Catholic Pillow Fight
ZZzzzzzzz....
"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown
Menu
Home
E-Mail Me
Chat
Forum
Daily Readings
Search

Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me




Search Blog Entries





Blog Entries
Turn About is Fair Play | Home |Now A Little Something For Our Nerd Readers
No Fault Divorce
Posted by: tony on 11/29/2007 12:51 AM
Updated by: tony on 11/29/2007 12:51 AM
Expires: 12/30/2007 12:00 AM

Mike Liccione writes a poignant article about the evils of "no-fault" divorce.
First, no-fault divorce frequently means unilateral divorce: One party wants a divorce against the wishes of the other, who wants to stay married. This fact means that the divorce has to be enforced. The coercive machinery of the state is wheeled into action to separate the reluctantly divorced party from the joint assets of the marriage, typically the home and the children. Involving the family court in the minutiae of family life amounts to an unprecedented blurring of the boundaries between public and private life. People under the jurisdiction of the family courts can have virtually all of their private lives subject to its scrutiny. If the courts are influenced by feminist ideology, that ideology can extend its reach into every bedroom and kitchen in America. Thus, the social experiment of no-fault divorce, which was supposed to increase personal liberty has had the unintended consequence of empowering the state.

The old "nobody ought to have to stay in a marriage if they are not 'happy'" canard. Oh, sure, and I know that there are many cases of abuse, both physical and emotional against wives by husbands, but there are also cases of boredom on the part of wives who want a more "exciting" husband, and like the idea of taking half of what the current guy owns before she moves on.

The state currently supports the spouse who wants to leave. This, as far as I know, is the only "contract" in which that is the case. In every other case, it is incumbent on the person who wishes to get out of the contract to prove that the other party breached it. If they can't prove that, they need to either 1) stay in the contract until its natural termination, or 2) unilaterally break the contract and suffer the penalties spelled out within.

In my opinion, if our society is to survive, the focus needs to be placed not on what is best for the individual in all cases, but what is best for the family, town, state and country. Basically this usually means that the state stays out of our business, unless someone else is violating our rights. In a marriage, this means stay out of it until provable abuse happens, adultery, or something that breaches the marriage contract.



Filed in :: Family Issues


What's Related
These might interest you as well
Blog


Our Sponsor