SB 25 is the “Divorce Bill” which is working its way through the Georgia General Assembly. I was prepared to write a big rant about it. Then I read it (well, first I read a post about it at Good Intentions and then clicked the link to the bill itself) and I’m not quite as outraged as this AJC article lead me to believe I would be. However, I still have my concerns. Any restriction of freedom concerns me. And what mainly concerns me in this situation is how this will affect spouses who have been abused by their spouse. Yes, the bill says the education classes and/or the waiting period are waived in such a situation; but it’s never that simple, and I am concerned. We don’t need more cases like this absolutely horrible and unbelievable situation.
I’m not one of those people who likes to stand on their soap box and proclaim that divorce is wrong, always, plain and simple. (Obviously — especially considering that I got divorced in September!) I am wary of any such broad, sweeping generalizations, and this one in particular. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing that divorce is more common now than in the past. Sure, it means some people are “giving up easily” — but really, who are we to tell them that they can’t or shouldn’t? It’s their marriage after all, not ours; plus, what may appear as “giving up easily” to the outside observer may be in fact much more complicated. Only the two parties of the marriage can know for sure. -But I digress. It also means that more people are no longer just sitting back and taking abuse from their spouse. If a man beats his wife then the best thing is for that marriage to end and for her to get as far away from him as she can (and hopefully for him to end up in jail, too). Especially if there are children involved.
Which brings me to another point. The bill states:
The General Assembly finds that children are the innocent victims of legal separation and divorce and that, when two parties separate or divorce, there is a devastating impact on their children who have had no voice in the decision to disrupt the family. Oftentimes, these children of divorce are negatively affected academically, socially, emotionally, and psychologically as a result of the stress and trauma placed on the family by the separation or divorce and by the associated discord between their parents occasioned by the process.
I am not saying that children are not negatively affected by divorce. I can’t speak with any authority on the topic since my parents are still married. But, I will tell you this. When I was growing up, I often wished my parents would get a divorce. I think we all would have been happier and more peaceful for it. I’m not going to tell you all the details of my home life growing up — some of you already know, and if you don’t, I’m probably not going to tell you. And that’s precisely the point — you don’t know. So it’s not fair for outsiders to make judgements about “what’s best for the kids” when they don’t have all the facts. Divorce can screw kids up, but so can a turbulent and emotionally twisted household with both parents in it. I would much rather have my child grow up in a household with one parent who is consistent and emotionally stable, rather than a dysfunctional two-parent household.
Lastly, this bill rubs me the wrong way simply because of the fact that it restricts freedom. I got divorced in September, and that was the business of myself and Chris, no one else. It was our choice to make, and that’s that. (Some of you know why we got divorced, some don’t. Again, if you don’t know now, you might find out later, if either of us decides to tell you. Or you might not find out. In which case you have no place to pass judgement.) From the appearance of the bill in its current state, there is no restriction, limitation, or extending of the waiting period for no-fault divorce when there are no children. But it’s still making the rounds in the General Assembly, so who knows what could get tacked on. Let’s be watchful.
So in conclusion (har har), I was actually kind of relieved to see the wording of SB 25 — because it’s not as bad as what I expected from this Republican-controlled General Assembly. But “sucking not as bad as I thought” doesn’t automatically lift all my concerns about it. There are other issues about which I am far more concerned at the moment; but this will remain on my radar screen.
READ ME: Disclaimer
21 Responses to "Divorce Bill"
That, to say the least, is a fairly silly bill. I agree (mostly) with Amber that this really shouldn’t be the government’s business. There are ways government can perhaps help lower divorce rates, but I don’t know if this is the appropriate way.
Of course, for divorce rates to actually lower we need a culture change, and for people to take marriage more seriously.
I’m not speaking about situations of abuse or of situations which result in genuine differences which can’t be reconciled. But I do have a problem with people who think that ‘this is just too hard’ or when Britney Spears gets married for 24 hours in Vegas as a joke, and then turns around a marries the first backup dancer she can find (whoring his kid out on US magazine whenever she can).
There is something wrong with that.
But *why* do you have a problem with this? If people want to have 24 hour marriages, even as a joke, how does this affect your life?
It is quite ignorant to make generalizations about divorces hurting kids. I agree with you, Amber. If there is reason for divorce, the “discord” associated with maintaining that relationship might be worse on the children than the whole divorce process and its results.
Using that logic Chris, why do I care about a child starving in Africa? It’s across the ocean and I’ll never see him, what’s the big deal?
If a friend of mine is suffering, it doesn’t directly impact me so whoopity-do!
I’m not saying we should be advocating legislation to fix this problem, nor did I suggest that all divorces are poor ideas … I just merely said that a high divorce rate - and the laid-back approach which some take to marriage - is something which I don’t particularly like.
Other than celebrities, who are the people taking a laid-back approach to marriage? (I’m not flame-baiting, just curious)
You guys sure do love your false analogies. A child starving in Africa is not two adults agreeing that they’ll be happier getting a divorce so that they can find a more suitable partner. WTF?
And you still didn’t answer why you think a laid-back approach to marriage is bad. I’m curious also.
Considering I was just asked about why I think a laid-back approach to marriage is ‘bad’ … I don’t think I’ve intentionally ducked the question.
But if you’d like an answer, here it is …
I’m a Christian. In the Christian faith, a marriage is symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the church (i.e. the believer). So, understanding that, marriage takes on a more sacred tone in the faith. It’s something that I believe is not to be taken lightly (which is why studies, like the Barna Research Group’s, which reveal that born-again Christians have higher divorce rates than other groups irritate me).
Plus - Christian faith aside - entering into matrimony with someone should be something that is life-changing and wonderful. It’s a dedication of yourself to your loved one … ’til death do us part.’ It’s not something that is trivial by any means. So my contention is with people who get married because ‘that’s the thing to do’ and then, when it gets a bit rough, they decide to bail rather than seek counseling or attempt to work through their problems.
Because then the vows they made to each other become irrelevent. So why then get married? If you don’t care about honoring your committment to each other, then what’s the point? Just live together and leave when you want.
This is, naturally, a generalization. There are times when, as you stated Chris, things are better when people do divorce … when there are differences which simply can’t be resolved or there are instances of abuse or etc. and etc.
As I said, my contention is taking a trivial approach to the institution - the entering of it, the treatment of it and the dissolution of it.
And I again I’m not advocating for legislation making it a crime to get divorced or anything of the sort. I was asked why I felt that trivial approachs to marriage were bad, so I’m giving my response. If you think it’s not a big deal, fine … knock yourself out. It’s a free country. I, on the other hand, have some issues with it.
And false analogies?
How is it false? You specifically said:
How does it affect my life? So I responded with two things which also do not affect my life. But one would think I was cruel and unfeeling if I didn’t care about those issues, despite the fact that they do not affect me personally.
So what litmus test have you set up here Chris? Something has to personally affect me in order for my to hold opinions on it?
And if we’re discussing false analogies, how about one that relates specifically to this conversation. That anytime I come across a discussion of gay marriage I’d see ‘why do conservative Evangelical Christians care so much about this issue? I mean if they realled cared about defending marriage they’d work to fight divorce rates, which are almost 50 percent in this country.’
So here it is, some conservatives get on their high horse to address divorce and again everyone is all up in arms. It’s a tad hypocritical to challenge them to do something and then get all upset when they do.
And I say this as a person who stood with you and said banning gay marriage in Georgia is something that I don’t agree with.
Again, the legislation is quite silly in my opinion. If people want to get divorced, then they should be able to. But that doesn’t restrict me being able to say that I think people should take a much more serious approach to marriage and divorce.
But my point is that joke 24 hour celebrity marriages are not hurtful to anyone. I think I see where you’re coming from in that you feel bad for people that get a divorce in the same way that you feel bad for starving Africans, but that’s not how you originally phrased it.
You said, “There is something wrong with that.” And, you “…have a problem with…” it. Sorry if I took that the wrong way.
Perhaps if we want to make divorce less prevelant, we should make marriage more difficult to attain?
And, Jmac, by your comments it seems that believe that divorce is inherently a bad thing. Why do you believe that?
Chris - I agree with you that these ‘24-hour celebrity marriages’ don’t hurt anyone, except the individuals involved and those close to them (perhaps). My apologies if I was unclear in making the differences initially, especially in the case of the analogy to starving Africans. I was merely trying to make a statement, that’s all.
Eponymous - I don’t believe that divorce is inherently a bad thing. I didn’t mean to give off that impression. Divorce is sometimes a necessary step for some couples to take, and is sometimes the healthier course of action for both invested parties. I’ve tried to pepper my comments with disclaimers to that effect, so my apologies if I was unclear.
My concern - and I suppose concern is too encompassing of a word, perhaps my issue instead - is with those individuals who enter marriage lightly or end it lightly (call it the ‘Larry King approach to marriage’). The sort of notion that it’s just something you do and if it doesn’t work out, no big deal.
I take marriage seriously (as, I’m sure, all you do) in that I truly believe that my marriage is something which will last throughout my lifetime. I would never imagine simply walking away from my marriage - either from frustration or from a wanting of something else for my life. I am dedicated to my wife and to our committment and I will do whatever it takes to make our marriage work. Marriage is going to be hard sometimes, and I just don’t appreciate the notion that it’s something which is to be taken lightly.
This doesn’t mean that I’m condemning divorce by any means. I’ve stated earlier that there are many instances where it is much healthier for those involved to end their marriage. And I think most people who are divorced will say (more or less) that they were sad they couldn’t work out their differences, but this is the best move (I don’t want to put words into anyone’s mouths, especially our host’s and Chris’ … this is, again, a generalization).
And again, I speak for me. I don’t think that we should engage in legislation to address these problems - or at least through the Georgia Assembly’s prescription. There are others who may completely disagree with my opinions (on this site apparently!), and I completely respect their views.
As for making marriage more difficult to attain … yes and no. I mean, I think people should go through some sort of counseling prior to marriage (my wife and I went through pre-marital counseling, and it was quite helpful for us) and they should really consider the step they’re taking. I don’t necessarily believe we should mandate that since what works for some won’t work for others.
But we probably shouldn’t put up obstacles to marriage in the form of legislation or what-have-you. I think, as Amber mentioned earlier, that probably infringes on someone’s liberty.
Wordy rant! Wordy rant! Yar!
Premise, premise, premise, conclusion.
Criticism. Premise, premise, conclusion, speculation, rant.
You know, it has been suggested that marriage licenses should come up for renewal every few years.
Adrian, will you marry me?
Sorry for the long quoted section. Couldn’t find any of it to take out, though. It’s all relevant to my comment.
And Jmac, let me start by saying I know that you don’t think divorce is always wrong, or those who get divorced are flawed in some way. You’ve made that clear. So my comment isn’t about you.
I also truly believe the sentiments you expressed in the section of your comment that I quoted. I know that you believe these things strongly and aren’t just saying them for the heck of it, but because it is very important to you. I also know that you don’t think you’re “better” than anybody because you are married.
The problem is this. I feel like there are people out there who do just say things like that because they like the way it sounds, they think it makes them sound so sanctified and special, and they like to get up on their high horse and act like they’re so much better than anybody who’s ever gotten a divorce, because they know the importance of marriage and they take it seriously and they’re not going to just walk away if things get tough, no sirree bob! To them, people who’ve gotten a divorce have a stigma. They’re not as good. They have a flaw of character somehow — they didn’t try hard enough, or they’re weak, or selfish, or childish. And that’s that.
But nothing is ever that simple. I’m not saying there aren’t cases of divorce that are clear-cut, with the people just deciding to give up, or one partner flat-out being an asshole. BUT. What it comes down to is this. You can never predict what will happen in the future. You can’t know what will happen tomorrow, a year from now, 5 years from now, and so on. When I got married I believed my marriage would last forever. Chris and I got married because we were seriously committed to each other and wanted to spend the rest of our lives together as a married couple. Jmac, just like you truly believe that your marriage is something which will last throughout your lifetime, so did I.
Encouraging people to “take marriage more seriously” is an idea with good intentions, but I don’t know how effective it would be in reducing the number of divorces — or I should say, significantly reducing the number of divorces. My marriage was not something I entered into lightly. I took it VERY seriously. If anyone had come along and tried to tell me to stop, wait a little longer, think about it more, I would have told them they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about and they don’t know ME, because that’s exactly what I had done. And looking back, I can’t see that it could’ve happened any other way. And I don’t regret anything. “Waiting” or “thinking about it more”… none of that would’ve prevented what ultimately was the result. Shit happens, you know? And not just simple shit that people can dismiss as an example of partners “just giving up.” LIFE happens. And — at the risk of sounding unbelievably cliche — we have no way of knowing what twists and turns it will take next.
The way that some people might get on the marriage high horse and cite their own marriage as an example — though it is cleary understood that none of the present company has done that — is done in the same way that someone might get on a high horse about hard work and applying oneself, citing one’s own career advancement or steady employment — while disregarding the factor that opportunity and luck play. Shit does happen, foiling your own plans and commitment.
Exactly.
I agree Amber - and I especially agree with Adrian’s analogy - and I’m glad you didn’t think that I was trying to tout my marriage or say that I’m better, since that wasn’t my intent. In hindsight, I kinda feared that might be the impression I was giving and I’m glad that’s not how you took it.
I concur. While I do think that there are some people who do trivalize the institution, I don’t know if there really is a surefire way to fix it. And I can’t say that if people bought in to good, old-fashioned Christian values they’d be more successful or have ‘better’ marriages because according to the Barna Report, ‘born-again’ Christians rank just at the top of the divorce rate list.
There isn’t a magic bullet to remedy this problem. The best thing is maturity, committment and love … but sometimes even that isn’t everything.
Sometimes it is better for both parties to separate.
And but also, while marriage is a Christian thing for a lot of people, for many others, it’s not. It’s religious for some and not for others, and it seems to me that dissolving a purely civil marriage is less of a big deal in a way, isn’t it?
Well, that makes sense to you and me and most of my readers, Hillary. I mean, it seems like perfect common sense. Unfortunately, there are some people out there who are of the mind that if it’s not right for them, then it’s not right for anyone. These people can’t grasp that just because their religion dictates certain things, other people who don’t subscribe to that religion don’t have to follow those dictates. Instead they think their way is the only right way and they want to convert everybody in the world, and as far as they’re concerned that’s the only possible solution.
I read the bill, and I am not seeing how this is an example of someone thinking “that if it’s not right for them, then it’s not right for anyone”. I see it as hoping to educate two people who have chosen divorce. It would give the parents at least 4 hours of time to sit and think about their children and the situation they are in. And I am not that they haven’t already done that.
I don’t see the bill as people trying to convert others. I see it as looking out for the children who do not have a voice. And I was one of them.
So, other than possibly infringing on someone’s liberty, I do not see this as being a judgement passed on anyone.
I think the conversation had drifted away from being confined solely to the bill, and more about perceptions about divorce in our society in general.
And while probably the bill has good intentions (looking out for the children — which I think we would all support), I think it’s too broad and kind of naive.