. The wingnut approach is always about restricting access or supply instead of addressing demand. Never works, so they always try harder.

The thing is, some kind of pre-marriage counseling legislation would probably be more useful all round, if it could be sanely implemented. Why is it you can get into a potentially life-long legal commitment more easily than you can buy a car?

Since conservatives are usually the first ones to caution against the unintended consequences of well intentioned laws, has it ever occurred to her that all she might be doing if this law passes is encouraging more people to not get married?  Of course, the next step will be to outlaw non-marital sex so that will take care of that.  Wouldn’t rule out them making engagement a legally binding institution as well.

“Why is it you can get into a potentially life-long legal commitment more easily than you can buy a car?”

Because it’s still an extremely important social institution and throwing up unnecessary obstacles to entering into it imposes an undue and disproportionate burden on the socially- and economically-marginalized who need its protections the most?  Because while it’s potentially a life-long legal commitment, that commitment is dependent on continued mutual consent of the contracting parties, and there’s a well-established and readily-available state mechanism for dissolving the contract?

This is before really getting into the fact that it isn’t actually more difficult to buy a car than it is to get legally married, provided you’re comparing buying a car with a clear title that you can afford to pay for outright and a marriage without any kind of complicating factor (pre-nup, having to get civil-unioned, trying to get an out-of-state same-sex marriage recognized by a home state without clear or established provisions for such).  And that it isn’t actually more difficult to convince someone that you’re okay to buy a car on credit from them than it (Vegas excluded) is to convince another person that you’re okay to enter into a marriage with them.

Well, I have seen arguments made by the advocates of same-sex marriage that if the opponents are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, they ought to address the divorce rate first.

Actually, Dana, your sarcasm meter is broken.

Here, Representative Kern is doing just that, taking your advice.

See above.

The point of our “advice” was to show a logical conclusion of the continuing restrictions that keep same-sex couples from marrying: What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And, as we imagined, any nutjob so stupid as to suggest banning/curtailing divorce would find swift retribution.

since advocates of same-sex marriage have used the argument that opponents, if concerned about the sanctity of marriage, should be working against heterosexual divorce, and when I pointed that out, there were a lot of responses that you can’t do that, am I to assume that whenever the proponents of same sex marriage use that argument again, they are being disingenuous?

Strange, since I have never seen that as an argument proposed by supporters of same-sex marriage.  What I have seen asked, and I ask myself, is why is it okay for supposed paragons of “family values” like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh can get married (and in Limbaugh’s case, divorced) three times while two people of the same gender who have been in a monogamous relationship for years cannot have the same right?

Likewise, opponents of gay marriage have argued that its legalization will destroy the institution of heterosexual marriage when a lot of marriages ended in divorce before gay marriage even popped up on the radar screen.

One possible consequence of laws like what Sally Kern is proposing might be that fewer people will get married.  What it just goes to show is that religious fundamentalists like Kern care more about the idea of marriage rather than the reality of it.  Bans on divorce could also end up increasing incidents of spousal murder and domestic violence when one or both members of a marriage on the rocks find themselves denied a legal avenue for getting out of it.

I remember years ago when I took my paralegal course, the lawyer who taught the matrimonial part of the course told us that marriage law was backwards.  The law should make it hard to get married and easy to get divorced.

since advocates of same-sex marriage have used the argument that opponents, if concerned about the sanctity of marriage, should be working against heterosexual divorce, and when I pointed that out, there were a lot of responses that you can’t do that, am I to assume that whenever the proponents of same sex marriage use that argument again, they are being disingenuous?

IT’S NOT AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

WE ARE POINTING OUT THE ANTI-SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE CROWD’S HYPOCRISY.

Here’s how it goes:

The Anti’s: “We’re not anti-gay; we’re just protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage.”

Us: “Well, if that were really your concern, then you should be outlawing divorce.”

The Anti’s: “Woo woo woo blah blah blah.”

Get it yet?