How many of you would endorse a constitutional amendment to ban all divorces:D

Boy would that change the social decay in America.

No, I would not endorse such an amendment. There are very valid reasons for a divorce. Spousal abuse, child abuse and endangerment, criminal activities, etc. Keeping someone tied to a spouse who participates in any of those behaviors is giving that person a death sentence.

I do agree that divorce should not be the first thing coming out of the mouths of couples who do not get along. Or, in planning the wedding, state that if it does not work out, they can always get a divorce. Maybe making it harder to get married - going through classes that involve elements of the marriage from budgeting to family planning. Some reality checks for those who believe that love is enough to feed them.

No, I would not endorse such an amendment. There are very valid reasons for a divorce. Spousal abuse, child abuse and endangerment, criminal activities, etc. Keeping someone tied to a spouse who participates in any of those behaviors is giving that person a death sentence.

I do agree that divorce should not be the first thing coming out of the mouths of couples who do not get along. Or, in planning the wedding, state that if it does not work out, they can always get a divorce. Maybe making it harder to get married - going through classes that involve elements of the marriage from budgeting to family planning. Some reality checks for those who believe that love is enough to feed them.
Whoops…should not have been so quick to hop-in-the-hay.

My wife and I were each married only once and that was for 38 years, until her death. We had many serious problems, but worked through them in spite of great obstacles.

I used to believe that all marriages could be worked out and perhaps they can be, but it never works one-sided. If both are committed to making the marriage whole and better, then they should succeed and have a stronger marriage for their efforts.

I married for "money" and I paid for it every day of my life till I got a divorce... (actually, it wasn't that simple, it never is) Marriage wasn't for me. :)

I think the pending collapse of the real estate market in California and Florida may trigger widespread lack of confidence in our economy followed by a collapse of the stock market... there is nothing like hard times to bring families together in order to survive... surviving hard times breeds lots of character which is what a lot of Americans with money are sadly lacking.

I think the pending collapse of the real estate market in California and Florida may trigger widespread lack of confidence in our economy followed by a collapse of the stock market........there is nothing like hard times to bring families together in order to survive .....surviving hard times breeds lots of character which is what a lot of Americans with money are sadly lacking.
I agree but must spread some Reputation around before giving it to you again.

How the Hell can you disagree that I agree Jeeezzzz, you into the cooking wine again?

I don't know about if this is possible. Not sure if that is the best way to prevent divorce, could be I am not sure.
I have lived in several different countries in my life, and been to many others.
In couple Asian countries I have lived in, that is illegal to cheat on spouse, having an intimating relationship with the other person. If you catch them in bed, the you can sue them! Very very low divorce rate compared with America.
Another Asian country-Indonesia, it is allowed to have more than one wife in some area, of course the divorce rate is low,LOL.
In Sweden where I have studied and worked, most people don't get married, and they can be very faithful to their spouses. AS far as I have known, the divorce rate is quite low.
Cultures make a big difference so is the law and regulation.
The key is to willing to work things out and stay faithful. Sometimes a little bit pressure from the society is good.:)

I wouldn't since I would be agreeing to have my freedom of choice violated. Actually, such an amendment would go against the very purpose for which the Constitution was written--to protect USA citizen human rights.

How many of you would endorse a constitutional amendment to ban all divorces:D

Boy would that change the social decay in America.

Absolutely NOT!! :eek:

The Constitution guarantees us the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thus, the option for divorce is a necessary right in order to guarantee the very purpose of the Constitution. After all, what married guy has a life? Which one has his liberty? And you can forget hapiness if you're married!! :D

Elliot

there is nothing like hard times to bring families together in order to survive

Or tear them apart. Many is the time that families have split up over financial issues that were too much for them to deal with.


... surviving hard times breeds lots of character which is what a lot of Americans with money are sadly lacking.

I had no idea that divorce was a class issue. All reports that I have seen on the subject have shown that poor people get divorced as often as rich people... there is no significant difference in the rate of divorce between lower-class, middle-class and upper-class families.

Elliot

There's no way I'd sign something like that, and I'm not likely to get a divorce, either.

I agree with Shy--if you do something like that, you are passing a death sentence on people who are with an abusive spouse.

As far as the response of not "being so quick to hop-in-the-hay", apparently you have no experience with abusive people. Most of them are very charming and likable, and have a great personality, and are very respectful to the outside world.

Behind closed doors, though, they consider people to be property, to be talked to or punished as it is seen fit by the abuser. They know how to slowly wear away self-esteem and support systems. And they're so very good at convincing those that they abuse that it's because they "Love" them.

How about instead of making divorce illegal, we make MARRIAGE illegal? If no one could get married, there wouldn't BE divorces!

How the Hell can you disagree that I agree Jeeezzzz, you into the cooking wine again?

Thoroughly marinated it would appear.

How many of you would endorse a constitutional amendment to ban all divorces:D

Boy would that change the social decay in America.

So you think divorce is the cause of social decay in America? Wow, and here I thought it was video games and porn.

And no, divorce should not be banned.

So you think divorce is the cause of social decay in America? Wow, and here I thought it was video games and porn.

And no, divorce should not be banned.

LOL, good point jillianleab! And alcohol... :D

LOL, good point jillianleab! And alcohol...:D

And McDonalds, oil companies, the right wing, the left wing, The Simpsons Movie... boy, the list goes on! So much decay in our society! :rolleyes:

And the debt that you guys have... $$$:D

How many of you would endorse a constitutional amendment to ban all divorces:D

Boy would that change the social decay in America.

I wouldn't.

OTOH, in this age of drug resistant diseases and cooties that kill, I would definitely support an amendment criminalizing adultery.

I wouldn't.

OTOH, in this age of drug resistant diseases and cooties that kill, I would definitely support an amendment criminalizing adultery.

Apparently there are places you can sue a spouse for adultry. Personally I think it's a gigantic waste of the court's time and prevents the wronged person from moving on with their life, but to each their own. Besides, a law against it won't eliminate the "cooties".

What a great idea but too radical for america, that bastion of personal freedom. This would make people get really serious about being married in the first place

Hey there, be smart here. U might get tons of "reddie"s by saying that. :d

I know what you mean;) (lower voice: but most of the members here are americans... be careful of your words!) :D :D

I wouldn't endorse a constitutional amendment to ban all divorces but I would endorse a constitutional amendment to make it much harder to get married.

I would not endorse an amendment to ban all divorces. It is just not right. To blame america decline of marriages breaking,No. There are many other things that I can think of that is causing a decline.

Another thing is that what right does anybody have to say that you have to remain married no matter what? What about abuse, what about infidelity, there are a few really good reasons for divorces and to ban them is just a crazy idea. It would put more children and families at risk to force this on somebody.

I also agree with stonewilder, that making it an amendment to make it much harder to get married I would actually endorse and agree with.

Joe

Learn from other countries, especially their laws against cheating on spouse.
It's illegal to have an intimating relationship while being married. It won't prevent all, but will def. reduce certain amount of divorce rate.

Apparently there are places you can sue a spouse for adultry.

Good point.

Laws governing marriage vary from state to state, which, in a nutshell, means marriage isn't a Federal issue (Not that the FG is the least bit shy about trying to foist it's 'values' on the rest of us, of course).

Learn from other countries, especially their laws against cheating on spouse.
It's illegal to have an intimating relationship while beeing married. It won't prevent all, but will def. reduce certain amount of divorce rate.

You're assuming the primary cause of divorce is adultery. It's most often lack of communication or incompatibility (financial sexual, etc). If you improve communication in a relationship partners are less likely to fight over money, kids, and sex. Communication also improves your emotional bond, which makes one less likely to cheat. Placing a ban on divorce is just going to leave miserable people in miserable relationships; if you want to reduce the divorce rate, find ways to promote marital communication. Implementing a law on adultery also isn't going to "fix" divorce, people will continue to get divorced for other reasons. Besides, what is a proper punishment for someone who has an affair? Jail time? Sure, because our prisons aren't crowded enough and we really need to start putting away non-violent offenders. A fine? Some people might think it's worth a $5000 fine to have an emotionally and physically satisfying relationship. Lawsuits? Our courts are backed up with all kids of silly lawsuits (some guy is currently suing McDonald's for $10 million because they put cheese on his quarter pounder) and suing people for adultery is just going to waste time and resources.

I also don't think it should be harder to get married (who decides a couple is "ready"? What do you do to make it "harder"?), I think we should educate our children (and adults) that marriage is a serious commitment and is not something to be taken lightly. Make people aware of how much work it is, and that divorce isn't the answer if you have a fight. If you aren't 100% sure when you walk down the aisle, don't walk down it. I DO think that in some instances it should be more difficult to get divorced (domestic abuse not included). I think in some cases this would drive people to try and work out their problems instead of jumping right into divorce.

It's not the primary cause I agree.
But it works very well in reducing divorce rate in other countries... the things you talked about are very difficult to operate in the US. This one is simple and does work to certain extent.
The penalty is "jail time". Cruel is it? But it works.
What else do you suggest? I mean real method.

This is a very interesting question. Although, I would never agree to a ban of divorce. Some of the laws that we have here a little backwards.

When a "much in love" couple goes to get a marriage license - they pay their money and get a piece of paper.
When a hunter goes to get a hunting license - there are classes and test to be taken before he can get that license.

Should there be classes to get a marriage license? It probably wouldn't change the mind of someone in love - because love is blind right? But, should there be something?

When you get a divorce and children are involved (in some states) you have to take a parenting class before the divorce is granted. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't you learn how to be a parent BEFORE you become one? Or get some sort of tips to prepare you? Like before you leave the hospital? I mean, I think the parenting classes at the time of the divorce are a good thing because they will teach you on how to behave now that mommy and daddy aren't together - but what about before then?

I just think some things are so backwards. I wanted to take my daughter fishing this weekend. Just drop a line in the water and hope for the best - I was informed that because I don't have a license to do so, I would get a ticket. WHAT? I just want to take my kid out and have some quality family time. But that is licensed as well.

There are so many things that can be done before we go banning divorce. Why not do some preventative maintenance?

Just my thoughts. :)

Here is my thought . I have resisted posting on this thread to date because the hypothetical is absurd.

Marriages in the US have a contractual presumption and for most a religious one. Catholics like me go to pre-cana instructions where presumably we learn what the church expects from a successful marriage.

The contractual part of marriage is a state issue. I doubt if many people read their license ,and I am pretty sure that the issues NowWhat and others have raised are not stipulated in the contract . They should be. Divorces represent breach of contract by one or both of the parties.

Some self help books will show us how to avoid these costly errors, take steps where necessary and set us off in the right direction in marriage. We will discover there really is a light at the end of the tunnel! But to read those books is still an individual choice, not everyone has to follow and even if they do read it, doesn't necessarily prevent them from divorcing.
I still encourage people to read those books, better ourselves everyday.:)

it's not the primary cause I agree.
But it works very well in reducing divorce rate in other countries...the things you talked about are very difficult to operate in the US. This one is simple and does work to certain extent.
The penalty is "jail time". Cruel is it? But it works.
what else do you suggest? I mean real method.

Sorry, I don't see how it reduces the divorce rate. If you can still get divorced for any other reason under the sun, what difference does it make if adultery is illegal? It just means people will get divorced BEFORE they cheat, instead of after. Remember, correlation does not always equal causation. I think lower divorce rates in other countries can be attributed to other cultures who place more value on marriage, and who frown upon divorce. If you have a society which doesn't think divorce is an acceptable option when you have a problem, less people are going to turn to that direction. In the US we almost glorify divorce; there's a program E! Put together of the top 20 (or whatever number) most quick Hollywood marriages; this shows young people (their target audience) divorce is an acceptable alternative and the easy way out. It also presents it in a humourous light, so you are less likey to think it's as serious as it is. If we stop telling people when they get married "Well, if it doesn't work out, you can always get divorced..." maybe we'd see a reduction in the divorce rate.

Jail time for adultery isn't cruel, it's just plain stupid. Sorry, but there's no point in locking away nonviolent offenders when we have plenty of violent offenders out on the streets. I'd rather see the guy who robbed a 7-11 get locked up than some guy who got his winky whacked by another woman. A cheater doesn't belong in jail. My suggestion? Don't make it illegal, for one. If someone cheats on you, kick them to the curb. Marry someone you like and you love and work on your marriage every single day in order to make it last. If they still cheat, then it's divorce time.

Sorry, I don't see how it reduces the divorce rate. If you can still get divorced for any other reason under the sun, what difference does it make if adultery is illegal? It just means people will get divorced BEFORE they cheat, instead of after. Remember, correlation does not always equal causation. I think lower divorce rates in other countries can be attributed to other cultures who place more value on marriage, and who frown upon divorce. If you have a society which doesn't think divorce is an acceptable option when you have a problem, less people are going to turn to that direction. In the US we almost glorify divorce; there's a program E! put together of the top 20 (or whatever number) quickest Hollywood marriages; this shows young people (their target audience) divorce is an acceptable alternative and the easy way out. It also presents it in a humourous light, so you are less likey to think it's as serious as it is. If we stop telling people when they get married "Well, if it doesn't work out, you can always get divorced..." maybe we'd see a reduction in the divorce rate.

Jail time for adultery isn't cruel, it's just plain stupid. Sorry, but there's no point in locking away nonviolent offenders when we have plenty of violent offenders out on the streets. I'd rather see the guy who robbed a 7-11 get locked up than some guy who got his winky whacked by another woman. A cheater doesn't belong in jail. My suggestion? Don't make it illegal, for one. If someone cheats on you, kick them to the curb. Marry someone you like and you love and work on your marriage every single day in order to make it last. If they still cheat, then it's divorce time.

Of course people can still divorce, there are many issues like finance, communication, child education conflicts,etc. causing divorce.

I wish americans would value more on marriage. I believe most of americans marry the ones they like, but they change, things change, when things can't be controlled they lose patience. American are not willing to work on their marriage as much as they should.
It's still an individual choice, so if they are not willing to, who can help them out?
There should have some mandatory rules or whatever guide them and corret them.
I completely understand what you suggest, but not everyone is as persistent and smart as you are. U tell them to work on their marriege every single say, they won't listen!
I wish they would, but it's impossible.
America has a mixed culture background, not all are acting like this, so the best way is to learn from other countries' moral and values on marriage, and if that's not going to work well, then there should be a law(not banning divorce) to resolve it.

I came to this country b/c I want to learn more about the high tech and wonderful personality americans hold. As a new member of this country, I have learned so much wonderful things from you guys. I really hope americans would start looking at others' culture and value. We learn from each other, that's how the world operates.:)

I don't think any other country out there has perfect morals that the US could learn from. Every country has its faults. You know that Iran has a REALLY low rate of divorce--because the woman is STONED to death if she thinks about leaving! Isn't THAT a good example to follow? It would lower the divorce rate!

I agree that the attitude that "we can just get a divorce if things don't work" is a bad attitude overall.

How's THIS suggestion for you, then?

Everyone can get a civil ceremony. It would work the same as the gay "marriages" that most states have. You would then be called Life Partners and be able to get some of the benefits of the married state--ability to see your partner when in the hospital, being the next of kin in a will, etc. These Partnerships could be dissolved by a divorce for pretty much any reason.

To be "Married" would require a religious ceremony. Each religion would be able to specify the requirements for marriage, whether that would be counseling, a weekend in a survival camp, each spending time with their future mother-in-law alone, whatever. These marriages would not be able to be dissolved by a divorce. You may be able to have it annulled (in cases of abuse, for example), but you would still be married in the eyes of the church until this happened.

Since the whole problem with divorce is that people have moral issues with it, this should fix it, right?

Cheating on spouse is def. a moral issue.

cheating on spouse is def. a moral issue.
While it should be a legal issue.:)

Okay... for those of you that want to make cheating on a spouse illegal:

Define cheating.

Okay...for those of you that want to make cheating on a spouse illegal:

Define cheating.
Cheating… transitive verb to deceive or mislead somebody, especially for personal advantage… intransitive verb to have a sexual relationship with somebody other than a spouse or regular sexual partner

DC, what good does it do to make it a legal issue? What do you hope to accomplish by making it illegal? Speeding is illegal, and people do that all the time. Do you really think if adultery was illegal it would stop people from doing it?

DC, what good does it do to make it a legal issue? What do you hope to accomplish by making it illegal? Speeding is illegal, and people do that all the time. Do you really think if adultery was illegal it would stop people from doing it?
With that logic we could do away with all laws…right?

My posting #30 agrees with Crow that it should be a legal issue as marriage is contractual .

So... you're saying that lying to your spouse is cheating (transitive)? Or just having sexual relations with someone not your spouse or regular sex partner (intransitive)?

So... having a one night stand would then become illegal? How about not telling your spouse that you were out with that girlfriend that he hates because he'd just give you a hard time about it?

How do you define "sexual relationship"? The flirting that I do with my girlfriends, where we joke about tying up our husbands and making them watch while we wrestle in jello--woudl that be a sexual relationship? I have a relationship with those girls, and that image is obviously sexual--did I just cheat on my husband?

I've said this in other threads, and I'll say it again: CHEATING IS DEFINED BY THE COUPLE. What is okay with one couple is not always okay with another couple. To make laws defining cheating would be as stupid as making laws defining how to make coffee. Everyone likes it a little different, you know.

Making cheating illegal, as Jillian has said, is just stupid. What do you think that's going to do--deter people? It's not like people go into relationships thinking "oh, I'm going to cheat". People make mistakes, and things happen. Should people be sent to jail for not making dinner on their night to cook, too? Or spending more time with the guys than with their wife? Or forgetting to stop at the store for diapers and formula? Those are inconsiderate to the state of marriage too!

Go judge someone else. The apt punishment for a cheater is that their spouse leaves them. If that person declines to "punish" the person, then why should anyone else?

As I also said in my posting the premise was absurd. Still marriage is a contractual issue and that makes it a legal one. That is why judges are so often involved in the termination. Let couples define cheating ;no problem there .

So...you're saying that lying to your spouse is cheating (transitive)? Or just having sexual relations with someone not your spouse or regular sex partner (intransitive)?

So...having a one night stand would then become illegal? How about not telling your spouse that you were out with that girlfriend that he hates because he'd just give you a hard time about it?

How do you define "sexual relationship"? The flirting that I do with my girlfriends, where we joke about tying up our husbands and making them watch while we wrestle in jello--woudl that be a sexual relationship? I have a relationship with those girls, and that image is obviously sexual--did I just cheat on my husband?

I've said this in other threads, and I'll say it again: CHEATING IS DEFINED BY THE COUPLE. What is okay with one couple is not always okay with another couple. To make laws defining cheating would be as stupid as making laws defining how to make coffee. Everyone likes it a little different, ya know.

Making cheating illegal, as Jillian has said, is just stupid. What do you think that's going to do--deter people? It's not like people go into relationships thinking "oh, I'm going to cheat". People make mistakes, and things happen. Should people be sent to jail for not making dinner on their night to cook, too? Or spending more time with the guys than with their wife? Or forgetting to stop at the store for diapers and formula? Those are inconsiderate to the state of marriage too!

Go judge someone else. The apt punishment for a cheater is that their spouse leaves them. If that person declines to "punish" the person, then why should anyone else?
I am not going to try and convince you that not making it illegal because it would not stop every instance is an illogical argument; just like all laws have been broken that one would too. AS Tom has pointed out, marriage is a legal and binding contract. But then I suppose you are pro -same-sex marriage too.

that person declines to "punish" the person, then why should anyone else?


That person doesn't decline to punish the person, he/she sends the spouse to the court. Instead of using violence or perfrom irrational activities to punish the cheaters.

U can't avoid divorce, as I mentioned finance difficulties, lack of communications and child education conflicts are also the major issues leading to divorce.

The OP is about " Banning divorce" not "banning not love each other" so sometimes when the love is gone then it's gone, it is still our responsibility to hold as a family, even if they are not as in love as they used to.


Having a one night stand would then become illegal
Yes, it's illegal, and the spouse who caught them can sue them!

Isn't there enough suing in our country already? I mean hell, you can sue over spilling hot coffee on yourself.

I think that to tell people that it is illegal to divorce or to cheat, is taking away their basic human rights. The only reason this is even an issue is because of religious beliefs, and if you ask me we already have enough religion intermixed into government.

Holding onto a family where the love is gone is more detrimental than the divorce. Ask any child of divorce that was of an understanding age when it happened... we need to face the fact that sometimes, people change, and we drift apart, and there is nothing we necessarily did to cause that. Sometimes people put on a face and are more angry 10 years down the road and turn to abuse... no one should be forced to stay in a situation where they are not happy.

I meant defining a one night stand between two single people, because that would be having sex with someone other than a long standing sexual partner.

Dark--I *am* pro-same-sex marriages, yes. There's so much hate in this world as it is--why stop love from being acknowledged, regardless of who the two people in love are?

Seriously... if you make cheating illegal, and ONE person in the couple thinks that going to a strip club (or, OMG... on the INTERNET) and looking at naked people is cheating, and the other person doesn't think it's cheating unless intercourse is involved--how would you prove it? How would you prosecute it and back it up? How would you possibly define it to fit every circumstance?

If you made cheating illegal (which is different than making divorce illegal), there would be no way to consistently enforce it.

If you made divorce illegal except in certain circumstances (like abuse, cheating, monetary mismanagement, etc), then those people desperate for a divorce will just start accusing their partner of those "crimes", and that will tie up the courts even more than they already are!

Instead... why doesn't everyone just teach their kids morals? Why not take responsibility for your own actions? Why would stopping divorce be such a great idea to begin with? Do you really want to condemn two (or more, if there are kids) people to unhappiness for the rest of their lives? Don't you think that if they can't divorce, they'll just go live separate lives anyway?

isnt there enough suing in our country already? I mean hell, you can sue over spilling hot coffee on yourself.

I think that to tell people that it is illegal to divorce or to cheat, is taking away their basic human rights. The only reason this is even an issue is because of religious beliefs, and if you ask me we already have enough religion intermixed into government.

Holding onto a family where the love is gone is more detrimental than the divorce. Ask any child of divorce that was of an understanding age when it happened...we need to face the fact that sometimes, people change, and we drift apart, and there is nothing we necessarily did to cause that. Sometimes people put on a face and are more angry 10 years down the road and turn to abuse...no one should be forced to stay in a situation where they are not happy.

Well, each countres are really different,that's not all about religion, the countries I have lived in don't really have a religion issue along with moral. I am just introducing what other countries do to reduce divorce rate since I have spent my life in many other countries.
We learn from each other, no one is always right, learn to listen, and please don't feel offended when new ideas being brought up.

I am under a firm belief that making laws to prohibit things is not the answer... look at drugs, theft, murder, etc.. I agree with synn, if we raise our children correctly, they will go on to choose what is morally right.

If you ask me, and this may sound strange given my continued resitance against government ruling our rights, the best way to handle things, is to make, as someone else stated, it harder to get married and have children. I mean we make everyone in this country take a test before getting into a vehicle to drive, and it is far less important than marriage, or raising children. Synnen has pointed this out in threads before, and I agree with her. It should be a privelage to have children, and a privelage to marry. You must earn the ability to do so by proving you are capable and competent enough to do so... Each religion should handle the marriage one, so as not to cause conflict... It is pushing things, and I doubt it will ever happen, but I mean to ban things all together seems far more unreasonable to me.

With that logic we could do away with all laws…right?

Yes, DC, that's exactly what I am suggesting. You got me. I'm an anarchist. :rolleyes:

we raise our children correctly, they will go on to choose what is morally right.


I hope so. It's a good ideal to study foreign methods of educating your children. I think it will assist you with a great benefit.
It's only a suggestion. Please be open minded.

I try to stay open minded at all times, thanks for the suggestion!

Banning divorce does not a happy marriage make.

Besides, it might have the unfortunate side-effect of increasing homicides.

Banning divorce does not a happy marriage make.

Besides, it might have the unfortunate side-effect of increasing homicides.

Or suicides.

Wow. This topic has heated up. I think you have to look at WHY? In a lot of our "issues". Why is this happening? Or why is that happening? Is there a common denominator? Banning divorce just opens a can of worms. Why is the divorce rate up? What can we do to fix what is apparently breaking?

Wow. This topic has heated up. I think you have to look at WHY? in alot of our "issues". Why is this happening? Or why is that happening? Is there a common denominator? Banning divorce just opens a can of worms. Why is the divorce rate up? What can we do to fix what is apparently breaking?
The breakdown of the traditional family has been a hot topic for years; and I suppose one of the most written about topics there are. So much of it has been couched in religious/moral terms I just thought it about time family break-up was discussed in legal terms.

But I guess a lot like illegal immigration, most people just want to consider the moral and not the legal aspect.

Oh, I'm with you on the legal side of the immigration issue. I don't want my neighbor to be a criminal whose first act on coming to the country was breaking the law.

The whole thing with the banning of divorce--haven't I been arguing the legal side of it?

The thing is... making divorce illegal isn't going to SOLVE anything. It's Prohibition all over again! I might be more with you if I could see how it would actually fix anything!

The reason marriages stayed together in years past is because the woman had no power and no options. If she got a good guy - that's great. How many other had to stay with abusers or cheats simply because they could not support themselves or their children.

The past may have seem like better times, but I bet there are a lot of women (and children) that suffered greatly.

The reason marriages stayed together in years past is because the woman had no power and no options. If she got a good guy - that's great. How many other had to stay with abusers or cheats simply because they could not support themselves or their children.

The past may have seem like better times, but I bet there are a lot of women (and children) that suffered greatly.It is difficult to get out of a certain frame of thinking, but consider this. Enforcing the law, “Till death do up part” would certainly deter a man from leaving his wife for another if he had to spend some time in jail. As far as a woman being committed to abuse, there are already laws against that. The focus should be on each person to enter marriage only after giving it the fullest of though and not something decided after a one night stand. Think about what groups have the highest rate of marriage failure.

It is difficult to get out of a certain frame of thinking, but consider this. Enforcing the law, “Till death do up part” would certainly deter a man from leaving his wife for another if he had to spend some time in jail. As far as a woman being committed to abuse, there are already laws against that. The focus should be on each person to enter marriage only after giving it the fullest of though and not something decided after a one night stand. Think about what groups have the highest rate of marriage failure.

"Till death do us part" is a part of the vows, which you don't have to recite. Many people write their own vows; so would those people be excluded from your ban? If they said it, couldn't they lie and say they didn't (no video to prove it) to find a loophole? I still don't understand the logic of putting someone who had an affair behind bars; it makes no sense. Our jails and prisons are crowded enough, our courts are bogged down enough, why do we need to start involving something which can be solved personally? Beyond that, I'm with synnen, I still don't know what you think a ban on divorce or criminalizing adultery would fix. Do you honestly blame all of the so-called "moral decay" on divorce and cheating spouses? Seriously??

"Till death do us part" is a part of the vows, which you don't have to recite. Many people write their own vows; so would those people be excluded from your ban? If they said it, couldn't they lie and say they didn't (no video to prove it) to find a loophole? I still don't understand the logic of putting someone who had an affair behind bars; it makes no sense. Our jails and prisons are crowded enough, our courts are bogged down enough, why do we need to start involving something which can be solved personally? Beyond that, I'm with synnen, I still don't know what you think a ban on divorce or criminalizing adultery would fix. Do you honestly blame all of the so-called "moral decay" on divorce and cheating spouses? Seriously???
What! Your comments are so far in left field from anything I said I cannot even begin to understand how I might respond. What drugs are these that allow you such fantasy like imagination, because I would need them in order to even begin to answer your outrageous assumptions.

What! Your comments are so far in left field from anything I said I cannot even begin to understand how I might respond. What drugs are these that allow you such fantasy like imagination, because I would need them in order to even begin to answer your outrageous assumptions.

Did I write in pig latin?

You propose there should be a constitutional ban on marriage. You argue that saying "til death parts us" implies a legal contract which should not be able to be broken. I'm telling you "til death parts us" is not included in every marriage ceremony (you actually argue it's a law, which it isn't, but I'm going to be nice and not mention that. Whoops.). So I'm asking you, if two people getting married don't say "til death parts us" do you consider they have entered into the legal contract of marriage? If you don't say those words, are you exempt from the ban because you never really contracted? If you did say those words, but no one can PROVE you said those words, can't you lie and say you didn't in order to get a divorce?

I don't know how to dumb down crowded jails and prisons and clogged up courtrooms. I also don't know how to dumb down asking you what you think a constitutional ban would solve or fix. I also don't know how to dumb down asking you if you honestly think the "moral decay" in the world is caused by divorce.

I've dumbed it down as much as I can. If you still don't get it, well... I'm not one for name calling...

How many of you would endorse a constitutional amendment to ban all divorces:D

Boy would that change the social decay in America.



NO to the proposed amendment.

How about a different legal tactic.

Ban NO FAULT divorce:
Proof of abuse, adultery, addiction, would be required.

I think this would cut down on the; I'm leaving you for a better looking person, or I'm leaving you because so and so makes more money, kind of divorces.

PREQUALIFY for marriage to address the main causes of divorces
Education for sexual, financial, child related, religious issues.



I think STRONGER marriages would help improve society.




Grace and Peace

inthebox, in a way I agree with you about the no fault divorces, but there are still some cases in which divorce is needed when abuse, etc is not present. Someone I know married a girl who made up stories about her parents being very ill; she gave us doctor names, medical conditions, made up a lawyer she was talking to... and when her one parent "died" she had the other parent attempt suicide and end up committed to a mental institution, where that parent later died of a bowel obstruction. She planned funerals; gave us location names, dates... then found a reason to cancel the service so no one would come. Her husband had no idea these stories were made up. Oh, and she was telling her family the same stuff (more or less) was happening to her husband's family! In the end, everyone was alive and well - she was just nuts and looking for attention (we guess). Anyway, she refused to get help (which I think anyone can agree she needed) refused to get a job for the duration of the marriage and burned through all the money her husband ever earned, putting him in tremendous debt. The husband divorced her. Now maybe other people would have stuck it out, but I think in a case like that, and no fault divorce was the best option. The real kicker? She seemd totally normal before they got married, held down a job and everything.

I think if divorce was HARDER and access to marriage counseling was more readily available we might see a reduction in divorce rates.

Also, I take issue with "prequalification" because who's decision is it if you get married or not? Everyone places different values on different things, so there's no formula for the "perfect marriage".

Why is it that people feel the need to place societies problem's on things that don't really cause the problem?

I see people blaming divorces, drugs, etc. In fact, if parents learned to say no to their kids more often and taught them the difference between right and wrong, things would be OK.

If our elected leaders set examples of how to properly behave, that would be a way to learn. I have see both US and Canadian scandals from our politicians and if they can be this corrupt, why do people think that it is divorces that are the problem?

And how can one “prove” abuse. I know of someone who was abused by her husband, but it was more mental abuse than physical abuse. So how could she have left him if she had to “prove” it?

As for marriages and divorces. Yes, some people rush into marriages far too quickly, but if we pose restrictions on that, who is to set those restrictions? That is just not right.

As for divorces, banning all or even some divorces is just wrong. What right does the government have to tell anyone that they MUST continue to live with a person who they HAVE to be married to? Relationships fall apart all the time. So perhaps if you have been dating your girlfriend for over a year, should you then NOT be allowed to break up with her?

Who is to say that you can only have a child with your wife? How about just a girlfriend?

Banning divorces will not solve any problems, it will just create more problems.

inthebox, in a way I agree with you about the no fault divorces, but there are still some cases in which divorce is needed when abuse, etc is not present. Someone I know married a girl who made up stories about her parents being very ill; she gave us doctor names, medical conditions, made up a lawyer she was talking to... and when her one parent "died" she had the other parent attempt suicide and end up committed to a mental institution, where that parent later died of a bowel obstruction. She planned funerals; gave us location names, dates... then found a reason to cancel the service so no one would come. Her husband had no idea these stories were made up. Oh, and she was telling her family the same stuff (more or less) was happening to her husband's family! In the end, everyone was alive and well - she was just nuts and looking for attention (we guess). Anyway, she refused to get help (which I think anyone can agree she needed) refused to get a job for the duration of the marriage and burned through all the money her husband ever earned, putting him in tremendous debt. The husband divorced her. Now maybe other people would have stuck it out, but I think in a case like that, and no fault divorce was the best option. The real kicker? She seemd totally normal before they got married, held down a job and everything.

I think if divorce was HARDER and access to marriage counseling was more readily available we might see a reduction in divorce rates.

Also, I take issue with "prequalification" because who's decision is it if you get married or not? Everyone places different values on different things, so there's no formula for the "perfect marriage".



Wow seems , like a personality disorder or schizophrenia should be considred a "fault."
:)


I'll have to look it up, but aren't the top 3 reasons for divorce = money, sex, children?
I'm just suggesting education about these issues, before marriage - sort of like a preventative step.
After all, there's driver's ed and a driving test before legally being able to drive.
A good study may be to compare divorce rates between Roman Catholics that had Pre cana vs those couples that did not.



Grace and Peace

inthebox I recently looked up the top reasons for divorce and it seems like it changes depending on who does the reporting. Generally speaking though, it has to do with "incompatibility" which can be anything from how to discipline the kids, how to budget, or how often to have sex. So that's sort of a broad word to describe all of those things. Of course, logic tells us that of course people get divorced because they are "incompatible" because other wise there's no reason for it!

I see your point about "classes" before getting married, and I'm aware Catholics do that sort of thing. I think it's not a bad idea, as long as at the end you don't have someone giving you a pass/fail on if you can get married or not.

The classes you go through as a catholic really just focus on how to live with each other... its the same stuff you would learn from having a room mate. There needs to mbe more than that in a class. :) My hubby and I went through those classes when we were married, and we thought it was funny, because we had lived together for a year prior, and all they talked about was the things we learned through that time... there is a whole new set of issues to consider in the actual "marriage" lol... I agree with the classes or somehting to make it more difficult to et married on the fly.

Jesushelper76 agrees: No one gets a pass or fail, but you get to learn what differences you have and how to deal with them. Also what is similar. There is more to it then that of course.

The only thing I wonder is if you have two kids who are dumb and in love, a class (or whatever) might not dissuade them from getting married. They might also not ever apply what they learn to real-life.

I don't know, I still think education and example are the best ways to reduce the divorce rates.

I find it simply divine that so many posters spend all their energy trying to find methods of dealing with divorce rather than how to end divorce…just as people who try to find methods like welfare to deal with poverty, rather than trying to end poverty.

As I was reading the posts, I noticed some things were said about "If parents raised their kids right" -
Is that to say that if parents did their job then these kids wouldn't get into trouble? They would know the difference of right and wrong - and if they don't act like they do - then the parents messed up?
I think that is crazy (on a certain level). My parents have been married for over 42 years. They are very much in love and show it. They are a wonderful example of what a marriage looks like. As individuals, they are also great examples of what a good person, living a good, clean life looks like. I am very blessed to have the examples that I do.
Saying that - I, as well as my siblings, have gotten into trouble in the past. We have tried drugs, alcohol, etc. I skipped school as a teen, was rebelious.
My brother is divorced.
Did my parents not do their job?

I am a parent now. I am trying to do my very best everyday. When my child is old enough to make decisions for herself, I hope she makes the right ones. If she doesn't - have I failed? I hope not.

I think saying "parents should do their job" is a cop out.

I find it simply divine that so many posters spend all their energy trying to find methods of dealing with divorce rather than how to end divorce…just as people who try to find methods like welfare to deal with poverty, rather than trying to end poverty.


I know - we can end divorce by not allowing marriage. :D

Our "war on.." drugs or poverty or intolerance or a war to end all wars or insert human flaw here ______ is going so well. :p








Grace and Peace

I find it simply divine that so many posters spend all their energy trying to find methods of dealing with divorce rather than how to end divorce…just as people who try to find methods like welfare to deal with poverty, rather than trying to end poverty.


You still haven't answered MY question back to you: How would making divorce illegal actually fix things?

You still haven't answered MY question back to you: How would making divorce illegal actually fix things?
To answer my original question in the OP- no! A ban on all divorces would not change the social decay in America, nor would making it harder to obtain be the solution to all our societal woes?

But what might lower the over 50% marriages that end in divorce would be such things as making marriages harder to obtain, not to end.
Forget the marriage counseling just before divorce and make it mandatory before marriage, higher ages of consent, require a marriage license, and then a waiting period before the ceremony, close drive-through "chapels-o-love", It almost seems obvious that the solution is to make marriages harder to obtain, not to end. Statistics support this claim too: the younger the couple was when they married, the more likely they are to divorce.

:p

make it mandatory before marriage, higher ages of consent, require a marriage license, and then a waiting period before the ceremony, close drive-through "chapels-o-love", It almost seems obvious that the solution is to make marriages harder to obtain, not to end. Statistics support this claim too: the younger the couple was when they married, the more likely they are to divorce.

You should be commended for trying, but I think your logic here is a bit flawed.

If you make it harder to “marry”, that doesn't solve anything.

So perhaps my girlfriend and I won't marry. Instead we will just live together, have kids together. 15 years from now when we separate, we aren't divorcing, because we never married. Yet, how is that any difference since our kids now have their parents living apart?

So what if the divorce rate is 50%?

If my girlfriend and I marry and in 5 years divorce, and we have no kids, who are we hurting by getting a divorce?

The real problems is when 2 people (whether married or just living together), break up, and they share kids together…that is what hurts society far more than 2 people with no kids who divorce.

So what if the divorce rate is 50%?

If my gf and I marry and in 5 years divorce, and we have no kids, who are we hurting by getting a divorce?

The real problems is when 2 people (whether married or just living together), break up, and they share kids together…that is what hurts society far more than 2 people with no kids who divorce.
Ohhh Captain, you just go ahead an do what-ever it is you people do, and don’t fret none over this.