Kansas Takes a Giant Leap Backwards :shockface:

[CJane]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? KS

http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/07/3273731/kansas-bill-would-eliminate-no.html?=storylinkFB

I know, I know, it's just a bill... but it's Kansas, which makes me not at all confident that it won't make it all the way through the legislature.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Would it make you happier if they called it the cutting down on welfare family act?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? KS

http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/07/3273731/kansas-bill-would-eliminate-no.html?=storylinkFB

I know, I know, it's just a bill... but it's Kansas, which makes me not at all confident that it won't make it all the way through the legislature.

I agree with the family law attorney (O'Hara Gering) who was quoted for the article. If the bill passes, it stands to create far more litigation, and the litigation - which can already get nasty - will only get nastier.

In addition, divorcing couples will probably have to go back to the once-common practice of surreptitious recording and photographing of their mates, to try and capture the other in some sort of compromising situation to support the "fault-based" divorce (violating privacy laws in the process).

By the time couples start talking divorce, there is a good chance that at least one of the two has already "checked out" of the marriage. Prolonging the divorce process does not seem to make much sense, especially since those involved are generally angry or upset enough with the other without adding the "who did what to whom" proof-of-fault to the mix.

 

[TheGeekess]

I like what LA does. You can either have a marriage or a covenant marriage. Harder to get out of the covenant marriage.

 

[TigerD]

Also known as the full employment for KU Law School grads act.

DC

 

[single317dad]

I'm no holy roller (far from it), but I really believe that the ease which which a divorce can be obtained in the past 40 years or so has been, along with birth control, abortion, cheap/easy travel and relocation, and a few other factors, a key component in the unraveling of our societal moral structure. Now, you can argue that the moral structure was a bad thing, and should well have been destroyed; I'd listen to that argument. You can also argue that no-fault divorce has positive side effects such as protecting women and children from abusive situations, and I'd listen to that argument as well. But there's no doubt in my mind that easy divorces cause society at large to take marriage less seriously, and put less effort into fixing a broken marriage. It's harmful to kids overall. Not in every case, but overall.

Now, we're obviously not going to ban or even further regulate birth control. I'm not even going to open the can of worms that is abortion. I think KS is addressing the only one of these issues that they really can address: the fact that it's as easy to get a divorce as it is to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home from the office. The problem is it isn't going to help -- it's far too late for that. They'd be better off simply getting rid of marriage entirely than trying to fix divorce.

 

[LdiJ]

I'm no holy roller (far from it), but I really believe that the ease which which a divorce can be obtained in the past 40 years or so has been, along with birth control, abortion, cheap/easy travel and relocation, and a few other factors, a key component in the unraveling of our societal moral structure. Now, you can argue that the moral structure was a bad thing, and should well have been destroyed; I'd listen to that argument. You can also argue that no-fault divorce has positive side effects such as protecting women and children from abusive situations, and I'd listen to that argument as well. But there's no doubt in my mind that easy divorces cause society at large to take marriage less seriously, and put less effort into fixing a broken marriage. It's harmful to kids overall. Not in every case, but overall.

Now, we're obviously not going to ban or even further regulate birth control. I'm not even going to open the can of worms that is abortion. I think KS is addressing the only one of these issues that they really can address: the fact that it's as easy to get a divorce as it is to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home from the office. The problem is it isn't going to help -- it's far too late for that. They'd be better off simply getting rid of marriage entirely than trying to fix divorce.

This particular issues reminds me of another one that bothers me. Children born outside of wedlock. Do I celebrate the fact that children no longer are labeled and ostracized as the "b" word because their parents were not married...I absolutely and completely celebrate that. Do I still worry very much that the fact that society no longer views marriage as a necessary step before having children...I absolutely worry about that too. Does it scare me that young men and women seem to feel that every semi serious relationship should produce a child...oh yeah.

Its as if all of the positives of today's societal norms put forth equal or worse negatives...and that there is virtually no way to balance things.

When I was a teenager if you got pregnant your parents sent you away to a special boarding school for pregnant teens and you gave the baby up for adoption...or you got married, shotgun style. Do I want those days to come back?...OH HECK NO.

I once thought that there ought to be some kind of mandated, semi permanent procedure, to prevent conception for both women and men, that could only be reversed if two parties voluntarily made a binding contract to have a baby together. However I realize that is completely absurd and shades of big brotherish.

I wish that there was an answer. I am not sure that there is.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? KS

http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/07/3273731/kansas-bill-would-eliminate-no.html?=storylinkFB

I know, I know, it's just a bill... but it's Kansas, which makes me not at all confident that it won't make it all the way through the legislature.

I think that the end result of something like that is that fewer people would choose to marry at all.

 

[Proserpina]

I think that the end result of something like that is that fewer people would choose to marry at all.

Me too and in all honesty, I can't really say that forcing people to think twice - nay, thrice - about getting married on a whim is actually a bad thing.

With that said, it's a slippery slope.

 

[Bali Hai]

I think that the end result of something like that is that fewer people would choose to marry at all.

And that would be a good thing for one of the spouses. While KS is at it, they should put in the bill that the spouse at fault is fined and cannot receive any marital property or alimony.

 

[Proserpina]

And that would be a good thing for one of the spouses. While KS is at it, they should put in the bill that the spouse at fault is fined and cannot receive any marital property or alimony.

And oh what fun we'd have determining who did what and when.

 

[Bali Hai]

And oh what fun we'd have determining who did what and when.

Truth will prevail eventually.

 

[single317dad]

The problem IMHO is that marriage is a contract, albeit one with a whole bunch of holes in its framework. Two people stand in front of witnesses and make solemn vows, terms which in the majority of cases are not fulfilled. 2011 marriage rate .68%, divorce rate .36% (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm). Both stand there in full knowledge that the binding oral agreement they make isn't really binding at all; that children, money, and possessions can all be divvied up at any time simply because one is bored or doesn't like the way the other drives or bumped into their childhood sweetheart on Facebook. The fact that the State continues to sanction and even encourage such a contract that in fact isn't enforceable to any extent is a problem. The only compensation available to an injured party is (depending on state) either half the stuff that was theirs anyway, or perhaps some extra depending on an arbitrary decision by an uninterested third party. In the process, the children are harmed more often than not, and primed to repeat the process when they are adults (as Mom and Dad likely will again, as well.) The whole idea is pretty ridiculous from a practical standpoint.

Yeah, it's a pretty bleak and pessimistic outlook; don't even get me started on Valentine's Day.

 

[Proserpina]

Yeah, it's a pretty bleak and pessimistic outlook; don't even get me started on Valentine's Day.

Valentine Schmalentine

I MUCH prefer March 14th.

 

[Bali Hai]

The problem IMHO is that marriage is a contract, albeit one with a whole bunch of holes in its framework. Two people stand in front of witnesses and make solemn vows, terms which in the majority of cases are not fulfilled. 2011 marriage rate .68%, divorce rate .36% (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm). Both stand there in full knowledge that the binding oral agreement they make isn't really binding at all; that children, money, and possessions can all be divvied up at any time simply because one is bored or doesn't like the way the other drives or bumped into their childhood sweetheart on Facebook. The fact that the State continues to sanction and even encourage such a contract that in fact isn't enforceable to any extent is a problem. The only compensation available to an injured party is (depending on state) either half the stuff that was theirs anyway, or perhaps some extra depending on an arbitrary decision by an uninterested third party. In the process, the children are harmed more often than not, and primed to repeat the process when they are adults (as Mom and Dad likely will again, as well.) The whole idea is pretty ridiculous from a practical standpoint.

Yeah, it's a pretty bleak and pessimistic outlook; don't even get me started on Valentine's Day.

The state (you and I) encourages marriage to keep our tax rate lower. The state will ensure to the extent possible that if the marriage ends, no spouse will become a public charge.