Posted on 03/05/2013 11:19:41 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
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.”
Under the proposed legislation, parents with kids under the age of 18 could not get a no-fault divorce. Instead, they’d have to show a spouse was guilty of adultery, had been sent to prison on a felony conviction, had physically or sexually abused someone in the family, or had abandoned the family for at least a year.
“This basically is an attempt on my part to keep fathers in the home,” Gassman said. “I sincerely believe that the family is the foundation of this nation and this nation will go the direction of our families. If our families break up, so will this nation.”
Parents who have lived separately for at least two years could use that as a “fault” for a divorce, however.
Rachel Scott of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence told lawmakers the changes proposed often make homes a more dangerous place.
“One of the things that we’ve seen with places where there is fault divorce is it escalates tension and conflict between the two individuals,” Scott said.
Representative Marti Anderson, a Democrat from Des Moines who opposes the bill, said the tension in her childhood home lasted eight years, until her parents divorced back when fault had to be proven.
“The stay-together time was very, very damaging to my family,” said Anderson — the oldest of four children, “and although we’re all adults now, I’m not sure any of us have ever really gotten past that.”
Karl Schilling of the Iowa Organization for Victim Assistance said no-fault divorce was a carefully crafted solution to deal with those kind of problems.
“I think if you really want to lessen the divorce rate, there’s better things the legislature can do, such as work against poverty, increase jobs,” Schilling said.
Representative Gassman said the issue is “near and dear” to his heart because his daughter and son-in-law recently divorced, putting his granddaughter at risk.
“There’s a 16-year-old girl in this whole mix now. Guess what? What are the possibilities of her being more promiscuous?” Gassman said. “What are the possibilities of all these other things surrounding her life that a 16-year-old girl, with hormones raging, can get herself into?”
Gassman and another Republican lawmaker gave the bill initial approval today. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says there needs to be a discussion about the full range of problems in society, including divorce, and he may bring the bill up for debate in his committee. In 1970 Iowa became the second state in the nation to adopt a “no-fault” divorce law.
All 50 states now have “no-fault” laws allowing couples to divorce without citing evidence of wrong-doing from either spouse.
Micromanagement? Only if you’re stupid enough to swallow the liberal lies.
What these conservatives are trying to do is offset the micromanagement that is no-fault divorce and the damages it has done to our country.
Yes, because using the power of the government to demand that two people who do not like each other stay together is the very definition of small, limited government. Great for the kids, too.
But, based on your drug war posts, we already know you do not favor small government. You merely want government enforcing your own worldview.
So much for a belief in small government.
Utter idiocy. The sate is going to FORCE people to stay married????? Insanity.
Someone wrote, and I agree, this is a Church issue. NOT Government issue.
Right, because without laws men and women would stop getting married.
But hey, thanks for proving that conservatives are just as much for intrusive government as the < scarequote>liberals< /scarequote> are.
Then the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If they promote it with tax and benefit incentives then they can regulate it. I wouldn’t mind if they got out of it altogether.
Sure, because an abusive spouse would of course go along with a divorce request from the abused spouse.
Way to bring your pro-drug views into play here.
Lets see... You are pro-drug, anti-family and God knows what else.
Care to elaborate on your pro-queer marriage ideas? Or how about you argue for queers in the military?
Better yet... Take this to the DUmp.
Liberals know that tearing down marriage only serves the Democrat party.
Someone wrote, and I agree, this is a Church issue. NOT Government issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That “someone” was schooled in post 11, 12, 20, and other replies. Read ‘em and try to understand:
Marriage is essential to the success of a nation.
Blah, blah, blah. When you run out of ideas & arguments call the other person a liberal. *yawn*
I'm for small government. I think you're the one who would feel more welcome over at DU. Then you can all discuss how you want Government to solve all your problems.
I wouldn’t mind if they got out of it altogether.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? Do you understand you are getting your wish? And as the government destroys marriage, it is being replaced by the Welfare State.
Be careful what you wish for.
Holy Carp.
Last time I looked Jim Robinson made it clear this is a pro-God, pro-family site.
Since you disagree with these laws protecting marriage, suppose you enthrall us with how wonderful the Welfare State is. Cause you should damn well know that your atacks on marriage and the family only lead us to believe you favor the liberal position.
I'm talking when one person wants out and the other spouse is not at fault, she would have to get him to agree, possibly by great concessions on the financial or custody side.
The government can’t destroy marriage unless they ban church and religion.
“Individual freedom is more important than “society” and is the core of what this nation was founded on.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Stability,” said the Controller, “stability. No civilization without social stability. No social stability without individual stability.”
~~~ Huxley. Brave New World
The government can’t destroy marriage unless they ban church and religion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And just what the HELL do you think is going on as we FReep?
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.