North Carolina considers new limits on divorce

Two North Carolina Republican lawmakers are hoping to make it more difficult for married couples in the state to get divorced.

State Sens. Austin Allran (R) and Sen. Warren Daniel (R) introduced the "Healthy Marriage Act" last week, a bill that would require couples seeking to end their marriages to first undergo a two-year waiting period -- during which the couple could live together. The current waiting period is one year, during which the couple must have "lived separate and apart."

Both parties in the divorce would also be required to complete a set of counseling courses on improving "communication skills" and "conflict resolution." If the couple has children, they'd also be required to complete a course of at least four hours on the impact of divorce on children. None of the courses would be required to be taken together.

The Charlotte News and Observer reported that the bill also leaves some confusion as to what constitutes the resumption of a relationship:
It would also strike from the current law a provision that says "isolated incidents of sexual intercourse" don't count against the one-year waiting period. It's not clear if that means an occasional fling with your estranged partner does count against you under the proposed law.

While North Carolina's divorce rate ranks 19th highest in the nation, one of the sponsors told WRAL that his bill was an effort to fix what he saw as a larger problem.

"North Carolina has a very high divorce rate -- one of the worst -- and it's probably because we've been lax in our divorce laws. Made it too easy," Allran said.

But North Carolina's Indy Week relays some of the immediate concerns around the bill:
If you're a battered spouse, a parent of an abused child or married to an alcoholic or drug addict, a communications skills course is useless. It could be dangerous to wait two years to extricate yourself from a hopeless situation.

Daniel should know about these issues: He sits on the state Domestic Violence Commission.

Allran told WRAL that he might add exceptions for domestic violence and abuse as the bill heads to its first hearing in committee.

Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...thy-marriage-act_n_3021851.html#slide=1929270

Am I the only one who thinks a serious case of idiocy is currently spreading around North Carolina?

Really though - I, kind of, support this. Except for the lack of exceptions for domestic violance and abuse victims.

Pay close attention to the last sentence though. Keyword, might. Not will. Might.

I think we're paying too much attention to these stories and distorting what they really mean. North Carolina did vote Obama in 2008, and borders Virginia, which is a border state whose voter are shifting towards liberal values. This doesn't reflect North Carolina as a whole, only to extreme constitutents and the zealous senators that represent them.

I'm thinking what BlahISuck said.

Also, someone needs to gives these guys a handbook on priorities

It's been a boring couple of days - Didn't find much intresting besides this. I'd post stuff about Korea, but we've already got a circus thread dedicated to those clowns them.

I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel, I know.

Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that they said they might make exceptions for domestic violence and abuse?

anyway I can kinda see why they are doing this I guess, but I dunno what to think about it. I generally think people should be able to get divorced if they want to without too many restrictions.

Personally, I support the basis behind it. Given the stress that divorces cause - For all parties involved - I think it's a good idea to require couples to go though counseling first, try to save the marriage, before deciding to cut ties.

It's the lack of provisions for violence and abuse that turn me against it.

The problem, if there is a problem, isn't divorce. It's people getting married in the first place when they should wait and see if it's something worth committing more to.

And yeah, suggesting counseling for "communication skills and "conflict resolution" when there's domestic violence involved is not going to help. If anything, it blames the victim for the violence by implying it's both parties at fault.

If marriage is a bond formed of consent, the lack of consent should be all there is to break it.

Edit: Actually it's true. A marriage is ideally between two people without external factors. If it doesn't work out, it's their fault. I take this perspective personally to my relationship too, because it's a sobering to realize that you are personally responsible for what happens and doesn't happen. Besides, people who get involved in domestic violence really need communication skills and conflict resolution counselling. Because it's their personality and has less to do with the their match-up as partners. If I had anger issues (I dread to imagine what me exploding could do to those I love), I would carry those issues through every relationship until I learn to deal with it. The two people in question might actually be very compatible for each other, if they only fixed their personalities. I feel no guilt in victim blaming when it comes to relationships, because if they were better people, things might have worked out. And even if they don't, they still grow and are better people because of it.

Edit 2: I say what I do above because I have acted violently before in a relationship (not romantic) because I didn't know what to do. I would say it had some elements of co-dependency. If two people really do love each other, they might be able to find it within themselves to accept each other for who they are, and try to improve. Although I never received counselling, I did a lot of introspection and I think I grew a lot as a person, both embracing the angry emotions I may feel and controlling its expression. The best thing that people can do out of a conflict is to grow from it, no matter how horrendous that conflict may be. Although I largely agree with the mainstream view that a relationship is a contract, this is my number one disagreement. I believe human beings can improve themselves. Therefore, even in an abusive relationship, at least consider if it can be improved before moving to separation. I get the feeling that there is a tendency to call it quits before seriously examining what went wrong and how things can be made better. I believe relationships are built. Even in arranged marriages, the couple can grow to love one another. While I certainly don't see it as an attractive fate, I accept the premise that the value of a relationship is an artificial one - it is created. So if two people have a relationship that doesn't appear to be worth committing to, if they stop asking themselves that question and start enjoying the time they share, then they can create value.

I also realize that we might believe the same thing, just use different vocabulary. I prefer a language that implies motion, to emphasize the silver lining. I get a lot of stress and anxiety from questions that make my existence insecure, so I don't think I would be functional if I wasn't optimistic.

This is stupid. Forcing the couple through counseling is even worse; on whose dollar? The state's? I don't want to pay for that. The couple's? The leading cause of divorce is economic problems; you're going to give them even more crap to pay for? Increasing the waiting period is also completely stupid. There shouldn't be a wait period to begin with.

This whole thing is silly. The only reason it exists is because marriage is also a religious institution. So the most obvious solution (to me) is to relegate marriage to the churches (and make it have no legal benefits whatsoever) and make a completely separate legal entity for all couples who want to be joined under the state. You could even have them done at the same time if you wanted. Then, if you should ever want to be separated under the state, there shouldn't be a problem, since it's not a life commitment to begin with, just a legal union or contract or whatever. And if you were married at the same time, you could deal with that with whatever religious institution you're a part of.

Marriage isn't only a religious institution - where would that leave godless people like me? The institution as we know it today was characterized by John Locke as a contract between two equals. You're implying by exclusion - don't know if that's what you intended - that there isn't an equivalent union under the state because a legal union wouldn't involve life commitment. The union of two in a life commitment is a social contract found outside of a religious context in many different cultures.

BlahISuck said:

Marriage isn't only a religious institution - where would that leave godless people like me? The institution as we know it today was characterized by John Locke as a contract between two equals. You're implying by exclusion - don't know if that's what you intended - that there isn't an equivalent union under the state because a legal union wouldn't involve life commitment. The union of two in a life commitment is a social contract found outside of a religious context in many different cultures.

Click to expand...

Actually, I never implied that at all. Reread this part of my post. I'll bold the relevant word.

The only reason it exists is because marriage is also a religious institution.

Click to expand...

What I'm suggesting we do is make it entirely religious in nature and make a separate legal contract. That would solve this issue and several other major ones.

I've mentioned something similar in a lot of discussions relating to marriage as well.

Sadly though, it's something that right now would be impossible to pass.

Republicans would call it a government power grab - Which would be false actually. The true reason they would oppose it is because it would be a enforcement of the seperation of church and state - Something that the religious cult that is the modern GOP would not want to happen.

If anything, doing this would result in the government giving back power. Things would operate as normal for the government - Couples would still get their benefits and so fourth, but government would lose a form of control of the church since they would no longer have the ability to allow or prohibit gay marriages. It's hard to say though, but it would either be a equal trade of power between the state and fed, or a trade of power in the benefit of the state over the fed.

twocows said:

Then, if you should ever want to be separated under the state, there shouldn't be a problem, since it's not a life commitment to begin with, just a legal union or contract or whatever. And if you were married at the same time, you could deal with that with whatever religious institution you're a part of.

Click to expand...

I meant this. And I didn't mean religious vs. legal but religious vs. spiritual. But yes, it would remove much of the conflict if we split marriage into legal and spiritual contracts.

And in response to Mr. X, I fear religion's control on government more than the other way around. I would characterize the Republican party's behaviour as being hijacked by social conservatives. I'm sure the party strategists only wished if the religious right just shut up so the party could get a move on. I don't think most politicians genuinely care about social issues like these, watch Republican leaders slowly defect one by one as homosexuality becomes more tolerated. What do you mean by the difference between state and fed? Like between the provincial/regional/canton/state level and federal level of government?

BlahISuck said:

I meant this. And I didn't mean religious vs. legal but religious vs. spiritual. But yes, it would remove much of the conflict if we split marriage into legal and spiritual contracts.

And in response to Mr. X, I fear religion's control on government more than the other way around. I would characterize the Republican party's behaviour as being hijacked by social conservatives. I'm sure the party strategists only wished if the religious right just shut up so the party could get a move on. I don't think most politicians genuinely care about social issues like these, watch Republican leaders slowly defect one by one as homosexuality becomes more tolerated. What do you mean by the difference between state and fed? Like between the provincial/regional/canton/state level and federal level of government?

Click to expand...

I didn't mean that marriage is like that currently, I meant that the new legal contract could be free of that "permanency" requirement.

Ahh I see. Now that we're on this subject, I'd be interested in a thread about atheism.

Anyways, I think I should clarify that although I believe marriage has a strong moral aspect, nobody should be forced to pursue counselling. But couples should try as hard as they can to make the marriage work <-- of course that also depends on the goals of the marriage and the values of the people involved. But I can believe in ideals :P

After thinking about things, I think that this bill would be better suited to specify the requirements to couples with children.

Those were the couples I was thinking of when I said I supported this - Divorce is hell on familys, children especially. Couples without children can split up relatively easily - with children however, custody rights have always drawn out the divorce.

North Carolina, seems quite a few nutty things have been suggested in the legislature recently. Such as: House members just passed a bill that requires public schools to teach cursive writing and multiplication tables in elementary schools. You mean they didn't before? That's been mandatory in schools here since I was in elementary school over 30 years ago!

But in this case, it seems some law makers are actually taking the advice to do something about "protecting marriage" rather than blaming gays and lesbians for damaging the institution. It's the wrong way to go about doing it, but interesting that they've now decided to tackle the problem.