The problem s of the world might not be as bad if married couples and politicians understood the word vow. I “swear”, “Promise”, “give my word” “state the truth before a very unforgiving God”.“Hello St Pete. Yeah, I did use the Lord’s name to lie. Why do you ask?”
Divorce used to be illegal in a lot of places. One reason its legal is because people simply ignored their vows anyway. The rich had their affairs with nary a thought – and the poor did, too. Or they ran away. This country was a huge receptacle for people running away from relationships (including marriages) that they did not want. Get a girl pregnant? Run away to America! By the way, as someone who was divorce & paid child support, I disagree that child support should be done away with. It is, however, applied very unevenly.
Actually, the real irony of the “marriage is a Holy State” argument is that Jesus himself, judging from the Gospels, was anti-marriage. Remember his words to the man who wanted to follow Him, but had a wife and children. Jesus told him in no uncertain terms to abandon his marriage.Jesus believed that you couldn’t give yourself to two loves at the same time, and as He also believed he was in the last days – claimed people hearing his words would see the End of the World – marriage was no longer needed, and therefore should be abandoned in order to allow everyone to get on with the important thing – doing as God willed, and following Jesus.I have heard it claimed that the Catholic Church didn’t involve itself in marriage until the Middle Ages, and didn’t make formalising a marriage madatory until at least the 14the Century.Paul disagreed, and as usually is the case wherte Jesus and Paul disagree, Paul is the one the Christians (at least “Western” Christians) followed.
Divorce rates are also much higher in conservative, supposedly strongly religious states than it is in more liberal ones. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of all US states.
The term “Divorce Rates” is problematic on its face. Are we talking about the percentage of first marriages that end in divorce (someone who’s already been divorced is statistically more likely to get divorced again, assuming remarriage), or the total number of divorces filed per annum (marriage rates have been declining, so a higher percentage of marriages ending in divorce may still result in fewer divorces)?
On the Season 4 DVD of “Mad Men”, there’s a Special Feature about divorce, American-style, which stated that Americans has traditionally been very prone to divorce (relative to other countries), and the percentage of marriages ending in divorce had been climbing for a long time, but from the late 1940’s to the early 1960’s there was a pronounced DROP in divorces, perhaps due to the increased need for “security” among those who grew up during the Depression. However, it was also stated that “marital happiness” did not INCREASE during those years; it’s just that couples were more likely to “hang on in quiet desperation,” whether for appearances, or security, or “for the sake of the kids”, or whatever.
@Stuart GathmamWhere do you get your information that rich Catholics bribe church courts for annulments? I am catholic and am far from rich and received an annulment from my first husband in the early 70’s. It’s a different process than a state divorce, it was by no means done by bribing .
The fact that some Catholics who are not rich rich receive annulments in accordance with that stated purpose of same (i.e. to declare that a marriage “never should have been” and “never was”) does not change the fact that annulment was used, with “encouragement” of ecclesiastical authority, do nullify marriages that are inconvenient for other reasones. Henry Viii got his first marriage anulled by “convincing” Papal authorities that his marriage, to the widow of his late brother, was never consummated.
In 90% of the cases, annulment is a farce, an end-run around the Catholic Faith’s prohibition of divorce. The Church DID permit married couples in a marriage which turned abusive or otherwise “irreconcilably different” or whatever, to live apart from one another, but would not allow either party to remarry (infidelity within marriage to be a lesser sin than “bigamy”).
Getting divorced should be no more difficult than getting married. Failing that, getting married should be no less difficult than getting divorced.
MontanaLady over 13 years ago
‘Mornin’, Dogsniff……..that was a “groaner”
Nebulous Premium Member over 13 years ago
With all the groups who claim to “Preserve the Sanctity of Marriage”, it’s odd that none of them ever mention outlawing divorce.
GROG Premium Member over 13 years ago
Well that’ll save quite a bit in alimony payments.
Good Morning, Fellow Cave Dwellers.
glenview_tourist over 13 years ago
The character in B.C. made a cameo here today:http://www.gocomics.com/uncle-sam-and-friends/2011/05/24/
lewisbower over 13 years ago
The problem s of the world might not be as bad if married couples and politicians understood the word vow. I “swear”, “Promise”, “give my word” “state the truth before a very unforgiving God”.“Hello St Pete. Yeah, I did use the Lord’s name to lie. Why do you ask?”
cdward over 13 years ago
Divorce used to be illegal in a lot of places. One reason its legal is because people simply ignored their vows anyway. The rich had their affairs with nary a thought – and the poor did, too. Or they ran away. This country was a huge receptacle for people running away from relationships (including marriages) that they did not want. Get a girl pregnant? Run away to America! By the way, as someone who was divorce & paid child support, I disagree that child support should be done away with. It is, however, applied very unevenly.
waynl over 13 years ago
Outlawing divorce will never work. Imagine the unemployment rate with all the non-working divorce lawyers!
Neanderthal over 13 years ago
And what about those other affairs?
Digital Frog over 13 years ago
Oldfarmhand makes a good point – unemployed lawyers have a tendency to become politicians…
allanwr over 13 years ago
Actually, the real irony of the “marriage is a Holy State” argument is that Jesus himself, judging from the Gospels, was anti-marriage. Remember his words to the man who wanted to follow Him, but had a wife and children. Jesus told him in no uncertain terms to abandon his marriage.Jesus believed that you couldn’t give yourself to two loves at the same time, and as He also believed he was in the last days – claimed people hearing his words would see the End of the World – marriage was no longer needed, and therefore should be abandoned in order to allow everyone to get on with the important thing – doing as God willed, and following Jesus.I have heard it claimed that the Catholic Church didn’t involve itself in marriage until the Middle Ages, and didn’t make formalising a marriage madatory until at least the 14the Century.Paul disagreed, and as usually is the case wherte Jesus and Paul disagree, Paul is the one the Christians (at least “Western” Christians) followed.
runar over 13 years ago
Divorce rates are also much higher in conservative, supposedly strongly religious states than it is in more liberal ones. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of all US states.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
The term “Divorce Rates” is problematic on its face. Are we talking about the percentage of first marriages that end in divorce (someone who’s already been divorced is statistically more likely to get divorced again, assuming remarriage), or the total number of divorces filed per annum (marriage rates have been declining, so a higher percentage of marriages ending in divorce may still result in fewer divorces)?
On the Season 4 DVD of “Mad Men”, there’s a Special Feature about divorce, American-style, which stated that Americans has traditionally been very prone to divorce (relative to other countries), and the percentage of marriages ending in divorce had been climbing for a long time, but from the late 1940’s to the early 1960’s there was a pronounced DROP in divorces, perhaps due to the increased need for “security” among those who grew up during the Depression. However, it was also stated that “marital happiness” did not INCREASE during those years; it’s just that couples were more likely to “hang on in quiet desperation,” whether for appearances, or security, or “for the sake of the kids”, or whatever.
Elaine Rosco Premium Member over 13 years ago
@Stuart GathmamWhere do you get your information that rich Catholics bribe church courts for annulments? I am catholic and am far from rich and received an annulment from my first husband in the early 70’s. It’s a different process than a state divorce, it was by no means done by bribing .
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
The fact that some Catholics who are not rich rich receive annulments in accordance with that stated purpose of same (i.e. to declare that a marriage “never should have been” and “never was”) does not change the fact that annulment was used, with “encouragement” of ecclesiastical authority, do nullify marriages that are inconvenient for other reasones. Henry Viii got his first marriage anulled by “convincing” Papal authorities that his marriage, to the widow of his late brother, was never consummated.
In 90% of the cases, annulment is a farce, an end-run around the Catholic Faith’s prohibition of divorce. The Church DID permit married couples in a marriage which turned abusive or otherwise “irreconcilably different” or whatever, to live apart from one another, but would not allow either party to remarry (infidelity within marriage to be a lesser sin than “bigamy”).
Getting divorced should be no more difficult than getting married. Failing that, getting married should be no less difficult than getting divorced.
COWBOY7 over 13 years ago
Interesting reading here…………………………