Conservatives aren’t just fighting same-sex marriage. They’re also trying to stop divorce

[Anonymous]

This would be an excellent post to also post in the Politics section of DC Urban Moms and Dads.

I bet you will get a lot of response in there as well.

[Anonymous]

The common thread in all of these conservative undertakings is controlling female sexuality. For example, some may actually give a shit about reducing abortions -- but those who do would also support sex education and birth control; both of which are pretty damn effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, abortions.

But, if your real goal is the righteous punishment of those dirty whores for having filthy, naughty sex, you'll want to limit abortions but you'll also be against sex education and birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's mixed for women. Great if women want to leave abusive marriages. But women who are left often do not recover financially.

This is why women need to fight to ensure equal employment opportunity, equal pay practices, unfettered access to reproductive medicine, affordable childcare, and equitable marital property distribution laws and child support laws. And that's why the patriarchal male establishment doesn't like those things. If there's anything you can do to keep one half of your population at a disadvantage (barefoot, pregnant, making less money, less economic resources after paying for childcare) it means an advantage for the other half.

Guy in my office lamented, "if women would just stay home, we could ALL afford to live well on one income". While the economics of it may be true, it neglects to provide for those of us, mostly women, whose lives don't unfold according to the fairy tale plan. What if. What if your husband leaves you, what if you never find a husband, what it your husband becomes unwilling or unable to provide for you, etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"In cooperation with the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, socially conservative politicians have been quietly trying to make it harder for couples to get divorced."
http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-arent-just-fighting-same-sex-marriage-theyre-also-trying-to-stop-divorce/2014/04/11/5f649bd6-bf48-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

With so many posters pushing people to hire a lawyer at the drop of a hat and get out of their troubled marriage I was wondering what thoughts are about the policies quietly being pushed in some states.

That's a pretty offensive statement in bold. If your marriage is bad enough for divorce nowadays, then you need an attorney. And you need to consult with one early so that you know how to protect yourself.

I went through a terrible divorce, and I have nothing good to say about divorce attorneys or anyone who works in the divorce industry. It seems to attract strangely amoral people who profit off the suffering of others - and enjoy doing so. But sadly they are necessary. And people here on DCUM are just helping when they advise people in troubled marriages to seek legal advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's mixed for women. Great if women want to leave abusive marriages. But women who are left often do not recover financially.

Actually, women are recovering financially way better than in the past. If statistics continue this way, post-divorce women might be doing better than men in a few years.

The trick for women is not to stay home and give up your job. If you do, you lose 4 percent of your earning potential each year. I stayed at home for a long time and lost some money - not that much - and I often feel really conflicted about it now that I'm divorced. The man is not the plan is true for some of us.

[Anonymous]

right, because protecting against divorce is far more important than protecting against say..domestic violence

[Anonymous]

a) this is not what conservatives or republicans think
b) It is the WaPo (are there even editors left there? Have you noticed how terrible the reporting writing is? Even Travel is full of trash writing.). WaPo by definition is liberal and will do whatever it can to trash Republicans and Conservatives.
c) It is an Opinion piece (ergo anyone can send in an Opinion piece - Opinion pieces are just that - one nut's opinion), not reporting. You must learn the difference. All newspapers place Opinion pieces so to present other points of view to flame the fires.
d) please study up before posting ignorant posts about what conservatives supposedly think. Learn to think. Read between the lines. Learn the difference between Opinion and real reporting (not that WaPo is good at that either).

[Anonymous]

You are clearly a 'Republican' or 'Conservative': you make no sense, state things which are factually wrong and contradict yourself:

Anonymous wrote:a) this is not what conservatives or republicans think

These actions regarding divorce are being taken in the most conservative states in the country, where the legislatures are controlled by not just Republicans but "Tea Party" Republicans - the right wing of the right wing. It most certainly isn't Democrats or "Liberals" running the legislature in, for example, Oklahoma.

Anonymous wrote:b) It is the WaPo (are there even editors left there? Have you noticed how terrible the reporting writing is? Even Travel is full of trash writing.). WaPo by definition is liberal and will do whatever it can to trash Republicans and Conservatives.

Regardless of your perception of the WaPo's biases, what was factually incorrect in the story they posted about this proposed legislation? You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Show us where the editors missed the factual mis-statements and you'll have earned a second look.

c) It is an Opinion piece (ergo anyone can send in an Opinion piece - Opinion pieces are just that - one nut's opinion), not reporting. You must learn the difference. All newspapers place Opinion pieces so to present other points of view to flame the fires.

While this is an opinion piece, despite the Post's alleged 'liberal bias', the piece was clearly identified as opinion and the Post regularly gives as much space to people like Gerson, Will and Krauthammer (among others) who are clearly right-wing GOP.

d) please study up before posting ignorant posts about what conservatives supposedly think. Learn to think. Read between the lines. Learn the difference between Opinion and real reporting (not that WaPo is good at that either).

Learn to be honest about what you really hope to accomplish before you start shrieking about being persecuted and misunderstood.

Of course, if you idiots actually get to ram through your talibanesque regulations of people's sex and marriage lives, you'll only succeed in making sure you don't get access to power for another generation. Look at what happened in Virginia last November. That's your future.

[Anonymous]

Well republicans don't want their wives divorcing....it looks bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a) this is not what conservatives or republicans think
b) It is the WaPo (are there even editors left there? Have you noticed how terrible the reporting writing is? Even Travel is full of trash writing.). WaPo by definition is liberal and will do whatever it can to trash Republicans and Conservatives.
c) It is an Opinion piece (ergo anyone can send in an Opinion piece - Opinion pieces are just that - one nut's opinion), not reporting. You must learn the difference. All newspapers place Opinion pieces so to present other points of view to flame the fires.
d) please study up before posting ignorant posts about what conservatives supposedly think. Learn to think. Read between the lines. Learn the difference between Opinion and real reporting (not that WaPo is good at that either).

Shorter PP: "Nuh uh."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably the ones who are voting for it are the ones cheating and want both an affair and marriage.

I agree. Hypocrites all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's mixed for women. Great if women want to leave abusive marriages. But women who are left often do not recover financially.

This is why women need to fight to ensure equal employment opportunity, equal pay practices, unfettered access to reproductive medicine, affordable childcare, and equitable marital property distribution laws and child support laws. And that's why the patriarchal male establishment doesn't like those things. If there's anything you can do to keep one half of your population at a disadvantage (barefoot, pregnant, making less money, less economic resources after paying for childcare) it means an advantage for the other half.

Guy in my office lamented, "if women would just stay home, we could ALL afford to live well on one income". While the economics of it may be true, it neglects to provide for those of us, mostly women, whose lives don't unfold according to the fairy tale plan. What if. What if your husband leaves you, what if you never find a husband, what it your husband becomes unwilling or unable to provide for you, etc. etc.

re r
The co-worker isn't using his brain. Women aren't causing companies to pay less. Things have changed so you need two incomes to survive.

If there was a way to ensure deadbeat dads paid child support, women would be better off in certain situations. Unfortunately, just because there is an order, doesn't mean he will do it. I know too many single moms who struggle because of deadbeat dads. And they don't regret leaving their exes. If you would abandon your child, that says a LOT about your poor character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The common thread in all of these conservative undertakings is controlling female sexuality.

This is what all of the religious culture war junk is about - almost all the difference between "fundamentalist" theology and the rest of us (religious and not religious) has to do with controlling reproduction. All the other tortured premillenialist and other whacky bits of theology are merely the gymnastics needed to support a top-down, authoritarian and paternalistic model for controlling society, and reproducction. This applies to all forms of sexuality, not just female reproductive rights, though they are obsessed with controlling women's bodies. This is true for "conservatives" and "fundamentalists" of nearly every single religion: Islam, Christianity and Judaism - and even beyond the Abrahamic religions.

Once you understand this, it becomes clear why BC is just as unacceptable to them as Abortion, even though BC prevents abortion, and why gay sex is intolerable : it is sex for fun, not just reproduction.

Indeed, for these people, sex must only and always be about getting pregnant, and nothing more. They hate the reality that human beings have sex for fun (almost alone among all animals) - the fact that we have sex primarily for pleasure rather than reproduction is really hard for "conservatives" to swallow. I believe the real reason these people feel as they do is that they are deeply unhappy and self-loathing. They feel intensely guilty about experiencing pleasure and rely on external loci of control (outside, paternal, punitive authority) to enforce moral, ethical behavior on themselves, and push up these structures.

This is why hard-core tina-snorthing closet cases by Ted Haggard spend so much time publicly denouncing the "homosexual agenda"..and really, if Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher aren't closet cases of the first order....I mean, look at and listen to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's mixed for women. Great if women want to leave abusive marriages. But women who are left often do not recover financially.

This is why women need to fight to ensure equal employment opportunity, equal pay practices, unfettered access to reproductive medicine, affordable childcare, and equitable marital property distribution laws and child support laws. And that's why the patriarchal male establishment doesn't like those things. If there's anything you can do to keep one half of your population at a disadvantage (barefoot, pregnant, making less money, less economic resources after paying for childcare) it means an advantage for the other half.

Guy in my office lamented, "if women would just stay home, we could ALL afford to live well on one income". While the economics of it may be true, it neglects to provide for those of us, mostly women, whose lives don't unfold according to the fairy tale plan. What if. What if your husband leaves you, what if you never find a husband, what it your husband becomes unwilling or unable to provide for you, etc. etc.

re r
The co-worker isn't using his brain. Women aren't causing companies to pay less. Things have changed so you need two incomes to survive.

If there was a way to ensure deadbeat dads paid child support, women would be better off in certain situations. Unfortunately, just because there is an order, doesn't mean he will do it. I know too many single moms who struggle because of deadbeat dads. And they don't regret leaving their exes. If you would abandon your child, that says a LOT about your poor character.

Actually I think he's correct about the economics. If most other families in the DC area have two six figure incomes, and you only have one, and you are competing with them for the same single family home in Arlington, they can afford to pay more for it than you can.