August 13, 2003

Dean hits the nail on the head again

Dean gets it pretty much right in this post:

I suggest that gay marriage should be coupled with laws which move us back toward more traditional, less destructive notions of marriage: that marriage should be somewhat difficult to enter into, and should involve penalties for people who leave a marriage lighly. Not by putting people in prison, but by ending no-fault divorce as an option for couples with children. Once you have kids, No-Fault goes out the door, and cause has to be proven to justify a breakup, such as abuse or adultery.

No-Fault's fine if there aren't kids. But if there are, you should have to document strong reasons for a breakup--with strong financial penalties in the divorce settlement for the aggrieved party. Because breaking up such a marriage doesn't just hurt those individual kids, or the person who is being abandoned. It hurts society as a whole.

I had only a small quibble -- from Dean's comments:
One quibble, which has already been mentioned above: I think the term 'marriage' should be reserved for heterosexual lifetime unions like it has been for thousands of years, and made a lot stricter (bans on no-fault divorces, etc.) And if a couple in a civil union has (or adopts) children, that union should be indissolvable until the children are 18 (except for the obvious like abandonment, infidelity, etc.)
But I'll probably end up writing another essay on this; I agree with his conclusions but I bet I got there a bit differently than he did seeing as he's an (ugh!) Bright (wince) and I'm a raving Calvinist.

Posted by Tim at August 13, 2003 03:15 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Hmmm, lotsa grist here.

Mainly we try to balance the interests of the parents (no-fault divorce as early and often as they dang well please) and the interests of the children.
You and I, being the product of broken homes (as they use to calls 'em), naturally reject any shallow and selfish excuses for divorce when kids are a party.
But we still have to be a bit guarded re: the role of Government in family... And even I (whom hasn't spoken to his $%^$&@#@$* father in 20 years) has to draw the line at family matters = family matters.

I have two friends, Greg and Margie (it's okay, they don't read blogs!). They were high-school sweethearts, dated for ten years before getting married. After 9 years of marriage they had Greg Jr., a year later they divorced.
Ex-squeeze me?!! I said. You stayed together for nearly 20 years, had a son, and decided you didn't want to stay together JUST IN TIME to screw up his life?!
They both looked at me like I was from Planet Q. Their parents' are still together, and they couldn't fathom the point that I was trying to get across.

But the matter -- I think -- is best left to friendfs and family, not government. As much as we want to tell Gregs and Margies what a friggin' joke they make of Family, we also need to know that they're free to make all the mistakes they're gonna make -- even if you, me and Greg Jr are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of their selfish short-sightedness.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 13, 2003 10:53 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?