Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
1950: Just a Baseline!
Idaho's "family task force" revs up its time machine:
As chairman of the Idaho House of Representatives' Family Task Force, Rep. Steven Thayn and others are considering controversial solutions such as repealing no-fault divorce laws and finding ways to encourage mothers to stay home with their children.
The six-member task force was convened this year by Speaker of the House Lawerence Denney and has been meeting with the lofty goal of finding solutions to what they see as the decline of the Idaho family. Controversially, the group is using the typical family of 1950 as its benchmark, though Thayn says it's simply a baseline and not a suggestion that families were perfect in 1950.
So true: 34 percent of working age women were employed in 1950, which is 34 percentage points from perfect.
The task force endorsed a proposal to end no-fault divorce, which allows a couple to divorce without proof of fault.
"Divorce is just terrible," Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries, said. "It's one of Satan's best tools to kill America."
The Idahoans interviewed seem kind of appalled, but I'm not sure what a "family task force" is supposed to do other than frame some specific ideal of family that will offend people.
Also, dissolution of contract is one of the antichrist's best weapons?
|11.14.07 @ 11:42AM|#
So true: 34 percent of working age women were employed in
1950, which is 34 percentage points from perfect.
Don't be rediculous, many of those women were probably still
single. Working as a secretary for a big law firm, or as a nurse,
is an excellent way to catch a lawyer or doctor.
|11.14.07 @ 11:44AM|#
You don't have to say anything to encourage moms to stay home. Just cut taxes back to 1950 rates and families will come to realize that they no longer need a second income to support the household. At that point, everyone will make their own arrangements and some mom's will stay home. Some dad's too.
Bo Zimmerman|11.14.07 @ 11:47AM|#
So true: 34 percent of working age women were employed in 1950,
which is 34 percentage points from perfect.
--- Is that really the perfect life for all working age women? Or
even men for that matter? I'm so glad we have someone to inform us
of these things. I always knew there was something wrong with my
grandmother's chosen life.
Sulla|11.14.07 @ 11:50AM|#
I thought the antichrist's best weapon was surprise ... surprise
and fear... fear and surprise ... his two weapons are fear and
surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... his *three* weapons are
fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency
/catholic
//not lapsed
///just have sense of humor
|11.14.07 @ 11:52AM|#
TWC
Didn't we have something like a 92% top marginal rate in 1950. Of
course adjusted for inflation it kicked in a lot higher on the pay
scale than today's top rate does doesn't it?
|11.14.07 @ 11:53AM|#
I have lots of family in Idaho, and I joke that visiting them is like climbing into a time machine (especially when I visit those that live in rural areas). It's nice that the state government is trying to make my joke a reality.
|11.14.07 @ 11:55AM|#
"Divorce is just terrible," Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries,
said. "It's one of Satan's best tools to kill America."
And I thought Beelzebub was relying on birth control, freethinkers
and marijuana to kill America. Maybe I should have renewed my
subscription to Lucifer's Weekly© after all.
Rhywun|11.14.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Just cut taxes back to 1950 rates and families will come to
realize that they no longer need a second income to support the
household.
I'd like to see some math to prove that. Weren't income taxes
considerably higher in the fifties than today? And what about the
effect of real wages? Today's are lower than in the sixties; I
couldn't find any data for the fifties.
Gloria Steinem|11.14.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Not possible. In 1950 all women were barefoot, pregnant, Stepford or a combinantion of the three.
thoreau|11.14.07 @ 11:59AM|#
34 percent of working age women were employed in 1950, which
is 34 percentage points from perfect.
Actually, you should try to get somebody to agree with that, and
then follow up with "In a perfect world, it would be 68% employed,
20% working on advanced degrees, and 12% enjoying earlier
retirement after being hugely successful and saving up a ton of
money."
|11.14.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Idaho (particularly southern Idaho) is the most bass-ackwards experiment in social inbreeding in the country. I'm so glad I don't live there anymore that I can almost put up with the Che Guevara-worshiping little commies in Missoula, Montana.
robc|11.14.07 @ 12:06PM|#
True or False: Wedding vows are (or should be) legally binding
oral contracts.
Ive always thought divorce laws should depend in large part on your
vows. If you choose to have "until death do us part" as part of
yours, then you got to stick to it, assuming the other person has
lived up to their vows. No "no fault" divorce for you. If, on the
other hand, you add in "until one of us feels like ending it", then
no fault seems reasonable.
If the state is going to be involved in marriages at all, it should
be there to enforce contracts.
|11.14.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Isaac, very true. The top marginal rate in 1950 was 84.3 but it
only applied to incomes over 400k in 1950 dollars (roughly 3.2
million today).
It isn't the rich guys whose wives work to cover the taxes.
I have my dad's W-2 from 1953. His entire income tax burden,
including social security was less than 11%. Today, just to pick an
example, Mrs TWC's tax burden is around 35%.
|11.14.07 @ 12:12PM|#
If you choose to have "until death do us part" as part of
yours, then you got to stick to it...
Or you use the 12 guage.
Sulla|11.14.07 @ 12:15PM|#
True or False: Wedding vows are (or should be) legally
binding oral contracts.
Ive always thought divorce laws should depend in large part on your
vows. If you choose to have "until death do us part" as part of
yours, then you got to stick to it, assuming the other person has
lived up to their vows. No "no fault" divorce for you. If, on the
other hand, you add in "until one of us feels like ending it", then
no fault seems reasonable.
If the state is going to be involved in marriages at all, it should
be there to enforce contracts.
As a practical matter, there is really no such thing as an
unbreakable contract. Contract law was not my best class, so feel
free to correct/supplement my answer, but generally speaking, there
is the idea that it does not make sense to force people to stay in
contracts that no longer make business sense (I think it's called
effecient breach). Even if we looked at marriage vows as an
enforceable oral contract (unlikely, it would probably breach the
statute of frauds), the most a court would order is payment of
damages. AFAIK, you can't get specific performace of purely
personal duties like those that exist in a marriage.
|11.14.07 @ 12:16PM|#
I guess I should mention that we owned a home, had two cars, and
my mother didn't have a job. Course it did take her all day Monday
to do the wash and all day Tuesday to iron it. Boy Howdy, thank God
for modern technology.
I still say that technology had more to do with the so called
liberation of women than anything else. When you cut the hard labor
of keeping a household on the path from 75 hours a week to 20,
there is an incentive to do other things with your time.
|11.14.07 @ 12:18PM|#
True or False: Wedding vows are (or should be) legally
binding oral contracts.
In most states, you can't enter into oral contracts with a duration
of longer than one year. And that's pretty much an ancient
Anglo-Saxon legal maxim, not a product of the modern bureaucratic
state.
Of course, modern marriage is not actually an oral contract, since
the parties are required to sign on the dotted line after taking
their vows.
In any event, courts have long barred personal-service contracts
without some kind of "out" provision, as a form of indentured
servitude.
Marriage has contractual elements, but it isn't a perfect
analogy.
|11.14.07 @ 12:20PM|#
BTW, wasn't Idaho supposed to be an emerging libertarian paradise or something? Probably too many Mormons there for that to happen.
|11.14.07 @ 12:20PM|#
I have my dad's W-2 from 1953. His entire income tax burden, including social security was less than 11%. Today, just to pick an example, Mrs TWC's tax burden is around 35%.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
As inflation increases, wages are raised in order to compensate for
it.
However, the tax laws don't take this into account, so as wages
rise, more people are essentially pushed into a higher tax bracket
than they otherwise would have been in?
Mike Laursen|11.14.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Well, if we gotta stay stuck in some idealic past I guess its better that the women are wearing capris pants instead of calico dresses and bonnets.
robc|11.14.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Sulla, ChrisO,
Fair enough. Of course, there is no reason a couple couldnt write
up their marriage terms - where the damages to be awarded in case
of breach of contract are laid out in advance.
It wouldnt prevent divorce, it would just be a "with fault" divorce
in which the side severing the contract pays previously agreed upon
damages. If both wanted out without anyone breaching the contract,
thats an easy out. Any contract can be ended if both parties agree
to it.
Maybe this explains why I havent been married. :)
Bingo|11.14.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Satan is trying to kill America and only by stopping divorce can
we free ourselves from his clutches.
Other things Satan kills America with: tobacco, alcohol, mind
altering drugs, Mexicans, Muslims, contraception, sex stores,
pornography, THE GAYS
None of these existed in the 1950s. They were brought to America in
the 1960s by satanic hippies, communists, and Democrats. We need to
rid ourselves of these unAmerican activities and live as God
intended us to!
|11.14.07 @ 12:26PM|#
finding ways to encourage mothers to stay home with their
children.
Hey, if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, why don't you step
out and clean the bathroom for a change!
Sulla|11.14.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Sulla, ChrisO,
Fair enough. Of course, there is no reason a couple couldnt write
up their marriage terms - where the damages to be awarded in case
of breach of contract are laid out in advance.
It wouldnt prevent divorce, it would just be a "with fault" divorce
in which the side severing the contract pays previously agreed upon
damages. If both wanted out without anyone breaching the contract,
thats an easy out. Any contract can be ended if both parties agree
to it.
Maybe this explains why I havent been married. :)
Sure, you could have a prenuptial agreement that spells all that
out. My point is that if marriage were to be strictly treated like
a contract, there is no way to force one of the parties to remain
in the contractual arrangement. In the absence of a liquidated
damages clause, if a court decided that there were no monetary
damages in the event of a divorce, then it would essentially be "no
fault".
|11.14.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Divorce is just terrible," Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries,
said. "It's one of Satan's best tools to kill America."
Pressuring people to marry before they're ready is another good
tool.
Reinmoose|11.14.07 @ 12:34PM|#
*applauds Bingo*
You have it pretty much exact. I couldn't tell the difference
between that post and my family reunion :)
Juan|11.14.07 @ 12:34PM|#
As inflation increases, wages are raised in order to compensate for
it.
However, the tax laws don't take this into account, so as wages
rise, more people are essentially pushed into a higher tax bracket
than they otherwise would have been in?
Yep, pretty much, Of course, you could tie the tax brackets to
inflation, but where's the fun for the government in that?
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Actually, they did write something that I can agree
with.
The task force endorsed a proposal to end no-fault divorce, which allows a couple to divorce without proof of fault.
Now, can someone fill in all of those pro-marriage
freaks folks, including the homosexual ones, that
no-fault is just an additional out and not the end of all of the
other methods?
dhex|11.14.07 @ 12:44PM|#
no fault really sucks in nj: requiring 18 months of separation before granting the divorce. you're better off accusing each other of crimes.
|11.14.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Guy,
Why do agree that the government should dictate the terms of a
contract between two individuals? What are you, some kind of
collectivist?
R C Dean|11.14.07 @ 12:47PM|#
When a guy named "Dick Harwood" starts talking about "Satan's best tools", I'm generally giggling too much to pay much attention to whatever else he has to say.
Sulla|11.14.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Now, can someone fill in all of those pro-marriage freaks
folks, including the homosexual ones, that no-fault is just an
additional out and not the end of all of the other
methods?
Excellent point - I am not aware of the laws of most of the states,
but Virginia, which I am most familiar with, does not have a true
no-fault option. It does have a six months (no minor kids - parties
agree )/ one year (all others) separation divorce, which ends up
being the "no-fault." Like it or not, divorce has become a part of
american culture, and cosmetic changes to the law would only have
the effect of allowing creative lawyers to make money finding ways
to get their clients divorced.
|11.14.07 @ 12:48PM|#
"""True or False: Wedding vows are (or should be) legally
binding oral contracts.
Taking an oath to up hold the constitution isn't a binding
contract, why should a wedding vow be one?
|11.14.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Well, if we gotta stay stuck in some idealic past I guess
its better that the women are wearing capris pants instead of
calico dresses and bonnets.
Mike, I'd pick mini-skirts and the bra-less look for an idyllic
past era to be stuck in.....
Sulla|11.14.07 @ 1:05PM|#
After thinking about it for a little while, I realized that Virginia's separation divorce is "no-fault" just not as quick as some other states "irreconcible differences." However, given that fault is not as relevent these days in alimony and property settlement determinations, if no-fault divorces were no longer allowed, I predict we we see a rash of "abandonment", "cruelty" and "adultery" divorces.
|11.14.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Idaho (particularly southern Idaho) is the most
bass-ackwards experiment in social inbreeding in the
country.
Ever been to the Eastern Shore of Virgina?
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Les,
Why do agree that the government should dictate the terms of a
contract between two individuals? What are you, some kind of
collectivist?
Where do you get from anything that I have ever said that the
government should dictate contract terms between individuals?
Enforce terms of contracts agreed to by individuals, yes I am all
for that. Enforce wills and powers of attorney? Yep, I am right
there.
However, if you ever got that I agree with the current state of
"marriage" and its caprecious assigning of property at the whim of
the legeslature and judiciary, then you have ignored any words that
I have typed on the subject in favour of your wild imagination.
|11.14.07 @ 1:25PM|#
I still say that technology had more to do with the so
called liberation of women than anything else. When you cut the
hard labor of keeping a household on the path from 75 hours a week
to 20, there is an incentive to do other things with your
time.
I've actually heard it said that women's lib was a plot by the IRS
to get women out of the home, where the weren't paying taxes, to
the workplace where they would be. There's your conspiracy theory
for today....
|11.14.07 @ 1:33PM|#
However, if you ever got that I agree with the current state
of "marriage" and its caprecious assigning of property at the whim
of the legeslature and judiciary, then you have ignored any words
that I have typed on the subject in favour of your wild
imagination.
I admit it's hard to compete with my imagination, Guy. So, explain
why you agree that the government should "end no fault divorce,"
and why that doesn't equal the government dictating the terms of
contracts between two individuals. Please be clear (I actually
suspect you know more about this stuff than I do), so that my
imagination has no gaps to fill in.
Jennifer|11.14.07 @ 2:00PM|#
So let me see if I'm understanding this: if I get married in
Idaho, and then I realize after awhile that my husband, while a
wonderful man, simply isn't right for me, the good lawmakers of
Idaho want to make it impossible for us to divorce under the
circumstance of "there's nothing really wrong with my spouse; we're
just not right for each other."
Therefore, our only choices will be to stay together even though
we're both miserable that way, or one of us will have to start
goading the other into nastiness, so that we can then run to the
court and say "NOW let me divorce my spouse, because he/she's being
mean to me."
This, in turn, is expected to strengthen the family unit. How,
exactly?
SATAN|11.14.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Drat!~
My quest to kill America is again foiled. Fuck it. I'll get back to
work on France. That shit is shooting fish in a barrel.
|11.14.07 @ 2:13PM|#
This, in turn, is expected to strengthen the family unit.
How, exactly?
It's not about you and your spouse, Jennifer, it's FOR
THE CHILDREN!
Of course, my life got a lot better after my parents divorced, but
I'm a unique case.
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 2:15PM|#
So, explain why you agree that the government should "end no
fault divorce," and why that doesn't equal the government dictating
the terms of contracts between two individuals.
How about telling me what the hell you are talking about first?
That quote does not belong to me. Nothing I said supports it
either. I am the "government should not be involved in 'marriage'
guy" around here.
|11.14.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"Divorce is just terrible," Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries,
said. "It's one of Satan's best tools to kill America."
With that quote, and from Idaha, I'm guessing he's LDS. Not just
LDS, but Peter Priesthood LDS.
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Jennifer,
If you don't fall for that 'marriage' joke to begin with then 99%
of your problem is solved.
|11.14.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Y'know, I've always found the arrogance of these folks mind-boggling. Our marriage is a contract between my wife and myself and we decided when it started, what the rules are, and if it ever ends. Nobody has a right to force two people to stay together if they don't want to, for whatever reason. "Society" can just bugger off and mind its own business.
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Ah, I see the problem Les.
You see, I quoted the article and made a comment about a portion of
the quote. That portion being what no-fault divorce is. See, the
last sentence of MY comment is this:
Now, can someone fill in all of those pro-marriage freaks
folks, including the homosexual ones, that no-fault is just an
additional out and not the end of all of the other
methods?
If you look carefully at my wording (others, perhaps, do not need
to exercise as much care) . . . oh, forget it, I am not bright
enough to explain quoting and context to some people.
|11.14.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Hey J sub D, my teen years became a whole lot better after my
parents divorced, also.
Why anyone thinks it's better for children to be raised in an
environment where their parents hate each other and fight all the
time totally eludes me. This teaches the kids, what, how to hate
and fight?
|11.14.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Hey J sub D, my teen years became a whole lot better after
my parents divorced, also.
What, you didn't miss the icy silences, punctuated by snide
comments and hostile bickering? I guess there are two of us then.
Who'd a thunk it?
Asharak|11.14.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Do any of the Bible-thumping idiots who attack working mothers realize that most of the women aren't exactly doing it by choice?
Belgarion|11.14.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Do any of the Bible-thumping idiots who attack working
mothers realize that most of the women aren't exactly doing it by
choice?
I think a lot of them do and that is why they prefer a
stepfordesque time when husbands make enough money so that the
wives don't have to work. I disagree with that position, but it's
not far to call them all idiots.
Asharak|11.14.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I think a lot of them do and that is why they prefer a
stepfordesque time when husbands make enough money so that the
wives don't have to work. I disagree with that position, but it's
not far to call them all idiots.
Well, some would point out that many fundies actually supported
economic policies that arguably forced women into the workplace
because a certain (middle-class) standard of living could no longer
be maintained with just the husband as the breadwinner. But who
ever said such people were consistent?
Mad Max|11.14.07 @ 3:35PM|#
Let's see if I get this straight: Because some Idaho politician
uses religious rhetoric and praises traditional families, therefore
his concerns about no-fault divorce are illegitimate.
Are there any consequences to divorce laws allowing one party, for
any reason, not only to terminate a marriage but to clean out the
unwilling partner financially? Apparently, so, according to this
article:
http://tinyurl.com/2cm5hv
ed|11.14.07 @ 3:46PM|#
I still say that technology had more to do with the so
called
liberation of women than anything else.
Absolutely. Men too, for that matter.
Jennifer|11.14.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Are there any consequences to divorce laws allowing one
party, for any reason, not only to terminate a marriage but to
clean out the unwilling partner financially?
You're combining two separate issues: what grounds can be for
dissolution of a marriage is a different matter from how joint
assets should be distributed afterwards. If you're not happy with
the latter, mucking with the former won't solve your problem.
Besides, if you're that afraid of being cleaned out by your future
ex-wife, do you really think that having the government force her
to stay married to you is going to help?
Mad Max|11.14.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Jennifer,
The divorce-law "reformers" joined the two issues - making divorce
available on any grounds was inseparably joined to splitting up the
money and property without regard to fault.
The "no-fault" movement necessarily supports both of these
"reforms." By definition, "no-fault" means that dividing up the
money is done without regard to who is to blame for the breakup of
the marriage. If the party who was more to blame got less money,
then it would be fault-based.
The article I linked argued that fewer men are getting married and
starting families because of their fears of the consequences of
no-fault.
|11.14.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Mad Max--
The article you linked makes some decent points, but they're
completely lost in the over-the-top rhetoric the article writer
uses, not counting the non-sequitur of the "this is why the gays
want to be able to marry!" at the end.
No-Fault divorce is kind of pointless.... when they didn't have it
for the longest time in Pennsylvania, but any decent lawyer knew
1000 ways around that fact to have the equivalent of a no-fault.
But it's silly to have to go through that legal wrangling,
especially when there are legitimate situations where a one-sided
non-fault divorce needs to occur (abuse cases as one example).
Mad Max|11.14.07 @ 4:48PM|#
"not counting the non-sequitur of the 'this is why the gays want
to be able to marry!' at the end."
I've certainly heard the argument, "why fuss so much about gay
marriage when divorce poses a much greater threat to marriage,"
etc. And the old "you heterosexuals want to be able to rewrite the
traditional definition of marriage - look at the divorce laws! - so
why can't gays do the same thing?"
For one example, look at this link, which I found just now by
Goodling "gay marriage," "divorce" and "hypocrisy":
http://tinyurl.com/2jwv6v
"I'm trying to think through how a typical evangelical Christian
might view the issue of gay rights/gay marriage. Usually the
thought process is through the lens of "family values" and cultural
norms; that is, gay marriage will undermine the institution of
marriage and it therefore bad for families and our society.
"Unfortunately, this line of thinking belies the underlying
hypocrisy. If conservatives and evangelical Christians are so
concerned about family values and promoting the institution of
marriage, then why aren't no-fault divorce laws at the forefront?
It doesn't take a genius to understand how destructive no-fault
divorce has been to families (children in particular), the
institution of marriage, and 'family values' in general. As a
result, this uproar over gay marriage and gay rights rings
hollow.
"I'm not sure that heterosexual evangelical Christians have any
ground to stand on regarding gay marriage if they aren't first
addressing a far more common issue even in their own
communities."
|11.14.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Do any of the Bible-thumping idiots who attack working
mothers realize that most of the women aren't exactly doing it by
choice?
Nonsense. What evidence do you have of this?
|11.14.07 @ 4:57PM|#
I hate to be the one to break the news, but when one party no
longer wants to remain married, the friggin marriage is over.
Do rational people really doubt that?
|11.14.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Oh and let's be clear - that isn't a defense of "Bible-thumping idiots" it's a defense of women who choose to work as well as have kids.
|11.14.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Do rational people really doubt that?
No. But then you don't have to look even that deeply to know that
someone who says "It's one of Satan's best tools to kill America"
is not exactly a paragon of rational thinking.
|11.14.07 @ 5:10PM|#
I guess it would be considered naive and quaint to ask what in
what way is any of this hand-wringing over "the family" and keeping
women barefoot and pregnant... er I mean at home with the kids, a
legitimate government function.
I know, I know, that was silly. We all know by now that
anything you can get a majority of the people (or
legislators) to support is, ipso facto, a legitimate government
function.
|11.14.07 @ 5:11PM|#
It doesn't take a genius to understand how destructive
no-fault divorce has been to families (children in particular), the
institution of marriage, and 'family values' in general.
Mad Max, I realize you're quoting another there, but you seem to
support that line of argument. My experience as a teenager was that
divorce was not destructive at all. Rather it was liberating in
that I could go home, be myself, and not walk around on eggshells
constantly. The B/S line that divorce is harmful to the children is
false when compared to the alternative, children remaining in an
environment of argumentative resentment. My folks were not evil or
abusive, but when my father moved out, my life immeasurably
improved. I did better in school and my social life improved. I was
no longer afraid to let friends visit me at home. I'm not even
close to being alone in my experience.
|11.14.07 @ 5:15PM|#
"I'm not sure that heterosexual evangelical Christians have
any ground to stand on regarding gay marriage if they aren't first
addressing a far more common issue even in their own
communities."
The writer has nailed it. There is not one fundamentalist or
evangelical Christian denomination today that does not tolerate
divorce and does not number many divorced people - and remarried
divorced people, at that - among its membership. Divorce has become
absolutely acceptable among Christians and it is, without doubt,
far more destructive to families than Adam and Steve's relationship
could ever be.
I've often thought that the reason the fundies are so fixated on
gay marriage and gayness in general is because they have conflated
two trends in American culture in the last 30 years or so - gay
rights and the general acceptance of the "gay lifestyle" on the one
hand, and the pervasiveness of sex, sexual content, sexuality,
sexual activity, the sexualization of teenagers - you know what I'm
trying to say, I just can't think of how to word it! - the overall
"sex sex sex" of modern American culture. Not porn per se - just
the Bratz, and the thongs, and the "Are you Hot" and the "that's so
hot" and the Paris and the models and the constant Are you getting
enough sex? Too much sex? Bad sex? Wierd sex? What? You're Not
Having Sex???? Look, here's Janet's Jackson's nipple! and so
on.
I can sort of sympathize with them on that, in a way that I could
not sympathize with them before I had a daughter who, for her sixth
birthday this year, got a Bratz doll and knew immediately upon
opening it that it would be returned, cos Mama don't allow Bratz in
da house - but gay people have nothing to do with it and, indeed,
the gay people I know who are raising kids are sick of the
sexualization of American culture just like the fundies are.
Oh hell. I'm so far off the topic I can't even see the road
anymore. Sorry.
|11.14.07 @ 5:22PM|#
If it matters, I view marriage as two seperate things.
1. A religious ceremony, the Catholics call it one of the
sacraments. The 1st amendment applies here. Government, butt
out!
2. A contract to share assets and responsibilities. A court divides
assets equitably and ensures that both parties meet their
responsibilities (debt and supporting minor children). IMHO, this
is a proper function of government.
When you need to prove fault to get a divorce, well ... Let the
perjury begin!
|11.14.07 @ 5:26PM|#
Oh hell. I'm so far off the topic I can't even see the road
anymore. Sorry.
But it WAS a well written, enjoyable, heartfelt rant. I forgive
ya.
Asharak|11.14.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Nonsense. What evidence do you have of this?
I stated my evidence in an earlier post. The reason why more women
started entering the workforce in the 1970's and 1980's was out of
economic necessity. How is that "nonsense?"
|11.14.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Religious wackos say the cutest things. Is this moron aware that his party will most likely nominate a presidential candidate that has a standing order for top of the line divorces from Satan's Snap On truck.
|11.14.07 @ 5:58PM|#
The reason why more women started entering the workforce in
the 1970's and 1980's was out of economic necessity. How is that
"nonsense?"
Well, to start, calling it "economic necessity" doesn't distinguish
it at all. Hell, you could say it's out of "economic necessity"
that I have to work - am I being forced to work
then? And if so, who isn't? It's a fact of life that one has to
find some means of supporting oneself. It is hardly evidence of
being "forced" that someone is seen to do it through work rather
than through marriage or family.
Second, simply asserting that women entered the workforce because
of economic necessity doesn't make it so. I can just as easily (and
probably more accurately) assert that women entered the workforce
when changing social attitudes and norms began allowing more women
the choice of a career, either by entering the workforce directly,
or through going to college, instead of being expected to get
married and start a family right away. That theory happens to have
the benefit of being bolstered by the fact that the percentage of
women on campus has been steadily increasing since the '60's and
today women make up a majority of students on many college campuses
which would have been absolutely unheard of in previous
generations. If they're being "forced" to work to survive, how is
it so many have time to take a 4+ year detour from productivity to
secure an education first? One explanation above is consistent with
that fact, one isn't.
Steven Horwitz|11.14.07 @ 6:08PM|#
The reason why more women started entering the workforce in
the 1970's and 1980's was out of economic necessity. How is that
"nonsense?"
Uh, because it's largely false. There is no significant upward blip
in women's (married or not) labor force participation rates in that
period. You do see a growth in the number of women with very young
children entering the labor force, but that is much more likely the
result of the higher wages they can command in the market raising
the opportunity cost of staying home (as well as the increased
efficiency of household production requiring less labor time and
their higher wages enabling them to afford daycare).
The growth from the late 60s onward is steady. Read it and weep:
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/LFPrates.jpg
The argument that married women entered employment out of some sort
of financial necessity is indeed mostly nonsense.
Mad Max|11.14.07 @ 6:10PM|#
J sub D,
I'm glad that you weren't part of the general trend of children
being harmed as a *result* of divorce.
In their decades-long in-depth study of American families, *The
Unexpected Legacy of Divorce,* http://tinyurl.com/ywhmmr, the
authors found that divorce was harmful to children. As indicated by
the title, the authors were actually surprised by this result,
because they went into their study with the standard modern
"divorce helps kids" mentality.
Mad Max|11.14.07 @ 6:13PM|#
And the children of divorce whom I know don't seem to think of it as a liberating experience, so anecdotes can go both ways.
Mad Max|11.14.07 @ 6:24PM|#
We'd even be better off adopting sulla's suggestion (above) of
making marriage like a commercial agreement. If one party to a
commercial agreement gets tired of the agreement, he can terminate
it, but he has to pay damages for the breach. With marriage, on the
other hand, the breaching spouse (is (s)he has fewer assets than
the other spouse) can end up forcing the other party to cough up
more money.
Imagine commercial contracts being treated like marriage.
JOHN: Bob, it's over. I met a supplier with bigger inventory.
BOB: But we have a contract! You're supposed to buy your supplies
from me over the next few years! I reconfigured my factory to meet
your needs, and I turned down other offers because I'd signed the
contract with you! I demand compensation for your breach of
contract!
JOHN: Contract schmontract. We have a no-fault contract termination
law. I can breach the contract and don't have to pay you anything.
And, oh yes, the law also requires *you* to compensate *me.* And if
you fail to pay me on time, I can have you put in prison.
|11.14.07 @ 6:45PM|#
Stubby,
Well said.
Divorce has become absolutely acceptable among Christians and
it is, without doubt, far more destructive to families than Adam
and Steve's relationship could ever be.
My kids want to go to church. Because their friends go to this
huge, hip, trendy, modern church where nobody preaches too hard and
there is always a rock concert, field trip, bar-b-q, movie night,
or other really fun thing to do. Single parents are welcome.
Actually, the congregation is quite inclusive and gays are welcome
except I imagine they keep quiet about last night. This church has
money, too. Because there are quite literally thousands of members,
all of whom are middle and upper middle income families plunked
right here in suburbia.
|11.14.07 @ 6:48PM|#
Well, I forgot the point, which was, modern day popular protestant churches are pretty laid back and they don't put the arm on you for having a few beers, or being divorced, or seeing an R movie, or for much of anything that used to be consider sin by evangelicals.
waitasec|11.14.07 @ 7:06PM|#
Mad Max, as someone who worked in family law for a while, let me
tell you, it would be a nightmare for the legal system to have to
sort out who was at "fault" for every divorce. It's almost always a
he-said/she-said situation. Each one claims the other is
intolerable. Can you imagine the extra backlog it would cause to
have to generate PROOF of something like that? She says he never
helps out around the house and cheats on her, he says she can't
cook and that she cheats on him...and on and on and on. Even a
fairly clear-cut case like physical abuse could be a nightmare for
the victim to have to prove. A lot of victims don't go to the
police and thus have no paper trail to "prove" the abuse.
Personally, I'd rather just take their word for it.
Besides, what if there is no big "crime", so to speak, and both of
them just really get on each other's nerves. It's not really
either's fault, then, so why require them to make stuff up to add
to an already very difficult situation?
A lot of us in the family law business thought it should be harder
to get married and easier to get divorced. Once people get to the
point where they've decided they want to divorce, it's torture for
both parties when it drags on and on because of mandatory waiting
periods, etc.
As a final note, it is also very damaging to children to know (and
trust me, they always find out) that one parent or the other has
been declared the one "at fault." Whether mom or dad cheated is not
a fact that should involve the child AT ALL--the parties should not
be talking to the kid about how so-and-so cheated on them, misspent
money, etc. It's majorly harmful to the parent-child relationship
on both sides. They end up resenting the "at-fault" parent for
messing up and ALSO, a lot of times, the "no-fault" parent for
speaking ill of their other parent. It's bad news all around.
|11.14.07 @ 8:15PM|#
I'm also for making it harder to marry and easier to divorce.
Having watched the dysfunctionality in my own family (between
grandparents) because they decided to carry on their family feuding
through their offspring--heck, there are definitely some cases
where divorce is really the best way out.
And for those who want to go back to Ye Traditional Times--well,
the really traditional way of getting rid of your spouse (if male)
was to simply wait until your wife died during childbirth. Pretty
prevalent.
Mad Max|11.14.07 @ 10:24PM|#
waitasec,
I presume you're aware that divorced parents can, and do, bad-mouth
each other in front of the children whether or not there's a
judicial declaration of fault.
As far as kids being traumatized by being aware of the horrible
things said in court papers: what if the kids get to read some of
the choicer passages in the papers filed by their parents' lawyers?
Those legal papers aren't all sweetness and light, as you
know.
Divorce by mutual consent, and the fact that married couples in the
bad old days were "forced to lie" in order to get a divorce, aren't
the issues I was addressing. I was talking about *unilateral*
no-fault divorce. If the divorce is uncontested, and the terms have
been worked out in advance, then lengthy evidentiary hearings won't
be a problem.
If one party claims fault and the other party denies it, of course
the court should insist on some sort of, you know, proof. Most
court cases don't go to trial, but if they do, then of course there
need to be hearings where the one making the accusations should
have to prove them.
Grounds for fault-based divorce tend to include stuff like adultery
and intolerable cruelty, not sharing of the household chores.
Of course a divorce case is "torture" on the parties and the kids.
I don't recall denying *that.*
Mad Max|11.14.07 @ 10:27PM|#
If someone goes to court seeking to take someone else's children and a good portion of his/her wealth, of course there should be some kind of fault alleged - why should someone undergo the punishment of losing children and wealth if he/she has admittedly done nothing wrong?
Mad Max|11.15.07 @ 12:44AM|#
grumpy,
"And for those who want to go back to Ye Traditional Times well,
the really traditional way of getting rid of your spouse (if male)
was to simply wait until your wife died during childbirth.""
I think there was a time when the divorce problem did not suck to
the same extent, or in the same way, as it does now. But it wasn't
any kind of Golden Age, if that's what you're driving at. Other
times had their problems and we have ours.
Can't I say a certain problem has been getting worse without
wanting to restore every "tradition"?
Libertarians would probably agree that the problem of cops busting
down doors and shooting people while looking for drugs has grown
worse since the nineteenth century. Does that mean that
Libertarians want to bring back hoop-skirts and deny women the
right to vote? Please!
|11.15.07 @ 10:09AM|#
This is interesting, in that on the morning this thread started
there was a story on NPR about how things had changed in Bhutan
since the King started allowing his subjects to have the trappings
of modernity like TV and imported Western music and culture.
Much of the time was taken up by a prominent (apparently, I,
naturally, had never heard of him) Bhutanese writer decrying the
abandonment of their traditional values and attributing all manner
of social ills (family breakup, crime etc) to this great
loss.
Oddly enough, the usual NPR-listening type is held spellbound by
the great wisdom of these great advocates for traditional values in
other cultures but has absolutely no trouble at all dismissing
these Idaho types as backward hicks.
Sulla|11.15.07 @ 11:01AM|#
I was traveling, so this is way late, but for what it's worth, I wasn't really suggesting that we apply commercial law to marriage, just pointing out that contracts are always breakable and marriages aren't really contracts anyway. I'm generally of the opinion that the government has no business in the marital sphere. My broad opinion is that there should be some defined pool of benefits associated with being a family unit such as a common sense mix of tax benefits, legal priveledges such as right to visit in the hospital, intestate inheritance, access to health insurance, etc. People should be given wide latitude to decide what constitues their "family unit," e.g., one man one woman, two men, three men, three men and four women. Inasmuch as this is a quick post on a nearly defunct thread, I don't feel the need to go into more detail, but those are the broad outlines.
|11.15.07 @ 11:40AM|#
I like Sulla's approach to getting the government out of the
marriage business. People like me - i.e., practicing adherents of
one religion or another - can handle the sacremental aspects of
their marriage.
Something was mentioned at church last night that made me think
about this: a friend was talking about his brother in law, a
Methodist minister in West Texas. And one fall the minister was
going through his closet, pulling out the lightweight summer suits
to get them cleaned and put away for the season, and in going
through his pockets he discovered the marriage license for a couple
he had married earlier that year. He had not filed the license -
oops. What to do? Confess to the couple, and submit the license to
the county, or keep quiet and submit the license to the county? He
chose the latter (smart guy). Was the couple "married?" Of course
they were - by the tenets of our (i.e., Christian) faith they were.
In the eyes of the state - no. Would it matter to them? Of course
it would. Should it matter? Probably not.
One last, gratuitous Boomer-bashing point - cos I can't resist
Boomer bashing - it was the Boommers, in the 60s and 70s, who
decided that divorce did not harm kids and that kids could not be
happy if their parents were not happy - hence the "unexpected"
aspect of the divorce legacy study. Anybody who has kids, or who
knows kids, should know those two points are not true - it is
simply not factual. I am not denying that sometimes divorce is the
only option, or that sometimes divorce is actually better for
everyone - because sometimes it is. But to say that it does not
harm kids, it does not make them sad, screw with their sense of
comfort and stability, permanently alter their sense of self, is
stupid. And to say that kids can't be happy if mom and dad are
miserable is to have no understanding of the child psyche at all.
Just another example of the perpetually adolescent generation
deciding what color they want their particular sky to be.
Gratuitous ad hominem attack over. And I'm not going to try to
defend it because of course I can't. It's just the way I feel, man
- and feelings are never wrong!
|11.15.07 @ 11:56AM|#
stubby
The Boomers were not the ones making policy in the 60s and 70s. Our
parents, the greatest generation, were firmly in control of the
actual reins of power.
I suspect that it was that generation, many of whom were
"repenting" their wartime "marriages in haste", that gave us no
fault divorce. They pretty much decided that now that the kids were
grown it was time to end the misery.
We boomers seem to get blamed for simply having accepted things
that were firmly in place long before we had any control over what
happened in the world (see also Social Security*).
*A program that our Greatest Generation parents benefited from far
more than any of us ever will. Even though the overall cost will be
higher.
|11.15.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Oddly enough, the usual NPR-listening type is held
spellbound by the great wisdom of these great advocates for
traditional values in other cultures but has absolutely no trouble
at all dismissing these Idaho types as backward hicks.
QFT.
|11.15.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Isaac:
Your point about SS is well taken. We'll have to disagree about who
is responsible for the rise of no fault divorce (which gained
popularity in the 70s) and who benefited from it because I can't go
looking for supporting evidence right now and when I have the time,
I won't remember. All I know is, I see a lot of 75s and overs who
stayed married, but not so many mid50s to late 60s (apply arbitrary
age ranges and extrapolating from purely anecdotal evidence).
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245