The sanctity of marriage takes another hit:
Seven Republicans in the Iowa House are pushing a bill to prohibit parents of minor children from getting a “no fault” divorce and the proposal could be debated in a House committee this week.
A three-member subcommittee debated the bill today. Representative Tedd Gassman, a Republican from Scarville, said he’s concerned about the negative impact divorce has on children.
“In my opinion, it’s time to look out for the children instead of constantly worrying about the adults,” Gassman said.
Daren Clark of Forest City — one of Gassman’s constituents — spoke about his recent divorce and the ongoing conflict with his ex-wife over custody of their two young children.
“The no-fault divorce law which was introduced in California in 1969 created the attitude of ‘do what’s best for me’ which has damaged thousands of families and their children. There needs to be reform of some kind in the no-fault divorce law. I’m going what I’ve told my kids to do: talk to those who can help,” Clark said, his voice breaking with emotion as he spoke to legislators and pleaded: “Ease the pain for thousands of kids and their families.”
These guys can’t stay out of your bedroom anymore than they can not resist the urge to get all het up about how women handle their lady parts.
NCSteve
The perfect companion story would be their brilliantly-timed push to increase funding for abstinence education.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/05/17197199-the-domestic-policy-the-gop-wants-to-spend-money-on
Mike Lamb
It’s stupid, but at least it’s a consistent position with respect to the “sanctity of marriage” nonsense.
kc
Suck on it, single people!
marindenver
Because it’s such a comforting experience for children to have their parents have to accuse each other of adultery or whatever else it took to get out of the marriage before “no fault” laws were passed.
Jrod
What could be better for the kids than forcing them and their mother to live with their abusive father? Without some abuse in their lives, there’s a great danger of these kids growing up to be well-adjusted and decent people, and then where will the Republican Party be?
Rafer Janders
And if there’s one thing that’s good for children, it’s making them grow up in a home with two adults who loathe each other and can’t stand to be married anymore. Living as a helpless pawn in the midst of an emotional cold war is really great for a child’s development.
Bokonon
Do it … for the children! Think of the children!!
[Don’t think about the religious right’s agenda at all – not even for a moment! This is NOT a power grab! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!]
Gin & Tonic
Anyone want to bet what his position is on WIC or TANF or CHIP or Head Start?
El Tiburon
These jerk-offs better be careful or they may get what they wish for.
Then, when their wives file for divorce, they’ll have to testify it’s because their Republican husbands were too busy molesting the neighbor’s son/cat/car exhaust pipe or whatever.
Gravenstone
@marindenver: You just know their ultimate goal will be to ban ALL divorce when there are minor children in the family. This is only the first step.
Keith G
It won’t get too far. Divorce definitely falls into a category of behavior that some on the Right love to winge about, but can never get close to a critical mass (even in Iowa) to act on.)
FlipYrWhig
Ban divorce, make guns easier to acquire, surely children will prosper!
? Martin
You know, they could have started with child custody and support enforcement, but no.
And this is pointless without a similar provision forcing the unwed parents of a child to wed. Otherwise, you’re making marriage a burden over non-marriage. Which sounds like the opposite of what they’re after.
aimai
That’s a pretty good article. It has extensive quotes from the reality based community–in that community forcing people into an even more antagonistic mode is extremely dangerous:
In the real world neither father nor mothers “dissapear from the home” after a divorce unless they choose to. Sometimes they choose to for pretty good reasons and sometimes the same reasons they stop being a factor in their kids lives are the very reasons they stopped being good marriage partners: indifference, abuse, laziness, etc..etc…etc…
Contra Mr. Gassman neither mothers nor fathers cease to be present for their teenage daughters unless they choose to absent themselves. If he has concerns about his granddaughter’s custody of her vagina, which he seems to think is at risk, perhaps he should take it up with both her parents (including his own child) and find a way to help them create a happy home life for her regardless of who is living in it with her.
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
Yeah, well this makes sense. Since it’s so good for children to grow up with a mother and father who don’t love each other, or worse, who hate each other. I bet that’s great for children.
I have a friend from high school who, though I never knew it at the time, went through hell in middle and high school, since her mother and father hated each other. Home life was hell. She couldn’t wait to get out of there and go to college. And she was relieved when they got divorced a few years later.
I’m not saying that divorce is good for anybody. But it’s often the least bad for everybody, and sometimes, the least bad is the best you can do.
MattF
So, how many of those seven Republicans, do you think, have a, um, ‘normal’ home life? Less than seven, I’d bet… and probably a lot less than seven.
Seanly
Staying together for the children is one of the worse things a couple could do. The Hollywood idea that all divorced couples are pleasant to each other is BS.
My mother & father fought like cats & dogs. Those two had no business being together. If they had been forced to wait another 14 years until my brother turned 18 there would’ve been a murder. As it was, my father remarried in 5 years and my mother in 8. Both were a lot happier except when discussing the other.
There might be folks who could patch things up & improve their relationship with counseling, but that’s for them to try. Having the state push some version of forced misery for the misguided sake of the children is stupid.
Oh & divorce sucks. My brother & I went through a lot as young kids trying to cope with the issues. But it was much better in the long run that our parents split up.
Reasonable 4ce
Hmmm. Wasn’t it Saint Ronald Maximus who signed California’s no-fault divorce law? Just asking.
eric
@Keith G: think of the discovery and the stuff that would be uncovered…in the age of emails, texts and sexting, this can only end well …
MeDrewNotYou
Stuff like this and ‘covenant marriage’ are ridiculously stupid. Why should they get to impose additional rules on everyone else? If their marriages are so holy, why not hold them to a higher standard themselves as an example to us heathens? Do they really need to rewrite the rules just to keep their marriages together?
BD of MN
you missed the best part of this, here’s a quote from Rep. Gassman:
**Update**, apparently the bill has now been pulled…
bemused
With Republicans, force is the answer to everything.
shortstop
@BD of MN: Yeah, that’s the part Cole should’ve excerpted. It’s creepy on about 37 different levels.
MikeJ
I suppose rich people could still go to Reno for six weeks. Look at all the great movies that got made because of that!
Ash Can
@Keith G:
Very much agree. There are too many Rush Limbaughs, Newt Gingriches, Mark Sanfords, etc. etc. in the GOP for this to ever take hold.
arguingwithsignposts
@kc: Suck on it Constitution!
Southern Beale
I LOVE SMALL GOVERNMENT, REPUBLICAN-STYLE!
kc
@BD of MN:
Jebus, the poor kid!
Keith G
@BD of MN:
As expected.
aimai
@bemused:
So very, very, true. Gassman lost his argument with his own daughter, and sought to put the full force of the government behind keeping her in the marriage, presumably against her will (or against the will of his son-in-law). You’ve got to be disgusted at the corruption of that move. Its so transparently manipulative and personal and an attempt (even though it wouldn’t have applied retroactively) to enforce Gassman’s patriarchal/religious views on his own family in the absence of a legal system that recognizes his right to control his adult daughter. He clearly regrets modern day legal freedoms accorded to adults and would have preferred a system such as the one the Romans or other clan based societies have in which the most important/head “father” held all the rights over subordinate males and females in the family.
shortstop
@kc: Don’t be alone in a room with Grampy, honey.
Ash Can
@BD of MN:
Voila.
bemused
I imagine that some Republican legislators and quite a few of their voters think this is a really bad idea, especially those who are planning to divorce.
kindness
If I was that one asshole’s granddaughter I would kick him in the huevos every time I saw him for calling me a potential whore to the media.
If only she wore steel toed boots.
Gin & Tonic
@BD of MN: Paywall blocking that article.
Suffern ACE
@Ash Can: On the other hand…I was reading the wikipedia of IM Singer (of the sewing machine fame), who had about a strange of a married life as a modern can have. 1 wife, 4 or 5 commonlaw wives, 20 known children…often running one public family and a few private families on the side simultaneously. And his solution to the divorce laws was to flee the country. Not that the laws work for everybody, but…if we could just get our divorce prone members of the elite to flee abroad in shame over something, we might end up better off.
Yutsano
Oh sure blame us gays what the heck we’re easy targets.
MikeJ
@Gin & Tonic: take the stuff off the end.
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/03/05/after-controversial-comments-bill-eliminating-no-fault-divorce-will-not-advance-in-iowa-house
MeDrewNotYou
@aimai: I didn’t consider that angle at all. That’s all kinds of chilling/disturbing/creepy.
Just Some Fuckhead
lolwut?
Daren wants to make it harder for someone to leave him? How about Daren works on making it easier for someone to stay with him and leave the rest of us the hell alone?
eemom
teh stoopid of this killed me the first time I saw it, and I was sort of hoping none of y’all FPers would see it so I wouldn’t have to die twice. Oh well.
Gex
After they force women to stay in a marriage with this law, they may as well encode their not-real-rape ideas into law as well too.
bemused
@aimai:
Yes. I hope his daughter, granddaughter and ex-son-in-law have the guts to tell him to butt the hell out. Can’t be fun to have your personal family life talked about in public like that. Arrogant know-it-all.
JPL
@BD of MN: You have to be logged in to read it.
shortstop
@MeDrewNotYou: I did. This just screamed: “Family not listening to Dad (or dad-in-law), who WILL CONTROL.” Seriously, what he did to his kids and grandkids with that public statement is horrifying.
jibeaux
Read somewhere a long time ago, a divorce that works is better than a marriage that doesn’t, and haven’t felt compelled to argue with it.
Chris
@Keith G:
This exactly.
The reason gay marriage got so much traction on the religious right is because it’s a cheap and easy way to proclaim your own morality by enforcing it on… someone else (gay people being, what, 10% of the population?) Divorce actually affects pretty much every married couple (even those with no intention of divorcing, I’m fairly sure would at least like to have the option if their marriage fell apart). This will be a nonstarter.
Villago Delenda Est
I’m concerned about the wisdom of allowing assholes like Tedd Gassman to continue to live.
artem1s
@BD of MN:
If Rep Gassman’s daughter is smart, she won’t let grandpa anywhere near his granddaughter.
Jeebus, what a perfect name for an R.
gbear
@BD of MN:
He said that about his own granddaughter? What an @sshole.
Suffern ACE
@BD of MN:
Cowards. But it had to be. There’s no way they could vote against it if it came to the floor.
TG Chicago
@BD of MN: Good point, Gassman. Obviously your granddaughter is in more danger as a result of a divorce than she would be if her parents were legally forced to stay together even though they hate each other. Would you also sign a law saying they have to remain in the same house?
And yeah, publicly declaring that your granddaughter is a slut waiting to happen probably isn’t the best thing for her either.
Warren Terra
Help me out here: did Daren Clark of Forest City really testify before the State Legislature to the effect that his ex-wife is a B!tch and should have been forced by law to remain married to him?
Geez, did he have any special legislative ideas about her attire, perhaps whether she should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen?
chopper
@Gin & Tonic:
anyone want to bet that a majority of these seven gooper shmucks all have one of these divorces in their past?
the Conster
These people hate Sharia law because they don’t want the competition.
Punchy
OT: if any of you Jooserz make it to Black Star Coop tonizzle, ask Suzy for a free drink and tell ’em that kev-dog says so. She’ll understand. Also talk up how much you like Italian Greyhounds…..
Chris
Breaking news: Hugo Chavez dead.
Redshift
The wingnut interpretation of “no fault” divorce is (unsurprisingly) divorced from reality* in the same way as their interpretation of “pro-choice.” To them, both terms automatically mean selfishly doing something with no thought whatsoever, rather than its actual meaning of not having legislators involved in the specifics. Some are probably deliberately hiding the fact that this is a blatant conflict with so-called “small government” philosophy, but I suspect for most it’s just a knee-jerk stupid response.
*I am, however, in favor of outlawing wingnuts getting a no-fault divorce from reality.
Trollhattan
@Chris:
Guess that fourth term is right out.
The Moar You Know
My parents were (and as they approach their 70s, still are) both vicious, mean, immature self-absorbed jerks who had no qualms about using violence as a method of settling their problems. I have no doubt that if forced to stay together, one of them would have ended up murdered by the other.
How this would have benefited me is unclear, as at best I’d have been an orphan. I wonder who would pay for that?
eric
@Trollhattan: we need to ask Generalissimo Francisco Franco
The Moar You Know
@Chris: He wasn’t the worst thing to happen to his country, although you couldn’t have paid me to live there.
Omnes Omnibus
@Punchy: Will this advice get people slapped? Or will it get them free drinks and friendliness?
Redshift
@? Martin:
Yeah, but that would have involved letting someone tell men what to do. Not gonna happen.
That’s how you can tell the difference between the welfare of children as an actual goal and as a means to a goal.
Nethead Jay
OT: Hugo Chavez just kicked the bucket, says AP
schrodinger's cat
BTW speaking of retrograde views, I found this blog on Get off My Internets.
Is this for real?
Chris
@The Moar You Know:
I admit I didn’t share the general Western loathing for him – thought it was WAY overdone. We’ll see what comes next.
gene108
@aimai:
And other times the overbearing court system that favors mothers over fathers makes it hard for the father to deal with the crap the mother can throw up to take sole custody of the child and dick the dad around, with regards to visitation rights.
The whole divorce/custody issue has problems, but no fault divorces are pretty far down on the list of things wrong with divorce/custody proceedings.
Todd
Outstanding. Nothing says “Freedom” and “small government” like forcing people who hate each other (even when not physically abusive) to live together, all for the sake of the children.
Omnes Omnibus
@schrodinger’s cat: It is, oddly, both too appalling and too subtle to be a parody. i think those are real views.
Punchy
@Omnes Omnibus: this chick is wicked friendly. If u can talk CSU football and/or a band called “Mission 19”, u may get laid.
Omnes Omnibus
@Punchy: Damn. Too bad I’m up here in Wisconsin.
roc
So is this a trial balloon for a less-racist social conservative boogeyman?
Because it doesn’t make much sense by itself, topic and timing-wise. I don’t see who benefits from dialing back no-fault divorce. Not past PR base-energizing bullshit. But who’s doing that *now*?
Chris
@roc:
I suspect they’re just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Pretty much their MO in the last few years all across the board.
scav
Idiot law is / would have been pure grandstanding to the dim values crowd. would at most slow down divorce and make it more palatable to the thou shalt be everlastingly guilty scarlet letter crowd by assigning a “fault” “stigma” to the process. Living apart for two years as sufficient “fault” is a low bar, as is adultery — the latter has been known for centuries. Not to mention the just go to a different state version (how close are we to no state recognizing marriages or divorces from other states?). Proposed No-Thinking-Involved Legislation as Cheap Political Sound Bite Advertising isn’t doing much for the state of the nation.
Nora
When I read the excerpt of that article, the first thing that came to my mind was Mens Rights assholes. And the more I read of him and his reasoning, the more convinced I was.
Todd
@Nora:
I refuse to refer to “Mens’ Rights” on my website or to really engage the sorts of whiny assed titty babies who want to go on about that when they call. They’re invariably assholes with expectations that cannot be met, and with good reason – they’re assholes. To top it off, they rarely have money, and if they do have access to resources, they’ll chisel and whine the entire way.
Hoodie
This is a common ahistorical theme running through a lot of wingnut politics. All laws, government programs, etc., were simply created on a whim and voted in by our forebears out of laziness and licentiousness. The good old days must have been overwhelmingly populated by loafers and moochers.
YoohooCthulhu
@Mike Lamb:
Fuck this viewpoint. Ron Paul is *consistent*, but it results in him having the most crackpot, dangerous views of any politician in office today.
Democrats need to be careful what they wish for. Some day all this wishing for “principled, consistent Republicans” is going to bite them in the ass when the Republican party is all unreformed theocrats.
I’ll take an inconsistent politician any day. Means there are issues that they can actually be manipulated over, and they’re not convinced they’re right on every single issue.
danielx
Republicans:
We loves us some small government. Except when it concerns ladyparts, your bedrooms, your family, your privacy, your phone calls, your email, what you put in your own body.
There are some exceptions, like when we’re taking a wide stance, indulging our tastes for dildos/wetsuits/rentboys/crystal meth/Dominican Republic sex tours/hiking the Appalachian Trail, divorcing our first and second wives…those are matters much better kept out of the public eye.
Aside from that small government is all good, especially when it concerns the rights of banks and other corporations to screw the citizenry.
Also, too, Al Gore is fat. So is Michael Moore. Chris Christie was stocky before he became a traitor. Now he’s fat too.
Ed. I wish I was going to a gathering in Austin this evening instead of watching the 8-9 inches of snow we’re expecting.
Roger Moore
@Redshift:
Oh, there’s fault alright. Reality is pissed, because the wingnuts haven’t been paying attention to her in decades and have been seen running around town with those floozies Fantasy and Propaganda. I think the relationship is well past the point where it can possibly be repaired.
Omnes Omnibus
@Roger Moore: Even in a state without no-fault, I think a case can be made for abandonment.
aimai
@gene108:
Yeah, no. I’m not making an anti-father’s argument. The author of the legislation is. Gassman is straight up arguing that when men don’t live with/control their former sexual partners they stop being parents. I, personally, consider that an insult to men. My own comment ( I believe) was basically gender neutral: it is the case that both parents (male and female, male and male, female and female) have a choice in whether they handle their parental responsibilities after ending the marital portion of the relationship. It is you, not me, who is arguing that (a sufficient number of men to be remarkable) can’t handle post divorce spousal issues and stop parenting.
In this case, in any event, the child in question is 16 years old. Pretty much anywhere in the country she has the choice of which parent she prefers to live with. Despite howls of hysteria from Men’s Rights Advocates plenty of women find themselves in a non-custodial situation vis a vis their own children. Historically being declared a lesbian was sufficient in some states for the mother to lose custody. Hell–there was a case here in MA years ago where the woman was accused of having “unconventional bedding” and they took her children away from her. In addition these days the non custodial parent whether male or female pays child support. Women who run out on their families are frequently required to pay child support regardless of the “road blocks” that their former spouses put in their way.
njb
So – people can still divorce if they can agree on who to blame for the marriage failing? Will the wronged party at least get to stone the other one in the marketplace?
aimai
@njb:
We had years of “fault divorce” in fact it was a feature of English novels and social life of the last century–its even a plot device in Downton Abbey. Under English law for a long time you couldn’t get a divorce unless you could prove infidelity and both men and women would “hire” someone to pretend to have an affair, hire a detective to “follow” them or their spouse (whoever agreed to do it) and then provide “proof” to the courts. In Downton Abbey the one exception to this rule is used: when one or the other party is insane no divorce was possible.
ruviana
@aimai: I gotta know, if you’re still in this thread, what the hell was “unconventional bedding?” A futon? Clashing sheets? I can’t even….
SiubhanDuinne
@the Conster:
With win, this is full.
SiubhanDuinne
@SiubhanDuinne:
WithOf win, this is full.lawguy
So when I saw this I thought the expenses for my clients would increase and so will my income. Hmmm.
Mnemosyne
@aimai:
It’s not his best movie, but this is a plot point in Hitchcock’s Frenzy — the fact that the hero’s ex-wife officially accused him of physical abuse so they could get divorced is used by the police to arrest him when she’s found murdered. So it was still a believable plot into the 1960s in Britain, at least.
aimai
@ruviana:
I just remember the quote from the prosecutor/gov lawyer. I think it was a futon but it was unclear.
RubberCrutch
I’m all for this proposed law as long as there’s an exemption for the wealthy.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@RubberCrutch: Hi, I work for a shady wingnut super PAC. Have you ever considered running for a seat in your statehouse? Do you like hookers and bags full of cash?
rb
@Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): I’m not saying that divorce is good for anybody.
Why not? I’ll say it. Divorce is good for people whose marriages are broken, and for their children too.
fuckwit
@BD of MN: DING DING DING! You found it!
Rethugs terrified that someone, somewhere, might be having sex!
Unbefuckinglievable.
Puritanism has ruined this country in such a deep way, I have no idea how we’ll ever be rid of it.
bcinaz
Yes, it is vastly superior to force two people to find fault, and blame, and lead lives of misery for the ‘sake of the children’.
And by all means make sure everyone is armed to the teeth when tempers are flaring and the ‘grown ups’ are really mad at each other.