I have heard some buzz about certain politicians advocating for tougher divorce laws. So I did some research in the anti-divorce movement and some of what I found really made my head spin. For instance, in an article on www.smartmarriages.com, I found the following:
It is hardly debatable that many of society's ills can be traced to the continuing high rates of marital distress and divorce.
I would argue that there are plenty of other things contributing to society's ills, but in order to stay on topic I won't list them here. What followed that statement was actually a fairly balanced discussion on the pros and cons of enacting tougher divorce laws. What I found disturbing however is that in 2012, anyone would debate making divorce less accessible.
Our culture has grown leaps and bounds since the 1950's and earlier when most of society viewed divorced people with suspicion and derision. But the stigma of divorce hasn't completely gone away. Every time a divorced political candidate runs for office, the press scrutinizes their marital history as if it is somehow indicative of their moral character. Entertainers and public figures are not immune to this criticism either. Rush Limbaugh -- a seeming crusader of conservative values -- is on his fourth wife. Newt Gingrich can't seem to stop getting married and having affairs. Jennifer Lopez has been divorced three times by the age of 42, and Larry King is on marriage number eight. And of course we have Kim Kardashian who, after a lavish televised wedding for her second marriage, filed for divorce after only 72 days. Some people truly seem to have a marriage problem. And then there is the rest of us.
I married once, and for reasons completely out of my control, my marriage ended. I am not deficient or somehow morally bankrupt as a result. It was not a weakness on my part that my marriage fell apart. My husband was a closeted homosexual. I discovered as much and got out as soon as I possibly could. Many of my divorced friends also felt like they had no choice but to leave their marriages. One of my friends found out that her husband was a criminal, and when she confronted him with this information he blamed her, even though she knew nothing about it. Another friend married a man who refused to seek treatment for his bi-polar disorder -- a disease he struggled with in the past but had hidden from his wife. His untreated mental illness made him physically and emotionally abusive to both her and their child. Since he refused treatment, she also had no choice but to leave the relationship. Or in the case of several of my friends, one spouse simply did not want to remain in a monogamous relationship and continually had extramarital affairs. What is the other spouse supposed to do? Stick around and put up with the constant deception, open themselves up to possibly getting a sexually transmitted disease, and stay faithful to a partner who is not faithful to them? And in some marriages, one spouse becomes overwhelmingly emotionally or physically abusive, constantly tearing down or controlling the other. Should someone stay in that situation? I think not.
Are we supposed to feel like failed people because our partners made it impossible for us to stay in our marriages? Are we emotionally weak or deficient? Are we morally bankrupt? Have we committed some horrible crime against society? When I hear of conservatives promoting laws to make divorce more difficult I want to scream. Marriage is a personal matter between two people. Should the government intervene for the sake of society and prevent divorce? We all know of couples who stay together in a mutually destructive dance of co-dependency, or marriages in which one partner suffers irrecoverably while the other uses them as an emotional punching bag. Is an injurious marriage preferable to a divorce?
In my case there were no children involved; the only people who have suffered are my former spouse and myself. How are we destroying society? And when children are present, should restrictive divorce laws force them to stay in a painful and destructive household in which one or both parents are miserable? I can't imagine that environment could lead to a healthy childhood.
Marriage is just a relationship made more complicated by social and legal ramifications. If one or both parties want to leave a marriage, the government should not force them to stay together for the sake of society. Of course, some individuals do abuse marriage and make both marriage and divorce seem trivial. But most of us were just doing the best we could, and maybe we ended up with the wrong partner. Maybe we got married too young, maybe we felt pressured into it, maybe we just made a foolish choice. It doesn't matter; most divorced people are not morally bankrupt and we are not the bane of society. Thank goodness we live in a country where we can legally walk away from these toxic unions, and anyone who would prevent us from doing so is the truly morally bankrupt person.
Follow Juliet Jeske on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JulietJeske
Debra Macleod: Is Your Marriage in a Bad Mood?
Marriage counselling - Required
Pass Marriage Test - Required
Divorce agreement written before you get married (More than a Prenup) - Required
After all that, you still want to get married...knock yourself out!
So, some divorcees ARE morally bankrupt and some are not.
its no fun to be divorced again
best wishes alan
http://thebarbecuemaster.net/bbqlove.html
I am in favour of couples counselling/marriage prep - mandated by law - for all couples seeking a marriage licence.
People make mistakes. People make mistakes that can not and should not be overlooked or forgiven by a spouse. Using laws to force people to stay together against the will of either, is inexcusable and obnoxious.
"i'm not beaten, i'm well-trodden, damn it!"
On the one hand, im glad im not married to him anymore. But, on the other hand, Im angry that he was able to end our marriage just as easily as he broke up with his high school girlfriend. I cant help but think that maybe he would have never wasted my time with a marriage, if he knew beforehand that there would be consequences if he decided to end it.
I dont know....Getting rid of no fault divorce will only do more harm than good. Maybe instead of making divorce more difficult, we should make marriage licences harder to obtain. Or, maybe the government should just stop issuing marriage licences completely. Anybody who wants legally solidify their relationship can have their attorneys write up a domestic partnership agreement.....Just a thought
Enjoy your liberation from the Dance of Gender Slavery and begin the Dance of Divorce Self-acceptance and Renewal.
Not unlike most people.
Let the Dance of Gender Slavery continue!
Go celebrate in the divorce culture. Have a drink with your divorce lawyer (who manipulated you into transferring tens of thousands of dollars from your household to his household). Tell stories about how you "stuck it to" your ex-husband. Live it up.
That is why we divorce. We have substantially different values.
You go dancing about.
I'm dad. I'm different than you.
I will quietly and conscientiously take great care of the children. I'll show them that they are important and special. I'll help them develop healthy habits, strong self-confidence and good character/judgment. I'll make sure that they have a happy childhood and the best of everything, emotionally, spiritually, educationally, nutritionally, materially, etc.
You have a different value system.
I get that.
You go dance around.
I'll parent. What you don't do, I'll do. When you aren't there, I'll be there. I'll make the sacrifices that you are too self-absorbed/selfish to make.
You can espouse your bitter/unhealthy view of men -- try to alienate/brainwash the children with negativity.
But they will know a real man -- their loving/devoted and talented father who made them happy.
As the children mature they will come to terms with their mom (who had different/selfish priorities than them and negativity with cluelessness as to what is productive) and their dad (their rock and source of stability and platform for jumping off successfully into a world of opportunity).
What exactly has to be removed?
How about a fun and instructive exercise for the readership?
Post a reply that includes a word or two or three that comes to your mind when you think of a person who is or has been divorced.
The word could be anything ...
courageous
selfish
immature
wise
borderline
liberated
etc.
What is your word (or words)?
That may tell us about the "stigma" that is attached to divorce/a divorced person.
Lonely
Poorer
tougher
eyes-wide-open
Because if there are children involved, you don't actually get a divorce.
You get your children in the middle of a different situation that probably won't be much better than the bad marriage.
1. The financial situation of the children of the divorcing household is compromised/distressed by the divorce -- including the conversion of funds to the divorce lawyer -- and aftermath.
2. Post divorce, the children become the means for one divorced parent (or the other or both) to assert control and to inflict harm on the other parent.
3. Manipulating for more custody/placement time with children is the means by which a divorced parent can extract greater child support payments from the other parent. More time is more money; alienation of children can pay off big.
4. A personality disordered and malevolent spouse does not by "miracle" after a divorce become a sound-minded and kind ex-spouse. A spouse who treated you poorly will be an ex-spouse who treats you poorly -- using the children (because they are the only means of access).
5. If one divorced spouse dares to move on and live better after the divorce, the other divorce spouse will be unhappy. And that unhappiness is spread upon the children as alienating/disparaging behaviors by that parent against the other parent.
The theory of PAS is not recognized as valid by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association. And the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has published guidelines for custody courts clarifying that "the theory positing the existence of 'PAS' has been discredited by the scientific community. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or 'parental alienation' should therefore be ruled inadmissible and/or stricken from the evaluation report."
PAS most certainly does exist in the eyes of many, many mental health experts and laypersons and that number is growing. Despite a stalling effort led by an anti-PAS feminist doctors and by N.O.W., the description of the illness continues to evolve and solidify in the same lengthy process that other mental conditions have been evaluated and described.
The mental health associations you mention are always very cautious when describing a new mental illness. For instance, Borderline Personality Disorder was not introduced into the manuals until the late 1980's, despite being described decades before.
Much study, analysis, and similar group observation of traits have to be agreed upon before a new mental condition is added to the diagnostic books, so it always takes a long time, often decades.
It will be installed in the diagnostic manuals within a decade, probably much sooner.
Reverse the genders and see how eager your friend would be to divorce. Even with bi-polar disorder the mother is still the preferred custodial parent. Your friend would end up being a parent every other weekend leaving her children with the "physically and emotionally abusive" parent. Perhaps that will provide some incite into why men initiate only 1 of 3 divorces.