Posted on 05/08/2015 6:49:06 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
roles!
Doh! Lol
No. I guess I misread ‘fwdude’s comment. I took it as ‘stay together no matter what, it’s better for the kids’ and I was reacting to that. I see what he meant now.
*whew*...My attorney all told was about 19k. On that backend of my divorce I’m wrestling with the 40K of debt she left behind. My kids live with me full time and I kept the house so no real complaints. Many on this thread don’t get that sometimes a spouse spirals out of control and divorce IS better for the kids. My kids straight up told me they were pissed at ME because I kept letting their mom come back and live with us. Once they let it be known their true feelings, I got an attorney and began divorce.
If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church.
Eventually, when a father/mother relationship breaks down non-amicably, force must be used to enforce custody, the division of property, etc.
Eventually a legal definition will arise regarding mother/father relationships that will amount to marriage in everything but name.
Moreover, the duty of the State is the preservation and promotion of the Common Good, as classically understood and mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution. The State has a natural right to preserve and promote marriage, since families constitute the fundamental building block of society. All citizens pass through the institution of the family.
The alternative is the Soviet ideal; free love and the annihilation of the family. Our society is rapidly moving in that direction.
Yes, and I also wish that divorce was easier when I was a kid. My mother beat us because she could not deal with us. Broke my arm when I was just shy of two years old. Our father was in the service and deployed during Vietnam numerous times. My father was not able to get her away from us until we got stationed in a state with looser divorce laws. Son of a Single Father a decade too late.
And if we got rid of no-fault divorce, we'd just return to a situation where spouses would accuse each other of various cruelties (even crimes) to get out of unhappy marriages.
No-fault divorce is bad but I believe the consequences of getting rid of it would be worse. Like many social ills, changes need to be made to hearts and minds rather than codified into law.
Divorce kills the marriage. And damages all kids.parents need to grow up not divorce
The effects of the errors are still reverberating around the world.
No Fault Divorce has created a situation where the woman could run off and sleep with the entire New York Jets football squad, and the courts would still order her husband to pay her support and alimony.
Ending such perverse incentives to violate your vows would go a long way towards cutting the divorce rate.
“Eventually, when a father/mother relationship breaks down non-amicably, force must be used to enforce custody, the division of property, etc.”
A simple binding legal contract could accomplish that, and skip the state “marriage” all together.
Are you saying you prefer anti-God Communist no-fault divorce that has swept America, to the marriage and divorce precedent set forth by Jesus Christ (Matt. 19)? That America once held to and believed?
- Failure to intend a lifetime commitment at the time of the wedding. Easily, instantly claimed.
- Unwillingness to ever beget children at the time of the wedding. Even if children are begotten? Again, easily, instantly claimed.
- Failure to consumate; impotence at the time of the wedding. So, Stephen Hawking can't marry?
- Mental incompetence at the time of the wedding. Based on whose assessment? Define "incompetence." That disqualifies a huge segment of society for marriage.
- Etc. Exactly. "Etc." is the all applicable excuse.
I'm saying I don't want to see innocent men getting accused of molesting their kids so that the wife can get a divorce and full custody.
I'll concern myself with my marriage. Other people's marriages, not so much.
A contract has to rest on some kind of law or precedent, and when the legislation is written, it will end up being marriage in essence, if not in name.
I'm not sure what you mean. I've spoken with people who told me that they took the vows, but in their hearts reserved the right to divorce.
That is not easily proved at the time of the wedding.
- Unwillingness to ever beget children at the time of the wedding. Even if children are begotten? Again, easily, instantly claimed.
Again, not sure what your point is. The fact that a couple has children does not prove that, at the time of the wedding, they did not intend to ever have children.
- Failure to consumate; impotence at the time of the wedding. So, Stephen Hawking can't marry?
Today, that is correct. At the time of his marriage, when he was healthy, he could enter into marriage.
Consider the alternative. Under your rubric, any couple that cannot bear children, in principle, can be married.
We are witnessing the result of the acceptance of that principle today with homosexual "marriage."
I don't want to lay a bum trip on anyone, but the homosexual "marriage" movement is the logical consequence of the widespread acceptance of birth control (voluntarily sterile "marriage").
- Mental incompetence at the time of the wedding. Based on whose assessment? Define "incompetence." That disqualifies a huge segment of society for marriage.
Judge, jury, precedent, etc. This is where the rubber meets the road. But the fact that rubber meets road does not negate the principles of rubber and road.
So you do believe anti-God communist no-fault divorce is superior to Jesus Christ’s rules for divorce?
Your comment is telling. Marriage is about children, as much as it is about the parents.
To be indifferent to "other people's marriages," or the institution of marriage, is to be indifferent to the children of divorce.
Wow, big surprise. Someone who wants the right to divorce claims that they had the intention at their wedding required to get granted an annulment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.