Where do you being with this? Unfortunately there are many people out there that think this way. Nevermind that in the new millennium, it would almost impossible for most families to survive on a one-income budget. Logic doesn't apply.

If these "conservatives" truly gave a rat's ass about "the family", they would be passing funding for child care, mandatory one-year maternal and paternal leave for new borns/adoptions, universal health care for children (at minimum), etc. But no, it's much more important to thwart someone's ability to get divorced, even if it's a bad marriage.

They just want to go back to the "good old days" when women were subservient and had limited choices available to them. All those uppity women who don't need to rely on marriage for security ... that is the real problem.

Right now people, men, mostly, stay in strained marriages because they are afraid of losing their kids to courtroom shenanigans.

Right now, studies show that children do better when they have easy access to both parents.

Stripping kids from the fathers and stripping fathers from their kids is no good to anyone. It is frankly, cruel and unusual punishment, and it violates due process and equal protection.

Sole custody serves one good: it sends courtroom costs skyhigh as it gives parents an incentive to create stupid custody fights, and to make false allegations against each other.

Catherine Price, instead of lambasting divorce and these idiots, why don't you discuss the real issue, and make yourself useful?

speaks volumes about the root cause of problems in the world. Having eight kids (or really more than two) is what is at the heart of most of our poltical, economic and social problems. Anti-family policies might be the best course if we want freer societies with more equal distribution of weath and higher standards of living. If there is any downside to fewer people I have yet to hear it.

Moreover am I the only one who finds it perversely funny that a Biblical injunction to "Be fruitful and multiply..." may destroy our species. It may be a done deal, but I guess I can at least wait and see if its Christianity or Islam which brings us to the tipping point.

That's so true. In regressive societies, divorce as seen as a threat because it allows women to get out of marriages that keep them in a subservient role.

So I really appreciate it that the right is doing so much to drive acceptance of my ideas into the mainstream. I can't imagine a better way to do this than to put roadblocks in the way of (or hopefully! even prohibit altogether) divorce. Once people know they have no way out of a marriage gone bad/stale/whatever marriage itself will quickly become a thing of the past.

Families in which only one parent (whichever one) works, and I'm all for trying to reduce divorce rates, but this is just another example of how your average social conservative thinks that the best way to do these things is just to make it legally harder to get divorced.

How about...paying people a wage that will allow a family of four to live on one income? Most two-income families really don't have a huge amount of choice in the matter. It's be poor on one income, or middle-class with two.

And how about reducing divorce rates by social programs that try to make marriage itself seem more like the committment it should be? Rather than repeal no-fault divorce (ugh), maybe more encouragement to get premarital counseling and take classes in marital conflict management?

Oh, and - discouraging premarital sex isn't the best way to forge marriages that last.

And this escapee from a veterinarian's office is not advocating a form of social engineering HOW?

Because he's right wing?

GMAFB.

that in the past when societies with a middleclass couldn't get divorced, people just left. They were still "married" but they were not together.

These clowns don't realize that the problem isn't that it's too easy to get a divorce. The problem is that it's too easy to get married.

A few years back, Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra went out one night and got drunk...and woke up married. She sought a divorce just weeks later.

Is the problem really that it's too easy to get a divorce, or should we maybe consider that laws that let anyone get married on a whim might also be at fault?

Or are all marriages God-ordained and all divorces Satan's work? I'm sooo unclear on this...

"They just want to go back to the "good old days" when women were subservient and had limited choices available to them. All those uppity women who don't need to rely on marriage for security ... that is the real problem.

-- karinb "

**********

this is it in a nutshell (so to speak..)

You could probably make a pretty compelling case (and no doubt people like Susan Sontag, Susan Faludi and Andrea Dworkin, among others, have already made it) that the entire right-wing political movement in this country--when it wasn't exercised by the commies--was founded on the notion that women should be barefoot and pregnant.

Funny how utterly simple-minded, and depraved, these dipshits are. As someone else opined earlier, GMAFB.

Divorce is illegal, and it ain't a panacea of family values, folks.

"the entire right-wing political movement in this country--when it wasn't exercised by the commies--was founded on the notion that women should be barefoot and pregnant."

Yep. Well, that and racism.

Krugman's new book really nicely illustrates that latter sticking point.

If they want women to stay home and take care of the kids they're going to find some way to PAY women for the housework and childcare that they do. They have to face the fact that many women who work outside the home do so out of economic NECESSITY.

I doubt Christianity or Islam has anything to do with it. Rather, I suspect the Latter Day Saints.

Why does the parent who stays home have to be the mother? Why can't the father stay home? Wonder why they didn't think of that?